[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                          [H.A.S.C. No. 118-8]

 
                                 HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING

                                   ON

         ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM UPDATE
                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                           FEBRUARY 28, 2023


                                     
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
52-230                    WASHINGTON : 2024                                        
  


                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                    MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida, Chairman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           JOHN GARAMENDI, California
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
DALE W. STRONG, Alabama              JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia        DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                MARC VEASEY, Texas

               Patrick Nevins, Professional Staff Member
               Jeanine Womble, Professional Staff Member
                  Ethan Pelissier, Research Assistant

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

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

                               WITNESSES

Berger, Hon. Meredith A., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
  Energy, Installations, and Environment.........................     7
Jacobson, Hon. Rachel, Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Installations, Energy, and Environment.........................     9
Oshiba, Edwin H., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
  Energy, Installations, and Environment.........................    10
Owens, Hon. Brendan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, 
  Installations, and Environment.................................     5

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Berger, Hon. Meredith A......................................    61
    Garamendi, Hon. John.........................................    39
    Jacobson, Hon. Rachel........................................    78
    Oshiba, Edwin H..............................................    99
    Owens, Hon. Brendan..........................................    41

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. Davis....................................................   128
    Mr. Garamendi................................................   127
    Mr. Moylan...................................................   128
    Mr. Scott....................................................   127
    Ms. Sherrill.................................................   128
    Mr. Vasquez..................................................   128
    Mr. Waltz....................................................   127

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Ms. Escobar..................................................   148
    Mr. Moylan...................................................   149
    Mr. Scott....................................................   136
    Ms. Sherrill.................................................   139
    Mr. Waltz....................................................   133

         ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM UPDATE

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Subcommittee on Readiness,
                        Washington, DC, Tuesday, February 28, 2023.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:31 p.m., in 
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Waltz 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL WALTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
          FLORIDA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

    Mr. Waltz. All right, ladies and gentlemen.
    Calling to order the first hearing of the Readiness 
Subcommittee on ``Energy, Installations, and Environment 
Program Update,'' first hearing of the 118th Congress.
    I would like to welcome the members of the Readiness 
Subcommittee for our first official hearing. I am deeply 
honored to serve as chairman of this impactful subcommittee and 
lead its crucial work. I am very pleased, again, to work with 
Mr. Garamendi as the subcommittee ranking member, and was 
honored to work with him as the ranking member as chairman to 
show the bipartisan--when he was chairman to show the 
bipartisanship of these issues and supporting our warfighters. 
I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him over the last year 
and appreciative of the great work conducted during his time as 
committee chairman.
    Thank you to our witnesses for your time and participation 
in today's hearing to discuss military construction, 
environmental programs, energy programs, as well as base and 
facility accounts.
    And, you know, I just want to say right out the gate, it 
has become a trend, and I wish we could be having this 
conversation after the release of the President's budget. There 
is no doubt plenty of issues we can discuss even without the 
budget figures. I welcome a continued dialogue on these matters 
as we do see the budget release and as we work through this 
year's NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] process.
    The Armed Services Committee will deliberate a lot this 
Congress on the present and future capabilities needed for the 
great power competition that we face, in line with the national 
defense strategy, and a potential Taiwan contingency. As we 
discuss these capabilities, we must also recognize the need for 
investment in new infrastructure, as well as the maintenance 
for our existing infrastructure.
    Unfortunately, maintenance of existing facilities has been 
chronically neglected, often to pay for other priorities, and 
this lack of investment in aging and failing infrastructure has 
resulted in negative impacts to readiness and retention, as 
well as inefficient facilities that don't adequately support 
our intended missions. I think we can do better, and I think 
our warfighters deserve better.
    I look forward to discussing the path forward with new 
military construction and how the services prioritize 
sustaining existing infrastructure with the understanding that 
we must get this mix right to both support our platforms and 
our service members.
    Any MILCON [military construction] and facility sustainment 
effort must also 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 by requiring master plans with previous committee 
work that we intend to continue, and these master plans 
consider these risks. The services have begun to submit these 
master plans for their two most at-risk installations after 
being required to do it in the fiscal year 2022 NDAA. However, 
we must do more to shape the best posture that we can for the 
future.
    Nowhere else is the issue of aging infrastructure more 
evident than our shipyards. The recent operational impacts to 
dry docks at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard due to seismic 
resiliency issues is concerning. I am sure it concerns everyone 
here.
    I would like to hear from our witnesses today what is being 
done to remedy this problem, mitigate risk to readiness, and 
use this as an impetus to look across our shipyards and invest 
in critical updates to ensure their long-term viability.
    Our installations also remain largely dependent on 
commercial electrical grids--I know a lot of work has been done 
in this space, and I look forward to hearing it--that are 
vulnerable to any disruptions they suffer. To protect our 
mission capability, I believe we must continue to pursue 
solutions like islanding capabilities and generation from 
microreactors.
    On the operational side, I am very concerned the Department 
[of Defense] is not as far along as we should be given the 
threats on the horizon. Our ability to supply energy forward, 
to sustain operations forward in contested environments in a 
way that we have not had to do in recent decades it is just 
critical with today's threat environment.
    Contested and challenged environments are the new normal, 
and we need to posture ourselves accordingly. Furthermore, we 
must [ensure] our installations are free of dependency on 
energy supplied by our adversaries. It sounds like an obvious 
statement, but I think we are in a position where we need to do 
more work there.
    Recent NDAAs have highlighted the threat posed by our 
reliance on Russian energy at our European Command 
installations. The Department has begun this work. I look 
forward to hearing where we are with it, and it is paramount we 
develop and adhere to transition plans at every installation 
under EUCOM [U.S. European Command].
    Taking care of our military members is the utmost 
responsibility of all of us here, and our Defense Department 
leaders continuously tout people-first strategies, ensuring our 
service members are the priority. But I remain skeptical, 
frankly, of this being put into practice when we look at the 
status of some of our housing and our barracks. We must provide 
safe barracks, housing, and infrastructure.
    I know Ranking Member Garamendi shares in this effort and 
has done a lot of work to that end.
    Recent NDAAs have authorized historic levels of spending 
for the cleanup of PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] 
contaminated military installations and surrounding areas. We 
hope to see that momentum continued.
    Furthermore, in last year's NDAA, we authorized $1 billion 
for the Red Hill Recovery Fund. I think you are seeing a theme 
here that we are going to continue the work and try not to 
reinvent the wheel of previous years despite a switch in the 
majority.
    We need to also prioritize making our strategic stockpiles 
whole, as well as reducing our reliance of adversarial nations 
for our critical minerals and for our supplies. The DLA has 
identified--the Defense Logistics Agency--has identified 14 
critical defense materials that are 100 percent foreign-
sourced. That is unacceptable in my view.
    We have insufficient national defense stockpile reserves to 
support essential defense requirements. Of those 14 materials, 
11 are sourced from China. Again, unacceptable. This is an 
unacceptable threat to our national security. I look forward to 
working with the subcommittee on further solutions in addition 
to the critical mineral stockpile we have authorized in 
previous NDAAs.
    This administration's focus on climate, as a national 
security priority, oftentimes I find that concerning, just to 
be completely candid. I want to dig into the Department of the 
Army's strategy to electrify our tanks, fighting vehicles, and 
others given the supply chain concerns and other pieces 
involved.
    At the end of the day, I think our priority should be on 
developing and implementing the mostly lethal capabilities for 
deterrence and to counter China, and if that so happens to have 
green effects, I think that is completely appropriate.
    Finally, the ongoing war in Ukraine and ever-growing 
aggressive China are a constant reminder of the importance of 
this work. Smart investments must be made now.
    I thank you again, once again, for our witnesses for being 
here today. I look forward to your testimony.
    And with that, I turn it over to Ranking Member Garamendi.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
     CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Waltz.
    I have got all of this written speech that I am going to 
give, but I like what you said. I like your priorities. I like 
what you have laid out. And whether we are going to put a 
hybrid Abrams tank out on the field or not remains to be seen. 
But everything that you have talked about, most of what you 
have talked about is what we have done over the last 4 years, 
and we did that in a bipartisan way; and we will continue to 
support you and the majority as you go about the agenda that 
you have laid out here.
    If I don't read this, you know, my staff is going to be 
really upset because they spent a lot of time writing this, but 
I am going to try to really shorten it.
    We have been with these witnesses before, as you said, Mr. 
Waltz, and we've talked about these issues. We haven't talked 
about them to the end of the process because the process 
doesn't end. There is always more to do, and so, we are going 
to be working diligently together on the Department's 
infrastructure, all of the bases, all of the shipyards, all of 
the dry docks, all of those things. They have to be dealt with, 
and they have to be brought up to modern standards and actually 
beyond modern standards.
    We have seen that the general attitude has been to accept 
risk. It turns out that the acceptance of risk is really risky 
and leads to a significant degradation of the readiness of the 
troops, the readiness of the ships, the readiness of the 
airplanes. Take, I don't know, take the shipyards. Take the F-
35. Lots of examples out there.
    So we need to really be very diligent, very diligent in 
pressing hard to make sure that the bright, shiny things that 
everybody would like to have and certainly the defense 
industrial base would love to make do not result in a 
degradation of the essential infrastructure upon which the 
entire military system relies.
    I can give examples here. We have accepted the risk of 
Tyndall Air Force Base being built in, I don't know, maybe a 
foot above sea level. Florida, I believe, Mr. Waltz.
    Mr. Waltz. Great State.
    Mr. Garamendi. It was wiped out, literally wiped out, but 
yet, we accepted the risk of rebuilding at the same location to 
the tune of several billion dollars. And I hope I am not around 
for the next earthquake that goes--the next hurricane that goes 
through that, but it may be the same result in the last 
earthquake--the last hurricane.
    My mind has shifted to China Lake and to earthquakes, which 
is California, and a few other places on the west coast.
    And you mentioned, Mr. Waltz, the question of the dry 
docks. Absolutely critical dry docks. They are not going to be 
able to be used for some time. How long have we accepted? How 
long have we known the risk, the earthquake risk there? And how 
long have we accepted it, until it got to the point where, oh, 
my goodness, it has to be dealt with now or else.
    And so, we can go on and on about those risks.
    Thank you for mentioning housing, barracks, and the like. 
This committee, even before I became chairman, had dealt with 
the housing issue, and I suspect four or five chairmanships 
beyond you and I will continue to deal with it because it has 
to be watched all the time. Backsliding is always there, and 
this is for the troops.
    And the barracks, you mentioned that. And absolutely true; 
we have to deal with that.
    There is an issue that we have not dealt with in the past, 
and I want to put it on the table for us to think about. We, 
this committee, had not really dealt with it, and that is the 
issue of encroachment. Who is buying land and putting up 
projects around our military bases? What is that and what is 
the threat of that encroachment?
    It may be a wind turbine that somehow screws up the radar 
at an Air Force base. Or in the case of Travis Air Force Base, 
what is this LLC that has literally purchased every piece of 
property around the base and 14,000 acres beyond that? Who are 
they? What are they?
    And it turns out that I think the base commanders had not 
been charged with the responsibility of watching carefully what 
is going on outside the base. We need to pay attention to that.
    We've had this issue in North Dakota, an issue that 
ultimately resulted in a Chinese company that wanted to buy the 
land saying, No, you can't, because of the potential security 
risks associated with it. I want us to pay more attention to it 
because it is down home, my district. And, perhaps, in other 
Members' districts also.
    We have got a lot of work to do. You talked about the 
energy issues. There is enormous potential for divisiveness on 
energy, but if we look at it in the way of cost savings, 
readiness, availability--your mention of microgrids, Mr. 
Chairman; that is a piece of that puzzle. There are--excuse me, 
small reactors and microgrids. All of these things are out 
there.
    Again, this comes back to resiliency. The great deep freeze 
in Texas. There are some Texas folks around here. What if we 
had a different strategy?
    We can go on and on. With your permission, I would like 
this wonderful speech that my staff put together to be in the 
record.
    Mr. Waltz. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in 
the Appendix on page 39.]
    Mr. Garamendi. I yield.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
    Again, welcome to our witnesses. Brief introductions. The 
Honorable Brendan Owens, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Energy, Installations, and Environment.
    We have the Honorable Rachel Jacobson, Assistant Secretary 
of the Army--Go Army--Installations, Energy, and Environment.
    The Honorable Meredith Berger. Good to see you again. 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and 
Environment.
    And Mr. Edwin Oshiba, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
for Energy, Installations, and Environment.
    Over to you, Mr. Owens, for your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDAN OWENS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
           FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT

    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Chairman Waltz, Ranking Member 
Garamendi, distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf 
of myself and my military department colleagues, thank you for 
the opportunity to discuss the Department's energy, 
installation, and environment programs.
    This is my first time testifying before this subcommittee. 
I am 30 days into the job. And I look forward to working with 
you in the coming months to continue aligning our priorities 
and resources to support the National Defense Strategy [NDS].
    The 2022 NDS is clear. We are operating in an increasingly 
complex global threat environment characterized by significant 
geopolitical, technological, economic, and environmental 
change. The People's Republic of China remains the Department's 
pacing challenge with its increasingly aggressive efforts to 
undermine U.S. alliances and security partnerships in the Indo-
Pacific.
    We also face threats from actors like Russia, North Korea, 
Iran, as well as climate change and other transboundary 
challenges. Together, these threats not only pressure the joint 
force's power projection and maneuver capabilities but also put 
the safety and security of the homeland at risk.
    Countering these threats requires a resilient joint force 
and defense ecosystem that can operate in a contested 
environment at home and abroad. As such, we are ensuring that 
our installations and infrastructure are resilient to a wide 
range of challenges by implementing policy updates; innovation 
in how we plan, design, and build; and deployment of technology 
to counter the diversifying threats we face.
    In the Indo-Pacific specifically, there are two key 
priorities that will be critical to the success of this effort: 
retaining vital mission capabilities in the State of Hawaii, 
and ensuring the critical military construction efforts in Guam 
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands [CNMI] 
remain on track by extending the exemption from the H-2B visa 
temporary need requirement through 2029.
    We look forward to partnering with Congress, the State of 
Hawaii, Guam, the CNMI, and other Federal stakeholders in doing 
the work that is necessary to ensure that these priorities can 
be addressed.
    More broadly, we are making significant investments in both 
installation and operational energy to enhance resilience and 
reduce demand to improve joint lethality, support distributed 
operations, and reduce sustainment risks in contested 
environments.
    We are improving our approach to facility management to 
increase the efficacy of our sustainment, restoration and 
modernization investments, and to optimize the condition of our 
facilities. These efforts will enhance our facilities' direct 
mission support capabilities, and they will also enhance the 
health, well-being, and readiness of our service members and 
their families.
    Our installations, however, do not exist in a vacuum, and 
we recognize that the Department cannot achieve these goals on 
its own. Defense communities and host nations provide 
indispensable support to the mission. Acknowledging this 
interconnectedness, it is imperative that we be good stewards 
of the environment in addition to being conscientious and 
committed partners with the communities that support our 
installations, our service members, and their families.
    To that end, we remain committed to maintaining our robust 
environmental cleanup program, improving the safety and 
efficiency of our facilities, and improving the quality of life 
for our military personnel by ensuring access to safe, quality, 
and affordable housing.
    The Department is committed to working in close 
coordination with the U.S. interagency, State, local, Tribal, 
territorial and industry partners, as well as our international 
allies to achieve these goals.
    I would like to highlight specifically the progress we have 
made to develop and demonstrate PFAS-free alternatives for 
aqueous film forming foam. Congressional authorizations and 
appropriations made it possible for the Department to continue 
its ongoing work to evaluate flourine-free alternatives.
    Based on the hard work of numerous dedicated DOD employees 
and industry partners, the Navy published a new military spec 
for replacement foams in January. Several flourine-free foams 
are currently proceeding through the military specification 
qualification process, and the Department plans to begin the 
transition to the use of these products this summer.
    So while we implement new technology to avert future risk, 
we continue our cleanup efforts intended to safeguard the 
health and well-being of our people. Nothing is more important 
than our people: soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, guardians, 
and their families. The investments we make to improve the 
built and natural environments where they live and work are 
investments that pay off by improving their health and well-
being.
    We appreciate Congress' and this subcommittee's continued 
support for these efforts, and we look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Owens can be found in the 
Appendix on page 41.]
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Owens.
    Ms. Berger.

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

    Ms. Berger. Chairman Waltz, Ranking Member Garamendi, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today.
    The Department of the Navy's Energy, Installation, and 
Environment portfolio is foundational to making sure that our 
sailors, Marines, and civilians are ready, able to do all that 
our Nation asks them to do.
    I started my last statement before this committee with an 
ask. Today I start with a thank you, for the inclusion of the 
Fallon Range Training Complex modernization in this year's 
NDAA. This is an example of the way things should be. We worked 
with Congress, Tribal, local, State, and Federal partners to 
ensure we protected culture, the environment, and the economy 
to guarantee the readiness for the fleet, making sure that they 
can train like they fight.
    At that time, we were also at the beginning of responding 
to a terrible event, the contamination of drinking water from 
the fuel spill at Red Hill. I am proud to report progress, and 
also to commit to the work that is still before us. Today, the 
water is safe to drink, and the Navy is conducting long-term 
monitoring to ensure there is no fuel contamination.
    Secretary of Defense Austin has directed Joint Task Force 
Red Hill to safely and expeditiously defuel Red Hill, and Navy 
to the permanent closure of Red Hill, and we are working on 
these monumental tasks together. With every action we take, we 
are prioritizing the health and safety of the people, 
environment, and communities in Oahu.
    We recognize that earning trust takes hard work and 
commitment and relies on all sides. We are working every day to 
keep up our end of the bargain, and we are grateful to the 
partnership of the people of Hawaii.
    Secretary Del Toro has identified three enduring principles 
that guide the work of the Department of the Navy: strengthen 
our maritime dominance, our people, and our partnerships.
    In my role, I implement Secretary Del Toro's guidance by 
focusing on three cross-cutting areas: communities, critical 
infrastructure, and climate action. Communities are where our 
people come together, the districts you represent, the towns 
where our installations are, and the environment and economies 
that surround them that enable our sailors and Marines to live, 
train, and operate.
    I am talking about communities like Southern California, 
where late last summer record-breaking temperatures above 100 
degrees Fahrenheit caused record-breaking demands on the grid 
of more than 50,000 megawatts. Utility operators were ready to 
mandate rotating power outages, but instead, the Navy unplugged 
20 ships from the grid, and the Marine Corps shifted from the 
commercial grid to its microgrid, ensuring that neither the 
naval force's mission nor the lives of the citizens were 
interrupted.
    The example above also demonstrates the second C, critical 
infrastructure. Energy security is critical to mission success. 
More broadly, critical infrastructure is the means to our ends. 
Our Navy and Marine Corps installations located in the United 
States and around the world are essential shore platforms from 
which we project our power.
    Currently, we see infrastructure that is weakened because 
of age, vulnerable to physical and cyber threats, and a 
changing climate. We recognize the need to drastically change 
our approach, and the Department of the Navy is beginning 
planning on a 30-year infrastructure plan that is proactive and 
anticipates the requirements of our future force and their 
mission.
    We protect our communities and critical infrastructure with 
a third C: climate action. No matter what we call it, extreme 
weather, temperatures, a rising sea, and depleting water 
sources, among other challenges, are threatening the naval 
service's installations and investments, the infrastructure 
that supports our critical missions, complicating logistics, 
and demanding more disaster and conflict response from the Navy 
and Marine Corps, while hampering their ability to respond.
    These factors are changing our operational environment, 
and, by default, changing the cost and calculus when it comes 
to mission success.
    We build resilience across the people and platforms of the 
fleet as a warfighting advantage, a tactical, operational, and 
strategic enabler. Ashore, we are making our structures, power 
grids, and fuel distribution systems and waterlines more 
survivable. Afloat, and forward-deployed, we are untethering 
from long and contested logistics tails to ensure we can stay 
on station longer, operate securely, independently, always 
keeping mission first.
    Climate change can be used as a tool and a weapon. We see 
that across the conflict continuum. And, Mr. Chairman, we 
talked about energy as a weapon last year. We will continue to 
build our resilience, reduce the threat, and promote innovation 
to ensure that the Navy and the Marine Corps remain the world's 
greatest maritime fighting force in every environment.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Berger can be found in the 
Appendix on page 61.]
    Mr. Waltz. Ms. Jacobson.

 STATEMENT OF HON. RACHEL JACOBSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
        ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT

    Ms. Jacobson. Chairman Waltz, Ranking Member Garamendi, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on the current state of Army's 
installations, and to answer any questions you may have.
    I am grateful to the committee for its continued support 
and for its commitment to Army's soldiers, families, civilians, 
and soldiers for life. I look forward to working with you to 
help build the force of 2030 and beyond.
    To realize the Army's 2030 goals, the future of 
installations must be now. Installations are the epicenter of 
everything we do in the Army. They are where we train, work, 
learn, and live. To strengthen Army readiness and build the 
force of the future, we must be laser-focused on providing 
state-of-the-art installations.
    I am pleased to report that with the help of Congress, we 
are making progress. We are continuing our investments in 
barracks, with over $11 billion planned between fiscal years 
2024 and 2032. We are constructing new child development 
centers in multiple locations. We are building on congressional 
directives to deliver high-quality family housing and 
strengthen our oversight of the privatized housing providers. 
Each of these measures will help us to recruit and retain 
soldiers and families.
    A key component of creating installations of the future is 
improving our infrastructure and tackling our deferred 
maintenance backlog. These challenges will take focus and 
strategic spending to slow the progression of these 
deteriorating facilities. With timely, adequate, predictable, 
and sustained funding, we can continue to reduce our 
maintenance backlog.
    I thank the committee for your support in that regard.
    Resilient installations foster ready soldiers, beginning 
with reliable access to energy. We have all witnessed threats 
to the electric grid, whether from cyber attacks, physical 
attacks, or severe weather events.
    Installations can't afford to lose power when the 
commercial grid goes down. That is why we are developing onsite 
carbon-free power generation, battery storage, and a microgrid 
to support critical missions at all Army installations. Thanks 
to congressional authorities, we are collaborating with third 
parties to guarantee energy resilience without the need for 
upfront expenditures by the Army.
    An integral part of installation management is 
environmental stewardship and protection of natural, cultural, 
and archeological resources. Installations are home to 261 
threatened and endangered species; 1.3 million acres of 
wetlands; and over 85,000 archeological sites.
    Our success as an environmental steward is due, in part, to 
the Army's Compatible Use Buffer Program, which is marking its 
20th anniversary. The Army's exemplary stewardship of lands and 
resources reflects meaningful collaboration with State and 
local governments, Tribes, landowners, and other stakeholders.
    The Army also bears the responsibility for cleaning up 
pollution at current and former Army sites. We share concerns 
about PFAS chemicals, and we are taking our obligations to 
address PFAS seriously, in a transparent manner.
    Ensuring our soldiers and civilians are ready to support 
the Army mission requires prevention of accidents and injuries. 
The Army recently implemented the Army Safety and Occupational 
Health Management System. This modern safety-first program 
provides comprehensive oversight of each installation's safety 
and occupational health programs, and seamlessly integrates 
essential safety practices into daily operations.
    Installations provide the foundational support of our 
people. As we build the Army of the future, we must make 
strategic installations--investments in our installations today 
using the most cutting-edge technologies, innovative public-
private partnerships, and streamlined processes to accelerate 
results. Although this work will not be completed overnight, 
the future of our installations is happening right now.
    Thank you for your continued support of our soldiers, 
families, civilians, and soldiers for life. I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobson can be found in the 
Appendix on page 78.]
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you.
    Mr. Oshiba.

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

    Mr. Oshiba. Thank you, Chairman Waltz, Ranking Member 
Garamendi, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    I am honored to join my colleagues this afternoon and 
equally honored to represent the nearly 700,000 airmen and 
guardians that defend our Nation each and every day. We are 
thankful for your consistent support over the years, 
specifically in the areas of energy, installations, and 
environment.
    In the December 1941 edition of the Society of American 
Military Engineers Journal, General Hap Arnold, in assessing 
the state of the Army Air Corps at the time, said the 
following: Air bases are a determining factor in the success of 
air operations. The two-legged stool of men and planes will 
topple over without this equally important third leg.
    He goes on to justify his words using the experiences of 
Germany and the United Kingdom in the European theater where 
the resiliency of airfields and, in some cases, the lack 
thereof, made the difference between victory and defeat.
    General Arnold didn't mention the Pacific, but I am sure 
General MacArthur would have made a very similar statement 
given the importance of airfields in his island-hopping 
campaign.
    Eighty-two years later, these words continue to ring true. 
They hold true for air and space operations; they hold true for 
airmen and guardians; they hold true for air and space weapon 
systems; and they hold true for air and space bases.
    We view that third leg, our bases, as foundational to 
enabling and projecting combat power in air, space, and 
cyberspace. Everything we do begins and ends at our Air and 
Space Force bases.
    The Department remains committed to ensuring they are ready 
by investing in the right capabilities at the right time and 
the right place and with a team of trained and equipped airmen 
and guardians. Resilient against the full range of natural and 
man-made threats, and optimized for effective and sustainable 
mission execution.
    Since 2019, the Department's infrastructure investment 
strategy has served as our roadmap to make our bases ready and 
resilient through decisions meant to optimize the balance 
between 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 improve the quality of work and life for our 
airmen, guardians, and their families.
    To that end, we recognize the crux of successful operations 
rests with our airmen and guardians. Our missions would be 
impossible to accomplish without them. This underscores the 
need to balance operational priorities with preserving the 
readiness and resilience of our most important resources: our 
airmen, guardians, and their families.
    We continue to emphasize continued quality-of-life 
investments in housing, dormitories, child development centers, 
and other support facilities. I want to thank Congress for your 
generous support in this area.
    Additionally, we remain committed to ensuring the safety 
and health of our service members and families who work and 
live on our installations and in our surrounding communities. 
We greatly appreciate Congress' substantial funding for 
environmental cleanup and research, including resources to 
tackle PFAS, which help us accomplish this important priority.
    Finally, we are pursuing policies, investments, and 
activities that increase our agility, energy diversification, 
and quote, unquote, ``lethality per gallon.'' This improves our 
ability to field and sustain a combat-credible force now and in 
the future.
    By reducing the energy demand of our aircraft, we are 
increasing the range and cargo-carrying capacity of these 
legacy platforms. And by broadening the aperture of financing 
opportunities, to include smart third-party investments matched 
to energy vulnerabilities identified through in-depth planning 
and realistic exercises, we improve mission assurance through 
energy assurance.
    In summary, your Department of the Air Force is committed 
to preserving ready and resilient installations. Our platform 
is to enable and project combat power using a strategy which 
optimizes operational effectiveness and resource efficiency as 
part of our focused and determined one team to win our one 
fight.
    Chairman Waltz and Ranking Member Garamendi, thank you 
again for the opportunity to testify today. We appreciate your 
continued support of our energy, installations, and environment 
enterprise.
    I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Oshiba can be found in the 
Appendix on page 99.]
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you.
    At this time, we will go to questions. I will begin by just 
saying--the committee is going to get tired of hearing me say 
this--but we have a teachable moment right now with what is 
going on with the Russian military in terms of readiness and 
how much that matters.
    Along those lines, as I mentioned in my opening statement, 
recent NDAAs have sought to wean the Department and the 
services off their dependence on Russian energy, but we still 
have a problem. We are not there.
    Obviously, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this 
became even more pressing. In the 2023 NDAA, we established a 
DOD goal, or a goal for DOD, to eliminate use of Russian energy 
at all main operating bases in EUCOM within 5 years. The 
provision also required planning for energy security, 
resilience, mitigation to reduce reliance on Russian energy for 
any new military base in EUCOM.
    So, Mr. Owens, if you can start with what is--just update 
us on the status of eliminating reliance on Russian energy in 
EUCOM. How are we ensuring energy resilience for both main 
operating bases and/or smaller installations across EUCOM? I 
know the NDAA requires you to identify those, I believe by 
June, those bases, and then start implementing the plan. But if 
you can update us where you are on that process.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you for the question, and I think you are 
exactly right.
    As I have watched, from the outside, the energy markets 
deal with the pivot away from Russian energy in Europe, it has 
been apparent that the things that have already been pointed 
out, that energy as a weapon, the reality of energy as a weapon 
is here, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.
    Relative to the specific things that are underway within 
DOD, there are people at this table who probably are better 
positioned to answer that, although I will take that question 
for the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 127.]
    Mr. Owens. Pulling back from that, one of the things that 
is apparent to me this early on is that all of the things that 
we are doing to maintain mission assurance within the United 
States are things that we need to be aggressively deploying in 
EUCOM, in Europe. So that is efficiency, reducing the amount of 
energy that we need, resilience, reliability, and working with 
our partners and allies in these places to make sure that we 
are advancing our ability to be independent from any risks 
associated with energy supply.
    Mr. Waltz. Mr. Oshiba, can you address that as well?
    My understanding is Ramstein was on--I mean, it is on the 
host nation grid, right? So, therefore, it is on Russian gas, 
Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. At one point, my 
understanding was we exported domestic coal. We moved away from 
that about a decade ago, but I think we moved from one 
dependency to another. So can you address where we are going?
    Mr. Oshiba. Thank you for the question, sir.
    You are right. What we are doing and what we are focused on 
is completing our installation energy plans in the EUCOM 
theater. We finished the one at RAF Lakenheath in the U.K. 
earlier this year. Ramstein is actually days away from being 
completed. We got the draft back in, and that focus area is on 
both what are the sources of energy we have, as well as 
vulnerabilities that we need to mitigate moving forward.
    We have four more that we plan to accomplish this year: 
Aviano Air Base in Italy; RAF Menwith Hill, and Mildenhall back 
in the U.K.; and Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany. And that has 
been our focus area, and once we get those plans done, the idea 
is to then turn that into requirements that we can apply our 
resources to.
    Mr. Waltz. Great. Thank you.
    My other question and then I want to move on to Ranking 
Member Garamendi and the members. Again, along the lines of 
reducing dependency on our adversaries--I mean we just cannot 
continue along this path--I understand a number of 
installations are moving to solar. It is not only carbon-
reducing, but it is energy-diversifying. Obviously, you need 
battery and storage for that.
    I can tell you, for example, Florida Power and Light is 
moving to 30 million panels by 2030; however, they source them 
from China. And we can point to the irony of one of the largest 
solar-producing plants in the world, in western China, on 
forced labor, and if you follow the transmission lines, they 
are being powered by coal. And China is opening more coal-fired 
plants than us and the rest of the world combined.
    So talk to me about the sourcing of your panels and the 
sourcing of your battery materials. Are they being sourced 
domestically, or are you also--even if you buy from domestic 
utilities who are ultimately buying from China? And what is the 
Department's plan to reduce that dependency?
    I will go with Mr. Owens, or anyone who wants to dive in. 
Because, obviously, that is a Department strategy, 
understanding your 30 days on the job.
    Mr. Owens. It is, sir, and I really appreciate that. I hope 
I don't have to use that get-out-of-jail-free card very much.
    Mr. Waltz. You only get one.
    Mr. Owens. All right.
    I think--I really like the way that you have drawn a 
complete picture of the energy ecosystem, because the irony of 
solar panels powered by coal is truly something that we are 
aware of.
    I think that the onshoring of these critical capabilities 
is something that we have as part of a larger industrial-based 
strategy that is going on within other parts of DOD, with other 
parts of the acquisition and sustainment team within DOD.
    So in terms of the work that is going to be undertaken 
under the battery mineral--sorry--the Battery Materials 
Initiative, under the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act], under the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, under the CHIPS Act, I think all 
of those things are moving us in the right direction in terms 
of being able to divest ourselves from these vulnerabilities 
that you have correctly pointed out.
    Mr. Waltz. Ms. Jacobson, could you--I mean, you mentioned 
specifically--and I get it. It is carbon-reducing, but as I 
said in my opening remarks, that has secondary and tertiary 
effects when China controls the cobalt mines in the Congo and 
that is necessary for battery storage. That is an issue.
    Can you talk to me about that supply chain surety?
    Ms. Jacobson. Chairman Waltz, thank you very much for that 
question. It is absolutely essential that we address supply 
chain throughout our portfolio, but especially here where, as 
you say, China and other countries control the supply of those 
critical minerals. And because we are so intent on putting 
islanding power on every single installation through a 
microgrid along with battery technology, it is very, very 
important to us.
    We recognize that the challenges of relying on foreign 
sources of mined and processed minerals that we have to bring 
that domestically, and we are teaming with DOD and other 
Federal agencies in this effort to stimulate domestic mining 
and processing of these minerals so that we can produce 
batteries domestically.
    And so many partners in industry are already taking this 
on, as you know. There is huge investment in domestic battery 
manufacturing along with sourcing of those raw materials.
    DOD is using the Defense Production Act, as was set forth 
in a Presidential Executive order, and we are involved in the 
Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries as part of DOD; but 
Army is committed to doing our part to make sure, again, that 
we have a robust and secure domestic industrial base for 
batteries.
    Mr. Waltz. I yield to Mr. Garamendi, but I will just say 
from my perspective, I understand we are charging headlong into 
our climate plans and executing those plans, but we cannot 
trade risk to climate to risk to force, right. And I will be 
looking at detail. I understand what we have to do, but I will 
be looking at details of how the Department is actually doing 
it, or do we need to tap the brakes on some of these plans 
until that onshoring can be complete?
    Over to you, Mr. Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Can I be your partner as you explore all of 
those issues? Very, very important. We have to do that.
    I would just add, and then a couple of questions, that the 
other pieces of legislation--you mentioned the Inflation 
Reduction Act, the Infrastructure and the CHIPS Act, and the 
Science and the CHIPS Act--are all intended to deal with the 
totality of the energy issue, and the military is a piece of 
that and certainly will be the beneficiary of those other Acts.
    With regard to onshoring the energy systems, if you want to 
take advantage of the tax credits in the legislation, and they 
are very, very significant, it has to be made in America. And 
so, that will bring a lot of that back home on the tax side of 
it.
    Mr. Scott. Will the gentleman yield for 1 second?
    Mr. Garamendi. Please.
    Mr. Scott. Ford Motor Company is partnering with CATL, 
which is a Chinese company, to get the tax credit. So that is 
where I think----
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, there ought to be a law.
    Mr. Scott. I agree.
    Mr. Garamendi. And we have to watch that very carefully. 
There will be a lot of ways to escape and to take advantage 
inappropriately, and so, it is our task and the oversight to do 
that, and if we do, we will be able to resolve those particular 
problems.
    There are so many different pieces to this puzzle, and we 
need to make sure that the departments are looking at all of 
the opportunities and engaged in all of these areas. So, you 
know, there is information that all of us might have. We should 
bring it to the attention of our committee as it involves the 
installations, the energy systems, or the environmental pieces 
of it. And if we do, we will be making some very, very good 
progress.
    I don't know how much time I have to ask questions, but I 
am certainly opining here for a while. So forgive me for that.
    But there are some things that are going to be really 
important as we go forward, and I am going to go back to 
something that has been bothering me all of these many, many 
years, and that is the facilities themselves, the depots, the 
repair facilities, the shipyards.
    And in the testimony, all of you mentioned or at least 
touched on this, on the issues of the necessity of improving, 
upgrading, and, indeed, even making viable these critical 
facilities. And I would like you to quickly provide us with 
assurance that these are high priorities.
    We didn't bring up the arsenals and the making of 155 
artillery shells, which I suppose we could spend time on, but 
that is included in this.
    So let's just go down the line. Let's start with the Navy. 
How many times do we have to talk about the SIOP [Shipyard 
Infrastructure Optimization Plan] program. Please don't tell us 
it is 30 years. Tell me what you are doing this year and the 
next 4 years and then we will go to the other bases, please.
    Ms. Berger. Yes, Congressman Garamendi. As we focus in the 
near term, we are taking steps on what we see as an historic 
opportunity--and thank you to Congress for the funding to do 
it--for our Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan.
    This is a place where we have area development plans for 
two of our shipyards on the east coast, and we continue forward 
to make progress in all of those efforts, in incremental and in 
steps. This is a place where we can integrate some of what you 
were just talking about in terms of the IRA and the IIJA 
[Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act]. There are tremendous 
opportunities to make sure that we are reaching that end state 
of resilient infrastructure that supports the mission that is 
critical that comes out of those shipyards.
    And in parallel, we have our organic industrial base, some 
of our fleet areas and our facilities that support some of our 
aviation depots and others where we are also investing in 
making sure that we are keeping those up to scruff so that way 
we can ensure that we are supporting the mission.
    Mr. Garamendi. Specifically, you have got four dry docks 
that are not being used now for earthquake. Specifically, what 
is the situation, if you can share it with us--if it is 
classified, we will take it up elsewhere, on the four dry docks 
in Washington State?
    Ms. Berger Yes, sir. Let me take the details for the record 
for you, but we moved swiftly to shut down when we saw that 
safety and readiness concern, and we have put forward the 
projects that will get us on track to be able to start to make 
those corrections already starting on two of the dry docks. And 
I will be glad to follow up with you in detail to provide 
exactly where everything is.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 127.]
    Mr. Garamendi. The 1st of March is nearby. How about by the 
end of March?
    Ms. Berger. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Garamendi. The details.
    Ms. Berger. Absolutely.
    Mr. Garamendi. I think I am out of time, Mr. Chairman, but 
I would go down the line and just let it go at that.
    Mr. Waltz. Mr. Wilson.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, indeed, I agree with Chairman Mike Waltz that energy 
is so critical for our continuity at our installations and, 
additionally, a great opportunity, and that is small modular 
reactors.
    And I always enjoy working with Congressman Garamendi to 
fill in puzzle pieces, and a puzzle piece is small modular 
reactors.
    And I am really grateful that in meeting with our allies 
last week in the Czech Republic, they are making tremendous 
progress on small modular reactors, and they are in a contest, 
a good one, with Romania to see who can build the first. And we 
need to be there, too, and so I hope every effort is being made 
to develop.
    In particular, Mr. Oshiba, the Air Force. Is it on track 
with the guidance provided by the 2021 National Defense 
Authorization Act to identify suitable locations for 
development and operation of microreactors, small modular 
reactors for the year 2027?
    And I will tell you a beautiful location for energy 
independence, and it would be wonderful to spend a lot of time 
there, is the beautiful territory of Guam.
    And then after you do that, I want to invite you to South 
Carolina, the Savannah River Nuclear Laboratory. It is 310 
square miles. It is probably the largest open area or secure 
area, and it is really close to Augusta National Golf Course. 
So it is a good place to visit.
    But, indeed, those are two locations that come to mind.
    Mr. Oshiba. Congressman Wilson, I think I feel like I have 
swung behind the ball and missed twice.
    But we do have a small modular reactor pilot project going 
on right now at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. It was chosen 
based upon the reliance of the power system there to a coal-
fired power plant that we need to get rid of.
    So we have actually gone out with a request for proposals. 
We have received some very attractive proposals. We are in the 
process now of going through the licensing process with the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and from what I can tell, from 
what I have heard so far, everything is going along very, very 
smoothly. We have gotten a lot of interest, a lot of community 
support.
    And I have taken note of the two other candidate locations 
you have mentioned.
    Mr. Wilson. And, indeed, we need to work with our NATO 
allies, Czech Republic and Romania. But, gosh, you can't have a 
better location than beautiful Guam. You get to go to the 
beach. And nothing is as good as the Savannah River Nuclear 
Laboratory with its proximity to Augusta National.
    Okay, along with that, Secretary Owens, the Department of 
Defense's Readiness Environmental Protection Integration 
program, known as REPI, is a vital tool for preserving the 
training missions and operations of military installations in 
South Carolina Midlands region, including Fort Jackson, which 
is the Army's largest and most active initial entry training 
center, by protecting more than 20,000 acres throughout the 
Midlands from incompatible development that would threaten 
military readiness.
    If the DOD continues the trend of increasing the budget for 
REPI, as DOD has done in recent years, what locations across 
the United States would be prioritized to ensure preserving 
training missions and operations at military installations?
    We will make the entire State of California an open space.
    Mr. Owens. There might be some arm wrestling up there if 
that is proposed.
    I think the REPI program is an excellent example of the 
type of capability that can be deployed when compatible use is 
something that we are focused around. My understanding of the 
way that that program operates is that we work with the 
military departments to understand what their needs are, and 
then prioritize projects according to how we can best serve the 
military departments from a readiness and mission assurance 
standpoint.
    Mr. Wilson. And additionally, I would like to ask in regard 
to the United States European Command area of operations, what 
additionally have we done to reduce our reliance on Putin's 
utilities into countries such as Bulgaria and Romania?
    Mr. Owens. We have continued to drive efficiency and 
essentially looking at all the things that our partners and 
allies were doing in Europe. We have taken steps that are 
similarly aggressive on the energy efficiency side of things at 
our installations.
    Mr. Wilson. And, indeed, with the pipelines through 
Ukraine, hopefully things are changing.
    So I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you.
    Mr. Waltz. Ms. Sherrill.
    Ms. Sherrill. Thank you.
    It is wonderful to see all of you. Nice to see you, 
Secretary Jacobson. Thank you for joining me at the expo at the 
Pentagon, as we saw some of our future energy-saving 
technologies.
    Last year I had the opportunity to visit and tour Picatinny 
Arsenal in my district, and I was able to go through the 
software center, which really houses some of our most highly 
talented workforce winning awards as, quite frankly, the 
building is falling down around them. Highlights include 
peeling paint, leaks during rainstorms.
    It really is unfortunate given that we continue to face 
recruiting shortfalls, and here we are trying to recruit some 
of the most talented workforce and trying to do so with these 
aging labs and infrastructure. So it really makes it difficult 
to attract top talent.
    And I know the Pentagon has expressed concern regarding 
growing deficiencies in critical laboratory infrastructure 
across the Department. Heidi Shyu, Under Secretary of Defense 
for Research and Engineering, said during a May 2022 
congressional hearing that her top priority is upgrading the 
Department's labs.
    So what progress and updates can you provide on how the DOD 
is prioritizing which labs to upgrade? And when can Picatinny 
Arsenal's two labs and four engineering facilities maybe expect 
to be upgraded?
    And I am sorry. That is for Secretary Jacobson.
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Sherrill. It 
is very nice to see you again, and thank you so much for 
visiting our energy expo. It was a great day to have you there.
    We fully share your concern about the aging facilities that 
house our incredibly important labs, and we recognize that by 
not addressing these facilities and upgrading them to 
acceptable standards, we do lose talent. And we recognize that 
part of making sure our facilities are in good shape, that we 
have this sustainment funding, the MILCON funding, the 
restoration and modernization funding to accomplish necessary 
repairs, that that presents a recruiting challenge when we 
don't do that.
    We are prioritizing and prioritizing and prioritizing, 
using a lot of different tools and models to determine which 
infrastructure is at most risk, where does it fall in terms of 
the design, if it is a MILCON project. And we every year go 
through this, you know, facilities investment process to make 
sure that we are addressing the most important need.
    And with respect to the two labs at Picatinny Arsenal, I 
commit to getting back to you about specifics about status of 
modernization and upgrades at those labs, because I agree they 
are critically important, and we want to recruit the best 
talent available.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Sherrill. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. It was, 
as I met with the general, one of his top concerns as well. So 
thank you so much. I really do appreciate that and look forward 
to hearing from you.
    Last May, the Marine Corps Logistics Base [MCLB] Albany 
became the first DOD installation to achieve net zero 
electricity status, with the base producing 100 percent of the 
energy they use. They were able to do so through incorporating 
innovative energy technology, such as biomass steam turbines, 
landfill gas generators, and advanced microgrid controls into 
their installation.
    Other carbon pollution-free resources include wind and 
solar power alternatives, including new systems such as GAF 
Energy's integrated solar roofs that directly integrate solar 
technology into roof shingles.
    So Secretary Berger, congratulations on that success at 
reaching net zero. Can you elaborate on some of the challenge 
that MCLB Albany faced in achieving net zero, as well as 
lessons learned, recommendations, and takeaways from that 
process so other services can avoid those pitfalls as they work 
towards net zero installations.
    Ms. Berger. Congresswoman, thank you. We are very excited 
about this, and I had the honor of going down with the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps to be able to celebrate this 
milestone with him, and the first thing that he talked about 
was how this was warfighting, this was about mission success.
    This is a logistics base which is foundational to the 
Marine Corps, and so as we talk about a contested logistics 
environment and how we are facilitating the way that we support 
the fight, it is just a wonderful example in a number of ways.
    This is a testament to the Marines who were committed year 
after year, commanding officer after commanding officer, to 
work with the community that surrounded them through trial and 
error and continuity of commitment----
    Mr. Waltz. Ms. Berger, I hate to interrupt you. If you 
could submit the rest for the record. The member's time has 
expired.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 128.]
    Ms. Sherrill. I'll take that for the record. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The chair, Congressman Waltz, hit on this a little bit with 
regard to solar panels, battery technology. I will tell you 
that, Secretary Owens, I do think that the DOD should make it 
very clear that the DOD, the United States Department of 
Defense, is not going to purchase any vehicle that utilizes 
CATL or any other Chinese battery technology.
    I refuse to believe that with all of the great companies in 
this country and with all of the great minds at Georgia Tech, 
MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], and everywhere 
else in this country, that we in this country cannot develop 
better technology than the Chinese have. And if it takes us 12, 
18, 24 months to do it, then that is better than sending people 
who don't share our interests or our values U.S. tax dollars.
    And so, I think that corporate America is going to have to 
understand that if they are going to partner with China, then 
they are not going to sell their vehicles to the Department of 
Defense.
    That said, I realize part of that manufacturing is not 
going to come back to the U.S. It doesn't all have to come back 
to the U.S. It is just we shouldn't be buying it from people 
who don't share our interests or our values.
    Secretary Oshiba, can you briefly explain what materials 
the Air Force considered for its facility to be built under the 
pilot program on the increased use of sustainable buildings?
    Mr. Oshiba. Congressman Scott, I apologize. I may have to 
take that one for the record as far as the details go.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 127.]
    Mr. Scott. My understanding is that you only considered 
concrete. Is that correct?
    Mr. Oshiba. For the pilot project that we are undertaking, 
I think it is at Patrick Air Force Base, that was the one 
material that we focused on for that one project, yes, sir.
    Mr. Scott. And so the whole purpose of the project is 
innovative concepts, new materials. Why didn't you consider a 
cross-laminated timber?
    Mr. Oshiba. Sir, I would have to take that one for the 
record. I am not sure exactly why we didn't look at a broader 
range of materials. I do know the focus was specifically on 
concrete. And then we also looked at what other kinds of 
resilient design techniques that we could incorporate as part 
of the design for that specific area.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 127.]
    Mr. Scott. There has also been language that is specific 
to--not telling you that you have to use it, but that you have 
to consider cross-laminated timber. And the use of cross-
laminated timber is certainly a much more renewable resource 
than concrete is. I mean, when you take concrete down you 
create a pile of rubble that nothing can be--nothing can be 
done with. And so, I just want to make sure that cross-
laminated timber is part of the discussion as we look to----
    Mr. Oshiba. Sir, we can certainly take a look at that 
specifically. And if it is not there, then I don't see why we 
couldn't consider it.
    Mr. Scott. I would appreciate that. And then Secretary 
Jacobson, the Army somewhat did the same thing. But in your 
testimony you say: While lower emission building materials are 
in development, these materials are not currently at the 
appropriate technology readiness level for direct 
implementation of the project. But other countries and the 
private sector are using cross-laminated timber now. Can you 
explain those comments further?
    Ms. Jacobson. Congressman Scott, thank you for the 
question. And I want to start by saying that we have two 
projects underway at Joint Base Lewis-McChord using sustainable 
material. They are both barracks projects. The first one, as 
you mentioned, is using sustainable low-carbon concrete. But 
the second one is going to use cross-laminated timber. Really, 
it was just a planning issue with the Army Corps of Engineers. 
They were a certain way along in the planning for that first 
barracks, and to change the material so substantially would 
have affected the timing of the construction and so forth. But 
the second barracks project for fiscal year 2025 will be made 
of cross-laminated timber. We are committed to that.
    Mr. Scott. Well, as somebody from the private sector, I 
think that you will find that the more options you have with 
the way you construct buildings----
    Ms. Jacobson. Yeah.
    Mr. Scott [continuing]. Not only are you going to get a 
better building, but you are going to get it at a better cost. 
And so I would hope that you would consider cross-laminated 
timber where it can be used. I realize there is some situations 
where it is probably not appropriate; but where it is 
appropriate, I hope that you will consider it.
    And, again, Secretary Owens, I know you are new to the job, 
but I will tell you, we are not going to spend DOD dollars on 
Chinese technology for batteries. And if it slows us down, 12, 
18, 24 months----
    Mr. Strong [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Thank you, Mr. Scott.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Davis from North Carolina.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to the ranking 
member as well.
    Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is an installation that is home 
of some of the most elite military units, as we understand. 
Also, have understanding that the North Carolina Department of 
Transportation has offered to take over maintenance of roads at 
Fort Bragg as soon as the Army brings the roads up to the DOT 
standards. Letting NCDOT take over maintenance would save the 
Army nearly $400,000 we estimate, in maintenance per mile at 
Fort Bragg, which we understand have over 1,500 miles of road 
total.
    There are many examples of public-private partnerships and 
third-party financing that have led to vast improvements in 
conditions in sustaining infrastructure. Yet, the Army here 
remains resistant to this program. At this time, when the 
Army's faced with multimillion dollars of maintenance backlog, 
and facing hard choices about how they use dollars, the Army 
should be using all tools at its disposal to improve 
infrastructure, especially when the continued decline of these 
roads are present.
    So does the Army have any alternative plan to correct these 
conditions and invest in installations such as Fort Bragg?
    Ms. Jacobson. Congressman Davis, thank you very much for 
that question. Because the programs, of course, that you are 
talking about, intergovernmental service agreements, Army is 
the biggest user across the Department of those programs. And 
we recognize that they save enormous amount of costs to the 
taxpayer, because of making these agreements with State and 
local agencies who have the expertise to supplement the 
expertise that Army simply doesn't have. We recently entered 
into such an agreement for road maintenance with the State of 
Texas where the State of Texas Department of Transportation 
will provide road maintenance--this was actually with all the 
other services, for all services in Texas. I am not familiar 
with why there is any progress not being made on any 
intergovernmental services agreement at Bragg with respect to 
road maintenance and working with the DOT, but I will find out 
and make sure we get back with you.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you so much. Unfortunately, Camp Lejeune 
has a long history of service members that has been harmed by 
environmental contaminations, specifically dealing with the 
water. In recent years we have learned that service members 
have been exposed to another contaminant, PFAS, that exposes 
them to additional health risk. In the fiscal year 2021 NDAA, 
you were asked to provide a timeline and cost estimate for 
cleanup of all sites that have been contaminated by the PFAS. 
The response to that requirement indicated that while the Navy 
has begun the cleanup process, phase 2 of the process of the 
remedial investigation and feasibility study will not be 
completed until the last quarter of fiscal year 2029, which 
means we are probably looking at 2030 before the meaningful 
cleanup.
    My question is, with a timeline like that, explain how you 
believe that the Department is fulfilling its commitment to 
clean up the responsibility--this responsibility here of 
cleanup at Camp Lejeune in particular? And why is it taking so 
long? Why will it take so long?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, we share your concern for people 
who are harmed by contaminates in water and take that very 
seriously. And anybody who has had exposure should get the 
medical care to which they are entitled to from all the 
different places that it is provided. I will need to take, for 
the record, what the time is that will take us out to 2029 and 
be happy to follow up with you on that answer so that you get 
the details that you are looking for.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 128.]
    Mr. Davis. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Davis. The chairman recognizes 
himself for 5 minutes. Thank you each for being here today. 
During my time as chairman of the Madison County Commission in 
Huntsville, Alabama, I saw firsthand the impact a strong 
community can make on an Army installation. To name a few 
instances at Red Stone Arsenal, the region pulled together to 
move the most popular entrance back three quarters of a mile to 
comply with new regulations and growth of the installation. We 
built new officers and base leadership housing, contributed 
over a half a billion dollars to improve infrastructure. 
Started new partnerships with some of the best research 
universities in the Nation. And my personal favorite, we built 
a $55 million minor league baseball stadium, the Rocket City 
Trash Pandas, which sits right outside of Red Stone Arsenal, 
along with a $50 million amphitheater at no cost to the 
Department of Defense. Because it was the right thing to do to 
support our warfighters, their families, and our contractors. 
Quality of life makes a difference.
    With the DOD facing a maintenance backlog of around $130 
billion, my question is, what can the communities do to better 
serve their installations?
    Mr. Owens. Thank you for the specific examples of what I 
believe to be very true relative to the interdependency of 
defense communities and installations. The Office of Local 
Defense Community Collaboration [OLDCC] is a program that is 
run as a defense field agency that is resourcing communities to 
be able to look at that question, specifically. So to try to 
find out what needs the Department has in communities; what 
OLDCC can provide to make it possible for those communities to 
come to the table as partners, as collaborators to identify the 
places that we should be partnering together to improve quality 
of life for all of the people in the community. Seventy percent 
of our service members and their families don't live on 
installations, they live in the community.
    So specific to any ideas right now, I would be happy to 
take that for the record. But I think you have pointed out some 
specific examples of quality-of-life improvements that could be 
used other places to be replicated to improve the conditions 
for our service members. And Trash Pandas is an outstanding 
name. That is really commendable.
    Mr. Strong. It has been great for our community. No doubt.
    Mr. Owens. I'll bet, yeah.
    Mr. Strong. The next question is what benefit has the 
Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot program provided for 
installations?
    Mr. Owens. I have a list in the binder. I would be happy to 
share that with the committee for what specific things that 
have happened. But DCIP is another example of a program that 
is, again, organized and operated by OLDCC to be able to 
provide the resources to stitch together the infrastructure 
that exists on the other side of the fence line that our 
military service members and our communities rely on.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. Ms. Jacobson, the Ukraine conflict 
has highlighted shortfalls within the U.S. defense production 
capacity and supply chain. I think we can all agree it is 
better that these issues be fixed before we find ourselves in 
the middle of our own conflict.
    In Alabama, we have Army Materiel Command at Red Stone 
Arsenal, and the ``combat vehicle center of the free world'' 
and one of the largest storage and distribution centers of 
ammunition and missiles at Anniston's Army Depot.
    My question is what lessons has the Army learned regarding 
the ability of our arsenals and ammunition facilities to meet 
future wartime demands?
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you very much. And thank you for your 
support of Red Stone Arsenal. We really appreciate it. It is, 
obviously, as you say, home to Army Materiel Command and so 
many other important functions across DOD, actually, across the 
Federal Government even.
    What we recognize is that as we start to build new 
operation systems and new platforms, we have to have the 
facility to house those platforms. So not only do we need to 
make sure our organic industrial base is modernized enough to 
be able to keep pace with the new platforms that we have to 
replenish, but also, to make sure that we have the facilities, 
the maintenance facilities and so forth to house those new 
equipment, and to make sure that we are giving it state-of-the-
art maintenance facilities and so forth and manufacturing 
facilities. And this is, obviously, a huge priority and part of 
our facilities investment planning.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Ms. Jacobson. I yield back. The 
Chair recognizes Ms. Tokuda of Hawaii.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Chair. First of all, thank you, 
everyone, for your testimony and for coming before our 
committee. I have some questions, as you can guess, on the Red 
Hill tragedy that took place in Hawaii. I appreciate the 
conversations we have had as well. Appreciate for all the 
testimony, including what you are doing and planning to do. But 
as we have discussed before, what is at the core of this is 
rebuilding a broken trust that exists right now. That takes 
more than words, it takes actions, and it takes giving people 
confidence that the injustice that has happened is recognized 
and will not happen again.
    And so, you know, when I take a look at what is still being 
required in terms of questions about important information that 
they would like shared, even the fact that video that was 
released by independent sources of the fuel leaking out and 
spewing out, quite frankly, of the Red Hill pipeline in 
November 2021, has still not officially been released right 
now.
    What efforts do we--you know, what assurance do we have, I 
guess, Ms. Berger, that, you know, the information that people 
are demanding, the transparency and disclosure that people 
expect after something like this, will actually take place, 
including a lot of the relevant FOIA [Freedom of Information 
Act] requests that have been put forward so that the people of 
Hawaii can really know what happened and what will happen and 
can have confidence that the relationship going forward will be 
one of openness and of trust?
    Ms. Berger. Congresswoman, thank you, too, for the time and 
recent conversations. And I am grateful to have had the 
opportunity to engage across the Hawaii delegation with both 
on- and off-island leadership and citizens and constituents to 
understand. I think that part of building trust is building 
understanding as well. And it comes from all sides who are 
involved. And so every day, we at the Department of the Navy 
and the Department of Defense need to make sure that we are 
being responsive, being transparent, providing that 
information. You note that there are some FOIA requests that 
have come. FOIA is a process that does take some time, but we 
will make----
    Ms. Tokuda. If I could just interject here since I am 
limited in time. Do you feel that you folks have been, in fact, 
responsive? And I understand that FOIA is a process, but given 
the extreme urgency of having 20,000 gallons of jet fuel pumped 
into your water and people poisoned, your families worried 
about if they are getting sick because of what they are exposed 
to, do you feel that it has been responsive? Do you feel the 
timelines are fair, given the information people are demanding 
right now over Red Hill?
    Ms. Berger. Congresswoman, if there are specific pieces of 
information that I can help you to find out, I would be glad 
to.
    Ms. Tokuda. I think we are taking a look at what people 
have been asking. It has been in the paper. It has been well 
documented. Again, and I know I am running short of time. I 
don't want to continue this discussion. This really is a 
disrespect that happened to the people of Hawaii. What we are 
looking for is transparency and urgency. And regardless of the 
processes and the timelines that exist for things like FOIA, I 
think if we are going to rebuild what is a broken, a sadly, 
badly broken trust, it is about going above and beyond to make 
sure people have the timely answers to the questions that they 
deserve answers to and exposure to. So if I could go on--and, 
you know, I know we had a conversation, both Mr. Owens and 
yourself, about the post-closure plans. Even during my tour of 
Red Hill last week, I had mentioned that whatever the 
contractor Nakapuna was doing that it had to be done right and 
well. Or it would not only be a distraction, but it would be 
further mistrust, it would further degradation of the 
relationship.
    So, I was sad to see an article yesterday talking about the 
fact that this contract was an enigma because they couldn't get 
basic information about what the contract would do and how 
would they even engage. Would it be one on one? Would it be a 
website? They were actually told, the newspaper, to go FOIA 
your request. That is not the response that we want. Is this 
acceptable that your contractors and subcontractors can operate 
in the dark, while, again, people are asking for light and 
answers in this case.
    Ms. Berger. Congresswoman, thank you for noting that. I saw 
the same article yesterday, and it is something that I have 
asked my team to help me to understand what happened there. I 
saw it yesterday for the first time and will provide a response 
to your office.
    Ms. Tokuda. Okay. Do you think that is acceptable of an 
answer? The company that you have hired to basically engage 
with the community, saying they will not explain how to the 
taxpayers of Hawaii they will be doing this?
    Ms. Berger. Congresswoman, what is acceptable is a clear 
answer and a transparent process. And that is what I owe to 
you, and I will get to you.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. And you owe to the people of Hawaii, 
as well, given what we have experienced.
    My last just comment here, because I know I don't have time 
for an answer. Infrastructure is a problem. Sadly, we were not 
surprised about Red Hill. We haven't been surprised about the 
Maui Space Facility, Schofield Barracks----
    Mr. Strong. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you very much. Infrastructure is a 
concern. We need to keep up on this.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Ms. Tokuda of Hawaii. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gimenez of Florida for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Owens, what is 
the greatest existential threat to America today?
    Mr. Owens. The pacing challenge for the Department of 
Defense is the People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Gimenez. Okay. Ms. Jacobson, same question.
    Ms. Jacobson. I agree with Mr. Owens' answer.
    Mr. Gimenez. Okay. Ms. Berger.
    Ms. Berger. The same, sir.
    Mr. Gimenez. And Mr. Oshiba, the same thing?
    Mr. Oshiba. The same thing, sir.
    Mr. Gimenez. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I am 100 
percent in support of Mr. Scott's assertion that any material 
that goes into our combat vehicles, none of it should be 
manufactured by the People's Republic of China. It would be 
insanity to have our greatest adversary supplying us with the 
materials needed for us to defend ourselves. Would you--would 
anybody disagree with that, any of you? I guess not. Okay.
    I am concerned--and I also am agreeing with our Ranking 
Member Garamendi about nuclear and small nuclear reactors to be 
able to power our military bases and essential infrastructure, 
military infrastructure.
    I am really concerned about solar panels. Not only because 
the materials come from China, and they are manufactured from 
China, but also from a security perspective. How do you defend 
them? Anybody have an answer for that? How do you defend solar 
panels? If you start putting out solar panels to power our 
bases, how do you defend that? How do you secure them?
    Mr. Owens. Representative, I will take a stab. I think that 
the strategy for DOD is not dependent on any one technology. 
What we are trying to do is diversify our energy ecosystem in a 
way that allows us to be able to take advantage of multiple 
different sources of energy to be able to harden and make 
resilient all of the various aspects of how we procure and use 
energy. So that is electricity from wind, from solar, from 
nuclear, from gas, from diesel.
    All of those sources, when you try--when you deploy a 
distributed energy platform, disruption of any one of those 
things is not catastrophically problematic for the entire 
system. All right. So mission assurance is guaranteed by 
diversity.
    Mr. Gimenez. Now are we talking about military bases now? 
Especially in Europe, right? I mean, we are talking about 
trying to get away from Russian energy, et cetera, et cetera. 
And so, when I started thinking about it, wouldn't solar panels 
be the most difficult thing to defend in a military base? You 
can't harden it. They have to be outside. So how do you defend 
solar panels? How do you defend wind power? That has to be 
outside, too. So how do you do that in a military base?
    Mr. Owens. Thank you for the question. I am realizing that 
I am way over my----
    Mr. Gimenez. Omahoma. Have you all figured that one out? 
Have you figured that out yet, that you are now going to put in 
our military bases two sources of energy that are probably the 
most difficult things to defend against attack?
    Mr. Owens. The solution is in much broader diversity than 
we currently have, and that makes for resilient and reliable.
    Mr. Gimenez. Well, I would argue that it would be much more 
resilient and reliable to go with two nuclear, you know, small 
nuclear plants than putting some solar, some wind, and one 
nuclear plant. I would argue that because A, nuclear plants are 
much more reliable. They don't need wind. They don't need sun 
to power them. And you could probably, probably fortify them 
much, much easier than solar and wind. This is talking from a 
purely military perspective. So with that, I will yield the 
rest of my time back. Thank you.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Vasquez 
of New Mexico.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to 
see the Readiness Subcommittee's prioritization of MILCON 
projects, base infrastructure, environmental protection, and 
energy resiliency. I would also like to thank the honorable 
witnesses here today for taking the time to speak with us this 
afternoon, for your public service to strengthen the defense of 
our Nation.
    The military installations in New Mexico's Second District 
play some of the most critical roles in our national defense. 
But if you saw the condition of the infrastructure at some of 
these bases, you wouldn't believe it. For example, the service 
members at White Sands Missile Range and Holloman Air Force 
Base who are testing groundbreaking technologies are still 
living in communities with buildings built just after World War 
II.
    At a time when our military is struggling with recruitment 
and retention, we should prioritize improving the quality of 
life of facilities, like housing and child development centers 
for our service members and their families. We ask them to do a 
dangerous job, and they deserve better.
    To make matters worse, the Air Force recently notified the 
New Mexico Environment Department in 2018 that PFAS is 
prevalent in surface and groundwater throughout the State, 
particularly in Albuquerque right outside of Kirtland Air Force 
Base. And samples collected at Holloman Air Force Base also 
showed PFAS levels as high as 1.29 million parts per trillion. 
Experts state that the lifetime of drinking water exposure to 
these toxic chemicals is 70 parts per trillion. That is over 
18,000 times the lifetime level of exposure, and we should do 
more to protect the health and well-being of our service 
members. I think the time to act is now, and I look forward to 
discussing these important issues with you all.
    As a former city councilor in the city of Las Cruces, New 
Mexico, where the National Guard was found liable for 
contaminants of PCE [perchloroethylene] in a Superfund site 
that cost the city of Las Cruces $6 million, we, as a city with 
limited resources, had to go to court with the Department of 
Defense in order to clean up those contaminants because they 
were found by the EPA to be in the drinking water of our 
residents. That to me, as a local elected official, was an 
unacceptable response from the Department of Defense not to 
accept the liability that it later took a local government to 
be able to find at fault.
    Now my first question is for Mr. Owens. Mr. Owens, could 
you provide just a quick status update on the Department's 
efforts to completely phase out all firefighting agents 
containing PFAS by 2024.
    Mr. Owens. I would be happy to, and thank you for your 
commitment to this issue. It is vitally important that the full 
Department takes its responsibility to deal with the legacies 
of the decisions that we have made.
    In January of this year, the Department of Navy certified a 
military spec for a PFAS-free firefighting foam. The military 
departments are--we are in the process now of certifying that 
that is--that those formulations do, in fact, work. And after 
that, the military departments will be implementing their 
phaseout plans according to the plans that they have developed.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Owens. And can you provide any 
insight on specific steps that the Department has taken to 
ensure that aging legacy infrastructure, like family housing, 
child development centers on installations are being properly 
modernized as mandated in previous NDAAs?
    Mr. Owens. My first job out of college was working as an 
energy manager at Fort Belvoir which is just south of here. And 
I have sort of lived both ends of this now in terms of the 
infrastructure challenges from an installation level, and from 
a department level.
    I think that there are--the FSRM [facilities sustainment, 
restoration, and modernization] backlog, the challenges that we 
have facing a chronic underfunding of the infrastructure 
maintenance and the deferred maintenance and repair, is a very 
big problem and something that I am going to be focused on 
going forward. And I look forward to partnering with the 
military departments to make sure that we are bringing the 
resources that are needed to modernize and repair these pieces 
of infrastructure, particularly on the housing side.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Owens. And that is something 
that I believe myself and other members of this subcommittee, 
in a bipartisan way, are willing to work on to make sure there 
is accountability. And that, I can tell you, it is very hard to 
attract not just service members but families to the missions 
at Holloman Air Force Base when there is a danger that they 
will be ingesting toxic chemicals from buildings that have 
asbestos and other chemicals that have yet to be remediated. 
Despite the record investments that we have made in our defense 
budget year after year, I think this is a critical readiness 
component, especially where we are handling such critical 
missions in places like White Sands Missile Range and Holloman 
Air Force Base that are so critically important to the defense 
of our Nation.
    Lastly, just one more quick question with these 15 seconds 
I have. Ms. Jacobson, are there any plans to nominate White 
Sands for any additional ERCIP, Energy Resilience and 
Conservation Investment Projects, as far as you are aware?
    Ms. Jacobson. May I take that for the record and let you 
know?
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 128.]
    Mr. Vasquez. Yes, thank you, Ms. Jacobson. I yield back.
    Ms. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Vasquez.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Moylan of Guam for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Berger, were you 
in Guam recently? I thought I saw you. Were we sitting next to 
each other at the commencement there of the Camp ``Ben'' Blaz? 
Well, thank you for coming to Guam.
    Ms. Berger. It is nice to see you again.
    Mr. Moylan. I appreciate that. So I do have a question for 
you. So in 2005, the USS San Francisco ran aground in the 
Western Pacific and was successfully repaired on Guam. By 
contrast, when the USS Connecticut ran aground in 2021, it 
proceeded to Guam. It languished in the harbor and was unable 
to be repaired.
    So Ms. Berger, can you please speak to the dangers posed by 
America's backslide in ship repair capacity in the Western 
Pacific, and the importance of facilities such as Guam now 
closed dry dock?
    Ms. Berger. It is very nice to see you again, and it was a 
good thing to spend time at Camp Blaz which emphasized the 
importance of Guam, and as we build out some of the 
geostrategic importance of our focus there. As far as the ship 
repair, I would like to take the detailed question for the 
record to make sure that I provide for you the perspective of 
some of my partners who work in that section of the Department 
of the Navy. But certainly, it is why we are focused on 
capitalizing right now our shipyards to make sure that we are 
able to provide that infrastructure. And as you noted it is 
critically important to supporting our warfighting mission. So 
let me get back to you with more, but I would be glad to follow 
up.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 128.]
    Mr. Moylan. It has been shown successful when we did have 
it. And with this current threat, I think it is very important 
that we bring this back. So thank you.
    And then for Mr. Owens, in your testimony, you stated that 
a long-term extension of H-2B visas is needed to meet 
Department of Defense construction requirements. Do you believe 
that the failure of the extended H-2B and therefore have 
construction projects fall behind deadlines or to be left 
uncompleted would leave the United States in a disadvantaged 
position in the Indo-Pacific?
    Mr. Owens. Absolutely, I do.
    Mr. Moylan. You gave a really good statement in your report 
here, which I read through. Do us a favor, just highlight this 
a little bit for me just about a minute or two.
    Mr. Owens. I would be happy to. And I really appreciate you 
enabling us to talk about this a little bit more, because it is 
a critical--a critical aspect. The construction workforce to do 
all of the work, the MILCON work that needs to happen on Guam 
to support the posture that we need in the Indo-Pacific does 
not exist. And try as we have over the course of the last 
several years to bring U.S. workforce to Guam to satisfy that 
construction need, we have been unable to meet that need.
    So as we increase the amount of MILCON that needs to 
happen, we are at risk for construction contracts being--labor, 
particularly, aspects of construction contracts not being 
available to keep on schedule and on budget. So the extension 
that would--that we are asking for in our legislative 
proposition would solve that problem for Guam and for the Indo-
Pacific. And I would say that we are going to continue all the 
efforts that we have been doing to encourage U.S. workforce to 
get to Guam and do this work. But absent that, we need 
certainty so that we can be able to deliver these projects on 
time and on budget.
    Mr. Moylan. All right. Thank you, sir. And that has been--
--
    Mr. Owens. Thank you for letting me speechify. Thank you.
    Mr. Moylan. So all our efforts there and all our 
communications with INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] 
generals is basically this needs to be done. And that it can be 
done with the continued extension of the H-2B. So I appreciate 
your support in continuing to push that. That is about just it 
for me. But Mr. Oshiba, I am looking forward to visiting you--
your visit to Guam again. So I appreciate it. Thank you.
    Mr. Oshiba. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Strong. Ms. Escobar of Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And many thanks to 
our witnesses today. I really appreciate your service to our 
country and your time with our subcommittee.
    I have the privilege of representing Fort Bliss. Actually, 
I share Fort Bliss with my colleague, Gabe Vasquez, which is 
the second largest installation in our country as well as the 
largest joint mobilization force generation installation. And I 
recently had the opportunity to see the 3D printed barracks on 
Fort Bliss and was very impressed with what is happening there.
    And so, Ms. Jacobson, I have a question for you about that. 
I am wondering if you can give us an overview of what kind of 
facility construction this technology could potentially be used 
for going forward to meet the Army's infrastructure needs? And 
what are some creative ways we can transport this technology on 
deployments for our service members stationed abroad?
    Ms. Jacobson. Congresswoman Escobar, it is very nice to see 
you again. So and----
    Ms. Escobar. Likewise.
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you so much for all of your support of 
Fort Bliss. It is greatly appreciated. The 3D barracks is an 
interesting and a novel approach to construction. I know 
General Daley is a big fan of it and talks about it all the 
time. And we are looking at ways, especially in contingency 
basing, where we can use this type of construction, which is 
very fast and very efficient. And I promise to get with the 
Corps of Engineers and talk about how they can come up with 
sort of a proposal for how we can increase our use of 3D 
printing both at installations, at contingency bases as well.
    Ms. Escobar. Wonderful. Thank you. I look forward to that. 
I have a couple more questions about Fort Bliss. In your 
testimony, you mentioned that the Army is administering an 
Installation Climate Resilience Plan [ICRP] assessment for Fort 
Bliss. Can you give me some detail on when you expect that 
assessment to be completed? How can we on the Armed Services 
Readiness Subcommittee help complement the Department of the 
Army's efforts to shore up the state of our installations, 
based on the findings of these assessments?
    Ms. Jacobson. Well, thank you so much for that question. 
These assessments called these ICRP, two of them have been 
completed so far at Fort Carson, and at Anniston. And they are 
really comprehensive and directed specifically to bases based 
on regional environmental conditions. They are ecosystem 
driven. And so the notion is to put together those bases that 
are essentially the same ecosystem, so we can very specifically 
target what are the climate-associated risks based on that 
ecosystem.
    So in the next group of these assessments that we are doing 
will be Fort Bliss and Fort Hood. And part of what comes out of 
these recommendation are suites of projects where we can 
enhance base resilience based on what we learn comprehensively 
about the risks associated with changing weather and other 
environmental conditions in that region. So Bliss and Hood are 
in the next group. And if there is specific recommendations for 
projects, we would be happy to report back to you about that.
    Ms. Escobar. I appreciate that. And do you have any idea of 
the timeline for that, when that next group might--the 
assessment might begin for that next group?
    Ms. Jacobson. I can find out specifically the timeline and 
get back with you about that.
    Ms. Escobar. Okay. That would be great. Thank you. And, 
also, I am wondering if the Army EI&E [Energy, Installations, 
and Environment] office is tracking a couple of priorities for 
Fort Bliss that have been on our radar. The need for more 
barracks, but also the rail spur. And are there plans to 
request MILCON funding for these projects?
    Ms. Jacobson. Well, I am happy to report for the Fort Bliss 
barracks projects, we have five modernization projects 
programmed for fiscal years 2024 to 2028. That will be an 
investment of over $187 million. With respect to the railhead, 
we appreciate the extreme importance of the railhead to mission 
readiness and power projection. And I visited the railhead. I 
know that it needs improvement, substantial improvement. The 
railhead design wasn't enough--at an efficient-enough stage to 
make it into the last round of proposed military construction 
projects, but it is a very top priority. And the Corps knows 
that the design of 35 percent must be complete, and we will 
make sure it is for the next round.
    Ms. Escobar. Perfect. And I will be sure to keep on 
everyone about that as well. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you.
    Mr. Waltz [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Escobar. Mrs. 
Kiggans.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to take a 
few minutes to talk about privatized or unaccompanied soldier, 
sailor housing.
    So I represent Virginia's Second Congressional District 
down in the Hampton Roads area. And although we lost Norfolk 
Naval Base with redistricting, it is still very close. And we 
are home to the largest fleet on the Atlantic Coast. And I have 
the master jet base Oceana in my district.
    So, housing there is atrocious. As a Navy veteran, I was a 
Navy wife for 20 years, you know, I go on base all the time. I 
shop at the commissary. I see where those guys live. And the 
quality-of-life aspect, we talk about that, and I know 
recruitment and retention is down. And, I mean, not only is 
housing a social determinant of health for people, but if we 
don't offer and at least get that quality-of-life piece back, 
we are never going to improve our numbers. And we talked to the 
leadership over at Oceana, specifically. Those guys are--there 
is three condemned enlisted barracks. There is no privatized 
housing on base; or there is only one at Norfolk. We are 
charging our enlisted sailors for WiFi usage. I could not 
believe the WiFi plans range from $50 to $200.
    The first weekend that I held office here, I brought my DC 
staff down to Virginia Beach, and I put them in my minivan, and 
we drove to Norfolk, and we drove to Oceana. And I said look at 
where we are asking our single sailors to live. Here is the 
barracks. Here is the galley. Now, think of any 4-year college 
or university you have been to lately, and think about how 
beautiful those places are. And think about what we are asking 
those kids in the same age ranges to do. I have been to 
college. I know what those guys are doing every night of the 
week. And think about what we are asking those 19- and 20- and 
21-year-olds to do.
    So if we don't prioritize that--so I hear you about all 
these other--and the energy project thing, specifically, if we 
are sacrificing quality of life like housing and barracks 
issues for things like energy projects, that is not the right 
place to prioritize. We are not going to have people to 
prioritize energy projects for if we don't focus on that first.
    For me, as a nurse practitioner as well, suicide issues 
have been real in my district. Quality of life is absolutely 
impacted by where these guys and girls live. So we have got to 
do a better job for them. So I know there is alternatives out 
there. And listening to the discussion, thank you so much for 
your testimonies and briefs, but I am very interested in 
privatized housing. I know there is probably pros and cons. I 
think I know the pros. So I would be interested to hear some of 
the cons. And then also, is there a way that we are 
prioritizing amongst the services? It seems like Army has made 
some progress. I think Navy, especially in my district, I feel 
like we are really behind the power curve down there for 
utilizing some of these public-private partnerships. But can 
you explain just kind of the order of how we are prioritizing 
who is getting these privatized barracks, and then also, if 
there are any major cons we should consider?
    Mr. Owens. I can tee this off. As part of the ASD(EI&E) 
[Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and 
Environment] job, I am also the Department's chief housing 
officer. So I am responsible for working with and ensuring that 
the military departments exercise their oversights authority 
with respect to MHPI [Military Housing Privatization 
Initiative] projects. And I think that there is progress that 
has been made. So the tenant bill of rights a couple of years 
ago, the fact that we have hired several hundred housing 
oversight personnel to be in installations and work. But there 
definitely is, as you have noted, work left to do.
    So the commitment that we have to ensuring that our service 
members and their families have places to live that are--
respect the dignity of the work that they are doing is 
something that we are all committed to. It is a critical 
readiness issue because of the health. And if I wrote this down 
right, your reference to the social determinant of health is 
something that is right up my alley. I would love to talk more 
about that with you if we get a chance, because there are 
aspects of this that we can focus on. In terms of 
prioritization, I will turn to my colleagues to let that be 
something they can speak to.
    Ms. Berger. And, Congresswoman, it is nice to see you. And 
thank you for your focus on quality of life in a place that it 
is very important to our sailors. As you note, there are 
barracks in disrepair. There is an example, though, of what is 
a great authority that we have been excited to have which is 
the privatized barracks. I will get back to you on how we 
prioritize those. But that is something that we are looking to 
do more of within those authorities. And your district is one 
of those places.
    And on your note on wireless, I recently learned that, too, 
and it is top of my list to fix because I understand the 
connectivity and the mental health that can come from making a 
simple change.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you very much. Thank you. And real 
quick, any cons to privatized housing that we should be 
considering when we are requesting, or is it as good as it 
sounds and seems.
    Ms. Berger. From our perspective, it has been a very good 
experience. And we would love to see more of the opportunity to 
use the authority.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Great. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Waltz. Mrs. Kiggans, I am going to extend your time a 
minute because I want to give the Army an opportunity--not from 
an Army-Navy standpoint--but the Army has been moving out on 
this issue, particularly when it comes to the BOQs [bachelor 
officers' quarters], the apartment-type complexes. And I would 
like to give Ms. Jacobson a minute.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Yeah, and if I could [inaudible] in, too--I 
would concur. It is painful for me to say, but yes, I think the 
Army is really blowing some of the other branches out of the 
water, especially on some of those privatized lodging. So good 
job.
    Mr. Waltz. We have that on the record, Mrs. Kiggans.
    Ms. Jacobson. Feel free to elaborate, Congresswoman. Thank 
you. We really appreciate that. Obviously, this is very 
important to us, as you say, for quality-of-life purposes.
    On the privatized housing side, we have been very vigilant. 
We have had some issues, but we are exercising controls now, 
and a lot of oversight. And we have done investigations. We are 
doing audits. We are on top of it in terms of oversight of 
housing providers, where there are negatives associated with 
that.
    With respect to privatized barracks, we are considering 
this very, very carefully. We have commissioned a RAND study to 
give us some of the pros and cons and do a deep dive. And at 
the same time, we are right now looking at two proposals from 
our housing providers about how they would address privatized 
barracks. We have a great situation at Meade--I think it is at 
Meade, I am sorry--and where it is working. But, of course, it 
is for more senior single soldiers. The question is, how do you 
ensure continuity of leadership and unit continuity? How do you 
make sure that leaders have access to the barracks? How do you 
basically--unit cohesion is critical there and making sure that 
leaders have access to those barracks for a whole suite of 
reasons. So we are examining it very carefully and expect to 
make some decisions this year.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Good. And that should be a priority as well. 
Thank you for that. I know on Norfolk Naval Base, with the ship 
deployment schedules, they were housing those guys just in 
empty barracks rooms. So there was no unit cohesion. It was 
very difficult for our enlisted leadership to be checking in on 
those guys. They were scattered amongst--if you have ever been 
to Norfolk Naval Base--a lot of acres. So being able to house 
them together, yes, for unit cohesion, to be able to provide 
just some positive activities and things for them to do would 
be so meaningful for quality of life. So thank you.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you. And to that end, Mrs. Kiggans, we are 
going to request the Department come back for a more detailed 
briefing and really diving into where the services are going, 
what the commonalities are from OSD's [Office of the Secretary 
of Defense's] perspective, where you are prioritizing. And, 
hopefully, what we will get out of that is some cross-service 
lessons learned and areas to sustain and areas to improve, and 
really what the trajectory is going forward. You know, a 
colleague of Mr. Garamendi's from--a well-known colleague of 
Mr. Garamendi's from California once said: Show me your budget, 
and you'd show her your priorities. And it seems year after 
year, FYDP [Future Years Defense Program] after FYDP, 
installations management and these quality-of-life issues seem 
to somehow fall to the bottom of a very competitive budget 
process.
    So if I am wrong in that, I look forward to you disabusing 
me, and if--otherwise, then, we look forward--I know on this 
subcommittee it is a priority for all of us to figure out how 
to help you on that. Because we can throw millions and millions 
at retention bonuses and specialty pays and what have you, but 
having a decent, safe, quality-of-life place for our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardians to live is of the 
utmost importance.
    I think with that--anything else from our ranking member?
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, you have done well first time out, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Waltz. You know, in the Special Forces, that is I owe 
you a case of beer. Well, thank you. The hearing's adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


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



                            A P P E N D I X

                           February 28, 2023

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

      

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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                           February 28, 2023

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

      
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                           February 28, 2023

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

      

              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ

    Mr. Owens. Ensuring the energy resilience of installations in 
Europe, in part by eliminating reliance on Russian energy, remains a 
priority for the Department. Building upon our previous work to 
understand our reliance in Russian energy at our main operating bases 
in the region, we have taken strategic next steps to further address 
any gaps our resilience posture. First, we are conducting an analysis 
of the main operating bases in Europe, their criticality, and their 
dependence on Russian energy. Second, we continue to ensure that the 
Military Departments complete Installation Energy Plans (IEPs) for main 
operating bases and other installations in Europe, with 13 plans 
completed thus far. Once complete, we will share the results of the 
previously mentioned study with the Military Departments to update 
existing IEPs as appropriate, and to guide development of future IEPs 
as required by the NDAA. Lastly, my Office has scheduled separate, 
focused briefings with each of the Military Departments and the Office 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on their energy resilience postures in 
Europe to better enable implementation of resilience in the region, 
with a goal of eliminating reliance on Russian energy.   [See page 12.]
                                 ______
                                 
            RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
    Ms. Berger. I look forward to providing your office a detailed 
briefing on this topic. To summarize the situation in this setting, the 
Navy temporarily suspended submarine docking in Dry Docks (DD) 4, 5, 
and 6 at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility 
(PSNS & IMF) and the dry dock at delta pier located at Trident Refit 
Facility (TRF) Bangor due to the results of a recent seismic 
vulnerability study and expert analysis in late January 2023. On 
February 15, 2023, the Navy mobilized construction to mitigate seismic 
vulnerabilities at TRF-Bangor and PSNS DD 4 & 5 to restore availability 
for submarine use. There are no immediate plans to mitigate at DD6, 
which can still safely support aircraft carrier dockings. The estimated 
completion dates for DD 4 and TRF is mid-April, with work at DD 5 to 
follow.   [See page 16.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
    Mr. Oshiba. The DAF is incorporating lower emission concrete into 
the Patrick Space Force Base (SFB) Consolidated Communications Center 
as part of the pilot program. We first identified the project best 
suited for this pilot project then determined the right sustainable 
material to incorporate. This project met the pilot project criteria in 
Section 2861 of the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA. Patrick SFB is vulnerable to 
extreme whether events based on our assessment with the Defense Climate 
Assessment Tool and we could prepare the project for execution quickly 
while incorporating sustainable materials.
    The structure of the Consolidated Communications Center primarily 
consists of concrete for the foundation, floors, columns and roof, and 
walls. Our approach to incorporate sustainable materials was to modify 
the concrete specification with a target to reduce emissions associated 
with concrete by 30-40% compared with conventional concrete baselines. 
Modification of the concrete specification during the design was not 
expected to significantly impact the design or contract execution 
timeline, cost, or resiliency of the facility.   [See page 19.]
    Mr. Oshiba. Incorporating cross laminated timber as a primary 
construction material when it was not included from the beginning of 
the design would have significantly impacted the project timeline and 
cost. Re-design would have been required. This project was already 
between 35% and 65% design when selected. We focused on more 
sustainable concrete because modification of the concrete specification 
would not have an adverse impact on timeline, enabling us to meet the 
intent of the pilot program to execute the project as quickly as 
possible. The DAF is looking to incorporate cross-laminated timber into 
future MILCON projects where design has not yet begun.   [See page 20.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. SHERRILL
    Ms. Berger. Each installation has unique opportunities and 
challenges regarding its energy and water needs, and the Department of 
the Navy is developing a guidebook for installation commanding officers 
to understand the tools, authorities and resources available to them. 
MCLB Albany's success can be attributed to innovative and diverse 
financing mechanisms, partnerships, and long-term commitment. First, 
MCLB successfully leveraged energy financing mechanisms and multiple 
funding sources to achieve net zero electricity outcomes and expand 
resilience capabilities with limited appropriations. Second, MCLB 
Albany partnered with local entities to make use of other resources 
normally unavailable to military installations and create business case 
opportunities for net zero electricity achievement. Third, MCLB Albany 
demonstrated that achievement of net zero requires commitment over many 
years to plan, design, and implement multiple projects and initiatives. 
The installation committed to pursuing net zero over 15 years ago, 
including development of a net zero plan in 2011. The net zero vision 
was embraced by commanding officer after commanding officer, providing 
continuity of commitment from leadership levels. MCLB Albany's energy 
team provided the dedication, stability, consistency, and passion 
required to advance net zero.   [See page 19.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MOYLAN
    Ms. Berger. The Navy remains committed to maintaining a robust 
pier-side ship repair capability on Guam, including funding 
infrastructure repairs to Lima, Mike, and November Wharves in Guam to 
support additional maintenance capability. Plans for future projects 
include repairs to Glass Breakwater; Oscar, Papa, and Quebec wharves; 
dredging to support Roll On Roll Off (RORO) operations at Lima wharf, 
additional energy resilience, construction of a new pier on Polaris 
Point to support Virginia Class Block V submarines, and improvement to 
Kilo and Lima wharves. Currently, forward-based submarine tenders EMORY 
S LAND (AS 39) and FRANK CABLE (AS 40) provide repair, supply, weapons 
handing, and tending for submarines homeported and visiting Guam. The 
Navy added 154 Full Time Equivalents in FY24 to support the Pearl 
Harbor Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility-Guam 
Detachment.   [See page 28.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. VASQUEZ
    Ms. Jacobson. There is currently an ongoing FY20 ERCIP project for 
Installing a Microgrid, Solar Array and Battery Storage under 
construction. The groundbreaking ceremony was held 27 January 2023 and 
the project is expected to be complete and operational within 24 
months.
    Additionally, all installations are currently developing their 
five-year plans for future ERCIP projects, which we expect will include 
additional projects for White Sands Missile Range.   [See page 28.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. DAVIS
    Ms. Berger. The Department of the Navy (DON) continues to monitor 
and adapt to emerging regulatory requirements and evolving scientific 
understandings of PFAS while working closely with regulators and the 
community. Our response actions and schedules are developed in 
consultation with--and approval by--regulatory agencies, and with 
public input. The DON took early actions to ensure that Navy and Marine 
Corps installations and facilities have drinking water without 
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 
above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s then health 
advisory levels of 70 part per trillion and proactively identified 
locations where PFAS may have migrated to off-installation drinking 
water sources. Near MCB Camp Lejeune, the DON has sampled 12 private 
drinking water wells downgradient from the installation for PFAS, and 
all sampling results were below 70 parts per trillion for PFOS and/or 
PFOA. The DON supports EPA's recent actions to propose a regulatory 
drinking water standard for PFAS that, once finalized, will apply to 
all drinking water suppliers, including DON. The DON will continue to 
amend sampling and testing of PFAS as appropriate, in the event 
additional drinking water regulations (such as EPA's proposed rule) are 
promulgated. On base, the DON's deliberate response at MCB Camp Lejeune 
has been to complete the Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection for 
all areas of interest on the installation in accordance with 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. 
The Preliminary Assessment was completed in December 2019 and the Site 
Inspection was completed in January 2022. Both documents can be found 
on-line at https://administrative-records.navfac.navy.
mil/?PK7PTGQ656246GPKLO. The Site Inspection evaluated 59 areas of 
interest (AOIs) and recommended that 51 of the AOIs should advance to 
the next step, which is Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. One 
AOI is being further evaluated. All RI/FSs for MCB Camp Lejeune were 
originally planned to complete by 2029. However, the DON has identified 
additional new sites as a result of the EPA's lower Regional Screening 
Levels, and this additional work shifts the completion date to 2034. 
Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies will be developed and 
completed for individual sites or groupings of sites with the highest 
risk sites generally being addressed first.   [See page 22.]

?

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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                           February 28, 2023

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

      

                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ

    Mr. Waltz. Located in the center of the Indian Ocean, Naval Support 
Facility Diego Garcia serves as a facility for U.S. military aircraft 
and ships transiting from the Philippines to the Middle East and gives 
our strategic bombers and ISR assets the capability to reach CENTOM and 
maritime chokepoints and Chinese installations in the region. The U.K 
owns this installation and leases portions of it to U.S. forces.
    There are ongoing negotiations between the U.K. and Mauritius over 
the return of control the island chain Diego Garcia is located in to 
Mauritius. After the abandonment of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, OSD 
assured that this capability loss could be mitigated by assets 
operating with similar effect from Diego Garcia. oWhat is DOD doing to 
ensure the U.S. military retains access to this critical installation?
    Mr. Owens. The United States recognizes United Kingdom (UK) 
sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and regards 
the sovereignty dispute as a bilateral matter between the UK and 
Mauritius. We support UK-Mauritius engagement to resolve the issue.
    As you note, the joint U.S.-UK military facility on the island of 
Diego Garcia plays a vital role in the security of the United States 
and the Indo-Pacific region. The specific arrangement and agreement 
with the UK involving the facilities on Diego Garcia is grounded in the 
uniquely close and active defense and security partnership between the 
United States and the UK. We are working closely with the UK on this 
issue and are confident that the UK is aware of U.S. priorities and the 
importance of continued access to Diego Garcia. We trust that the UK 
will accurately represent those priorities in its bilateral talks with 
Mauritius on BIOT.
    Mr. Waltz. According to DOD's own reporting, many facilities on 
military installations are in poor or failing condition. With more than 
half a million facilities worldwide and a growing deferred maintenance 
backlog of at least $130 billion for all facilities, this is a 
particularly acute problem with our Shipyards, as highlighted by the 
recent operational impacts at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. In order to 
appropriately posture for global threats, naval fleet maintenance must 
improve. In order to do so, we must have functioning Shipyards. What is 
the current status of the dry docks at Puget? And how will the Shipyard 
Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) get after lagging fleet 
readiness?
    Mr. Owens. Due to the results of a seismic vulnerability 
assessment, I understand the Navy suspended submarine docking earlier 
this year in some of their dry docks at Naval Base Kitsap to ensure 
safe conditions for submarine operations. We support the Navy in their 
efforts to implement mitigations to address these seismic 
vulnerabilities.
    The Navy's Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) is 
focused on enabling increased submarine and carrier maintenance 
throughput by recapitalizing the shipyard infrastructure and equipment 
required to conduct scheduled depot maintenance, as well as 
reconfiguring infrastructure layouts to deliver reductions in 
availability durations. My office continues to work with the Navy to 
ensure infrastructure is appropriately addressed.
    Mr. Waltz. Many military and civilian personnel have been working 
remotely for almost three years because of COVID-19 restrictions. What 
opportunities are available for the military departments and fourth 
estate to reduce installation infrastructure and leased space, 
particularly within the national capital region, when assessing their 
post-pandemic work needs? How do you monitor occupancy rates to ensure 
proper space usage?
    Mr. Owens. The Military Departments have processes in place to 
continuously review and adjust facilities to ensure optimalization of 
available space. For example, Department of the Air Force policies that 
require net-zero growth in facilities square footage are driving space 
use optimization by requiring installation and combatant commanders to 
identify facilities that will be demolished or put into closed status 
to offset any new construction.
    With regard to the National Capitol Region, Washington Headquarters 
Service (WHS) is on a 5-year effort to assist the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, Military Departments and Defense Agency and Field 
Activity realign space within the National Capital Region (NCR). The 
purpose is to analyze Pentagon, Mark Center, and leased space in the 
NCR and identify opportunities for reducing DOD lease facilities, apply 
lessons learned from COVID-19 telework experiences, better optimizing 
underutilized space, eliminate vacant space, and where possible, 
establishing shared hoteling workspaces to better utilize office space. 
As part of this analysis, WHS continues to closely monitor and review 
facility entry data to identify space opportunities taking into account 
organizational health and performance impacts, including any customer-
facing missions.
    Mr. Waltz. According to DOD's own reporting, many facilities on 
military installations are in poor or failing condition. With more than 
half a million facilities worldwide and a growing deferred maintenance 
backlog of at least $130 billion for all facilities, this is a 
particularly acute problem with our Shipyards, as highlighted by the 
recent operational impacts at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. In order to 
appropriately posture for global threats, naval fleet maintenance must 
improve. In order to do so, we must have functioning Shipyards. What is 
the current status of the dry docks at Puget? And how will the Shipyard 
Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) get after lagging fleet 
readiness?
    Ms. Berger. The Navy temporarily suspended submarine docking in Dry 
Docks (DD) 4, 5, and 6 at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate 
Maintenance Facility (PSNS & IMF) and the dry dock at delta pier 
located at Trident Refit Facility (TRF) Bangor due to the results of a 
recent seismic vulnerability study and expert analysis in late January 
2023. On February 15, 2023, the Navy mobilized construction to mitigate 
seismic vulnerabilities at TRF-Bangor and PSNS DD 4 & 5 to restore 
availability for submarine use. There are no immediate plans to 
mitigate at DD6, since the current restrictions in place are 
specifically applicable to submarine use and DD6 can still safely 
support aircraft carrier dockings. The results from the ongoing seismic 
risk study, due to complete in June 2023, may drive the need for 
further mitigations. The estimated completion dates for DD 4 and TRF is 
mid-April, with work at DD 5 to follow. To apply lessons learned at 
Puget Sound, the Navy accelerated a rapid assessment at Pearl Harbor 
Naval Shipyard to identify and evaluate potential seismic 
vulnerabilities.
    The Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) is focused 
on enabling increased submarine and carrier maintenance throughput by 
recapitalizing the shipyard infrastructure and equipment required to 
conduct scheduled depot maintenance, as well as reconfiguring 
infrastructure layouts to deliver reductions in availability durations. 
The Navy completed its first increment of SIOP industrial modeling and 
simulation in 2022, and this modeling indicates that infrastructure 
improvement and reconfiguration will--in addition to improving shipyard 
condition--result in tangible reductions in ship maintenance durations. 
The extent of reductions in maintenance durations are dependent on 
ongoing analyses of alternatives at each shipyard. These modeled 
reductions are dependent upon the ship class being maintained and 
assume investments that provide for the full range of facility 
optimization.
    Mr. Waltz. Many military and civilian personnel have been working 
remotely for almost three years because of COVID-19 restrictions. What 
opportunities are available for the military departments and fourth 
estate to reduce installation infrastructure and leased space, 
particularly within the national capital region, when assessing their 
post-pandemic work needs? How do you monitor occupancy rates to ensure 
proper space usage?
    Ms. Berger. The Department of the Navy continuously assesses the 
utilization of our infrastructure for efficiency and effectiveness. The 
Navy and Marine Corps have reduced facility footprint through the 
facility demolition and by reducing leased facilities where possible 
consistent with mission needs. These efforts support a more distributed 
workforce and enable the Department to better use our existing space 
and make the most of facility investments taking into account 
organizational health and performance impacts, including any customer-
facing missions.
    Specifically in response to a changed, post-pandemic workforce, the 
Navy is conducting pilot at the Washington Navy Yard to undertake 
consolidation efforts at Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) 
Headquarters. This effort is still in progress, and we expect to award 
a contract to physically renovate spaces late this calendar year. 
Information gained from this pilot consolidation project will be used 
to determine the cost and effort required to do this at scale, and 
potential space and cost savings that could be realized by expanding 
this effort.
    Mr. Waltz. According to DOD's own reporting, many facilities on 
military installations are in poor or failing condition. With more than 
half a million facilities worldwide and a growing deferred maintenance 
backlog of at least $130 billion for all facilities, this is a 
particularly acute problem with our Shipyards, as highlighted by the 
recent operational impacts at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. In order to 
appropriately posture for global threats, naval fleet maintenance must 
improve. In order to do so, we must have functioning Shipyards. What is 
the current status of the dry docks at Puget? And how will the Shipyard 
Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) get after lagging fleet 
readiness?
    Ms. Jacobson. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Waltz. Many military and civilian personnel have been working 
remotely for almost three years because of COVID-19 restrictions. What 
opportunities are available for the military departments and fourth 
estate to reduce installation infrastructure and leased space, 
particularly within the national capital region, when assessing their 
post-pandemic work needs? How do you monitor occupancy rates to ensure 
proper space usage?
    Ms. Jacobson. There is currently an ongoing FY20 ERCIP project for 
Installing a Microgrid, Solar Array and Battery Storage under 
construction. The groundbreaking ceremony was held 27 January 2023 and 
the project is expected to be complete and operational within 24 
months. Additionally, all installations are currently developing their 
five-year plans for future ERCIP projects, which we expect will include 
additional projects for White Sands Missile Range.
    Mr. Waltz. According to DOD's own reporting, many facilities on 
military installations are in poor or failing condition. With more than 
half a million facilities worldwide and a growing deferred maintenance 
backlog of at least $130 billion for all facilities, this is a 
particularly acute problem with our Shipyards, as highlighted by the 
recent operational impacts at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. In order to 
appropriately posture for global threats, naval fleet maintenance must 
improve. In order to do so, we must have functioning Shipyards. What is 
the current status of the dry docks at Puget? And how will the Shipyard 
Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) get after lagging fleet 
readiness?
    Mr. Oshiba. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Waltz. Many military and civilian personnel have been working 
remotely for almost three years because of COVID-19 restrictions. What 
opportunities are available for the military departments and fourth 
estate to reduce installation infrastructure and leased space, 
particularly within the national capital region, when assessing their 
post-pandemic work needs? How do you monitor occupancy rates to ensure 
proper space usage?
    Mr. Oshiba. Lease space assignments within the national capital 
region are managed and overseen by the Washington Headquarters Service. 
The Department of the Air Force manages assigned national capital 
region space using Pentagon space standards and conducts space 
utilization surveys to identify footprint reduction or consolidation 
opportunities.
    The Department of the Air Force does not mandate the use of 
telework or remote work authorizations; each organization identifies 
the percentage of personnel authorized and willing to telework or 
remote work in addition to the space-type requirements (administrative, 
SCIF, etc). We continue to review all policies authorizing teleworking 
or alternative work agreements and consider these policies in the 
review of real estate acquisitions and lease requests/renewals to 
ensure all requests are appropriately sized for the mission purpose.
    In the November 2020 DOD Report on Infrastructure Capability, the 
Department of the Air Force reported significant surplus infrastructure 
capacity for all operations and training facility categories assessed, 
and we continue to assess solutions within existing authorities to 
consolidate and reduce our excess infrastructure. Utilization of 
operations and training facility categories is unlikely to be impacted 
by telework and remote work opportunities. Outside the national capital 
region, the Department of the Air Force is working to establish an 
Enterprise Utilization Initiative (ECD FY25) to conduct space 
utilization on an annual basis with accurate space utilization data and 
utilization rates populated and available in official databases. The 
Department of the Air Force will continue to evaluate where telework 
and remote work will help reduce installation infrastructure and leased 
space, consistent with unique mission requirements of each 
organization.
    Mr. Waltz. With respect to the effects of Hurricane Michael at 
Tyndall Air Force Base, what is the current status of rebuilding 
efforts? What are the lessons learned with respect to installation 
resiliency; what procedures should be sustained or improved?
    Mr. Oshiba. The rebuild of Tyndall AFB is progressing well. 89% (33 
of 37) of the projects have been awarded with an additional two 
expected to be awarded in 2023. An additional $252M is required to 
award the final two projects and is included on the FY24 Air Force 
Unfunded Priority List. Construction is nearly complete on the first 
MILCON awarded after the storm, the Child Development Center. We expect 
eight more facilities to finish construction in 2023 and the majority 
to reach completion by the end of 2026.
    One lesson we learned is that newer facilities, built to more 
current building codes survived the storm well. We have applied that to 
the rebuild by implementing new construction standards, specifically: 
the minimum design wind speed is 165 mph, and 170 mph for mission 
critical facilities; all exterior materials (glass, roofing, siding, 
etc) must be manufactured and installed according to building codes for 
the Miami-Dade County hurricane zone; and we established design 
elevations that take into account projected sea level rise scenarios 
through the year 2100. Furthermore, DAF is studying nature based 
coastal resiliency strategies such as shoreline stabilization using 
oyster reefs and dune restoration, and have used digital technology to 
test our designs under adverse conditions.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
    Mr. Scott. Is the MILCON planning process prepared for large-scale 
combat operations against an enemy peer nation? If not, why not and 
what changes should be made to the planning process?
    Mr. Owens. Yes, the planning process for construction is grounded 
in the identification of mission requirements and capabilities and 
developing construction related and non-construction alternatives that 
can meet those needs. When construction is deemed the appropriate 
solution, skilled facility planners will need to have access agreements 
with friendly nations and site information to develop project scopes. 
Improvements can always be made and OSD will continue to work with 
Military Departments to identify and implement efficiencies.
    Mr. Scott. Do you support or oppose legislation that would raise 
the cap on minor military construction above the temporary cap of $9 
million? If you support raising the cap, what is your recommended 
amount?
    Mr. Owens. The Department would like to see this temporary increase 
made permanent, with the ability to increase the project cost threshold 
worldwide based upon the area construction cost index for each 
location. The Department appreciates Congress's temporary increase in 
the minor military construction threshold as our buying power for 
construction continues to diminish. Currently, the ACF can only be 
applied to a limited set of locations including the United States. This 
application worldwide would normalize the Department's buying power by 
accounting for geographic economic differences.
    Mr. Scott. Do you support or oppose legislation that would make 
permanent the authorization of depot working capital funds for 
unspecified minor military construction projects? As you know, the FY 
23 NDAA temporarily extended this program from September 30, 2023 to 
September 30, 2025.
    Mr. Owens. The Department supports making this legislation 
permanent, which would eliminate the uncertainty associated with a 
temporary authority.
    Mr. Scott. Is legislation required to ensure that the Department of 
Defense meets the target of 80% of its sustainment needs?
    Mr. Owens. The Department does not believe legislation required. 
The Department is looking to modify the process for identifying an 
appropriate level of funding for facilities. Legislation that only 
addresses one aspect of facility investment limits the Department's 
ability to holistically develop a facility investment strategy that 
accounts for all aspects of facility maintenance and repair and could 
stifle innovation in this area.
    Mr. Scott. What should be the recapitalization rate of DOD 
buildings and facilities? How would it compare to private industry 
standards?
    Mr. Owens. The DOD mission and availability of funding drives the 
recapitalization rate for our buildings and facilities. Private 
industry invests in their facilities based on the extent their 
facilities drive business development, workforce retention, and overall 
profit margins.
    Mr. Scott. Have you ever visited JIATF-South Headquarters at NAS 
Key West, Florida? It is a 1950s era headquarters building in need of 
replacement. If not, can you make plans to visit the headquarters soon 
to see it for yourself firsthand? What impact does the fact that it is 
an Army MILCON for a joint command on a naval installation have when it 
comes to funding priorities for Army Milcon? How can this be fixed and 
the Headquarters be made a priority for the nation?
    Mr. Owens. I have not visited JIATF-South Headquarters and will 
plan a visit. This project is an example of key stakeholders that will 
need to be effectively engaged to ensure success. The Army is the 
assigned Service for administrative and logistical support of SOUTHCOM 
and therefore is responsible for funding this project. Like all other 
command proponents for Army projects, SOUTHCOM, as a Combatant Command 
(CCMD), is responsible to ensure the Army is aware of their 
requirements. If the Army does not include CCMD priority projects in 
their submission to OSD, the Department has established processes for 
the CCMD to engage with OSD to appropriately consider their 
requirement. Because this project is on a Navy installation, the Navy 
through Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command will be 
responsible for executing the project in coordination with the 
installation, the Army, and SOUTHCOM.
    Mr. Scott. What impact does DOD's $137 billion deferred maintenance 
backlog have on the ability of the United States to wage large scale 
combat operations against an enemy peer nation?
    Mr. Owens. Due to the size of the Department's facility inventory, 
the deferred maintenance backlog has a minimal effect on our ability 
for combat operations. The Department's focus on mission assurance 
ensures our facility investments include those that would allow us to 
perform our mission. However, the Department also recognizes that there 
may be longer-term challenges without investment in other foundational 
enablers, including quality-of-life facilities, and is committed to 
working with Congress on these investments.
    Mr. Scott. Is the MILCON planning process prepared for large-scale 
combat operations against an enemy peer nation? If not, why not and 
what changes should be made to the planning process?
    Ms. Berger. The Department of the Navy appreciates the continual 
dialog with Congress on the effectiveness and applicability of our 
authorities. The DON has existing authorities for advanced planning for 
Military Construction (MILCON) projects as well as ``planning and 
design'' for MILCON projects. The planning processes for both of these 
areas is sufficient, albeit contingent upon the availability of 
appropriated funding. Once planning and design is complete, the 
execution of MILCON projects requires both specific authorization and 
appropriation. Although emergency reprogramming for urgent, new MILCONs 
is possible, that process may not be sufficient in the event of large-
scale combat operations against a peer. Greater flexibility, such as 
lump sum authority and appropriations with post-execution reporting 
requirements may be needed.
    Mr. Scott. How many Navy-certified drydocks in public and private 
shipyards are there across the United States? How many are needed for 
large scale combat operations against an enemy peer nation?
    Ms. Berger. There are 72 dry docks in public and private shipyards 
in the United States and territories that are certified or certifiable 
by the Naval Sea Systems Command. To understand how many Navy-certified 
dry docks are needed for large-scale combat operations against an enemy 
peer nation, the Navy is leveraging the Naval Contested Logistics 
wargame series with the Naval War College to better understand both the 
repair and the reconstitution of maritime forces and to provide data in 
support of wartime requirements development.
    Mr. Scott. Can the United States Navy win a protracted war without 
a way to fix ships quickly and send them back to the fight? If not, 
what is your office doing to find ways to repair damaged ships faster 
during large scale combat operations against an enemy peer nation?
    Ms. Berger. Ongoing wargames will better refine requirements for 
locations of both fixed and expeditionary repair assets/facilities. The 
Navy has built an Analytic Master Plan that drives wargame subjects and 
other analysis designed to identify what is needed to execute the 
Navy's mission of decisively fighting and winning. Battle Damage Repair 
is one part of a broader set of capabilities needed to fight and win, 
and Naval Contested Logistics efforts look at what is needed to Repair, 
Rearm, Refuel, Resupply, and Revive. All five efforts are needed to 
provide warfighting capability to the Combatant Commanders.
    Mr. Scott. What is the recapitalization rate of U.S. Navy drydocks 
and how does it compare to private industry? What is the 
recapitalization rate of U.S. Navy buildings and facilities?
    Ms. Berger. The service life of Navy dry docks is expected to be 
150 years, however, due to mission changes, inadequate sustainment, and 
other factors, restoration and modernization work can be required prior 
to the end of a dry dock's service life. For example, the Navy recently 
awarded a task order to replace Dry Dock 3 at Pearl Harbor Naval 
Shipyard due to changed mission. This dock was constructed in 1942 and 
is currently 81 years old. The Navy does not have the necessary 
historical data to calculate an actual recapitalization rate of Navy 
dry docks, but it is expected to be more frequent than 150 years. The 
Navy also does not have actual dry dock recapitalization rates for 
private industry to make comparisons.
    For Navy buildings and other facilities, each type of facility has 
a unique service life when recapitalization would be required to extend 
its service life. This assumes no change in mission and no restoration 
work is required over the service life. Across facility types, the Navy 
uses a 67-year average recapitalization rate, but restoration, 
modernization or replacement is typically required earlier than a 
facility's expected service life due to changing mission and/or 
restoration due to premature failure or inadequate.
    Mr. Scott. It has been widely reported that the Air Force is 
shutting down 10 on-base hotels because of financial problems and I 
have heard that the Navy's hotels aren't in much better financial 
shape. The Army has partnered with a private hotel company to run its 
hotels and they are doing well financially. Are you considering a 
similar partnership?
    Ms. Berger. The Navy's lodging program is financially strong. 
Thanks to several business reforms, consolidations and other process 
improvements over the past several years, the Navy has an aggressive 
recapitalization program to use non-appropriated funding to not only 
build new--but also to renovate--our inventory. We remain committed to 
continuously assessing all pathways to improve our lodging program--
including privatization, third-party management and franchising, and 
all other reforms and approaches--to best support our Sailors, Marines, 
Civilians and their families.
    Mr. Scott. Is the MILCON planning process prepared for large-scale 
combat operations against a enemy peer nation? If not, why not and what 
changes should be made to the planning process?
    Ms. Jacobson. Yes, our current construction planning process is 
driven by the need to improve our facilities to be prepared for large-
scale combat operations and the imperative to improve or maintain our 
readiness. The Army planning process for construction is grounded in 
the identification of mission capability requirements and developing 
construction and non-construction alternatives that can meet those 
needs. Combatant Commands have detailed operational plans that identify 
facility requirements and potential gaps where facilities are deemed 
inadequate to the task. OSD hosts quarterly updates with each combatant 
command to review planned and programmed infrastructure requirements 
that supports operations. An example of this process is the planning 
for facilities build-out on Guam. This planning includes coordination 
and collaboration among Navy, Missile Defense Agency, and Army to 
determine lead agencies for construction requirements to support the 
mission.
    Mr. Scott. What is the recapitalization rate of active duty Army 
buildings and facilities? What is the recapitalization rate of Army 
Reserve buildings and facilities? What is the recapitalization rate of 
Army National Guard buildings and facilities?
    Ms. Jacobson. Recapitalization rate can be expressed by number of 
years to replace existing inventory, which is calculated as current 
replacement value (Plant Replacement Value) divided by annual 
facilities investment. Army facilities Investment includes a portion of 
multiple appropriations including AFH; MILCON (MCA, MCNG, MCAR); O&M 
(OMA, OMNG, OMAR) and SRM (100% Restoration and Modernization and 20% 
of Sustainment).\1\ The recapitalization rate for the Army's asset 
inventory are provided by COMPO below using the investment in the FY24 
President's Budget Request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For Kwajalein SRM expenditures are funded as RDTE.
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Mr. Scott. Have you ever visited JIATF-South Headquarters at 
NAS Key West, Florida? It is a 1950s era headquarters building in need 
of replacement. If not, can you make plans to visit the headquarters 
soon to see it for yourself firsthand? What impact does the fact that 
it is an Army MILCON for a joint command on a naval installation have 
when it comes to funding priorities for Army Milcon? How can this be 
fixed and the Headquarters be made a priority for the nation?
    Ms. Jacobson. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit the 
JIATF-South Headquarters, but I understand the need to recapitalize 
this facility for improved efficiency and resiliency supporting the 
JIATF-South mission. The fact that the facility is sited on a Naval 
Base has no impact on its prioritization within the Army program, as 
the Army routinely constructs projects on Air Force and Navy 
installations as dictated by mission needs. I would also like to thank 
you for the $8M for planning and design funds used to design the 
facility. The MILCON project, with a current cost of $378M, will 
compete with other high priority projects supporting Soldier quality of 
life, readiness and modernization for scarce MILCON funding. The Army 
will work with the Navy to complete the project design and will 
consider it for funding in future programming and budgeting cycles.
    Mr. Scott. Is the MILCON planning process prepared for large-scale 
combat operations against an enemy peer nation? If not, why not and 
what changes should be made to the planning process?
    Mr. Oshiba. Yes, the MILCON planning process is prepared for large-
scale combat operations against near peer and acute threats. The DAF 
MILCON planning process evaluates operational needs and ensures MILCON 
projects support the National Defense Strategy objectives. Our 
corporate structure includes prioritization of Combatant Command (CCMD) 
requirements through the annual Global Posture Executive Council 
(GPEC). Approximately one third of our annual MILCON budget supports 
CCMD priorities. This includes the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) 
focused on pre-positioning of material and equipment (runway repair, 
munitions, deployable air base systems) and the Pacific Deterrence 
Initiative (PDI) focused on Agile Combat Employment (ACE) concepts to 
support the distributed hub and spoke model. These projects, along with 
projects supporting new weapon systems, improve the DAF strategic 
posture and ensure we are prepared to provide the necessary combat 
capabilities in any future conflict.Mr. Scott. Is the United States Air 
Force still committed to a Three Depot Strategy?
    Mr. Oshiba. Yes, The Air Force is committed to three viable depots. 
The depot workforce is appropriately sized and maintains the requisite 
technical competencies to support our weapon systems. The Air Force 
depots provide support for the warfighter but also provide needed 
competition in the sustainment of our weapons systems.
    Additionally, the Air Force has developed a 5-yr funded depot 
improvement plan and identified key investments for FY24-28. The plan 
includes investments in facilities/infrastructure through the Military 
Construction (MILCON), and Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and 
Modernization (FSRM) programs, equipment through the Capital Investment 
Program (CIP), and Digital Depot (IT) program.
    Mr. Scott. What is the recapitalization rate of active duty Air 
Force buildings and facilities? What is the recapitalization rate of 
Air Force Reserve buildings and facilities? What is the 
recapitalization rate of Air National Guard buildings and facilities?
    Mr. Oshiba. Based on current funding projections and the size of 
our physical plant, the DAF recapitalization rate for active duty, Air 
Force Reserve and Air National Guard facilities is approximately 123 
years. This is significantly longer than the typical design life of a 
facility. The DAF uses Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and 
Modernization funds to maximize and extend the useful life of 
facilities as much as possible. However, we currently carry a $28 
billion backlog of deferred maintenance and repair requirements.
    QMr. Scott. It has been widely reported that the Air Force is 
shutting down 10 on-base hotels because of financial problems and I 
have heard that the Navy's hotels aren't in much better financial 
shape. The Army has partnered with a private hotel company to run its 
hotels and they are doing well financially. Are you considering a 
similar partnership?
    Mr. Oshiba. The Department of the Air Force is considering various 
options to sustain the long-term viability of the lodging portfolio. We 
have met with the Army's Privatized Lodging office to better understand 
their operating model and will continue to explore this and other 
options to sustain and improve our lodging portfolio to meet mission 
requirements. The closures mentioned were not related to financial 
performance. The DAF has spent the last year right sizing the lodging 
room inventory based on demand, these closures were based on low 
occupancy rates, and underutilization.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHERRILL
    Ms. Sherrill. Last May, Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany became 
the first DOD installation to achieve net zero electricity status, with 
the base producing 100% of the energy they use. MCLB Albany was able to 
achieve their net zero climate and energy resilience goals through 
incorporating innovative energy technologies, such as a biomass steam 
turbine, landfill gas generators and advanced microgrid controls into 
their installation. Other carbon pollution-free resources include wind 
and solar power alternatives, including new systems such as GAF 
Energy's integrated solar roofs that directly integrates solar 
technology into roof shingles.
    Secretary Berger, congratulations on the success of MCLB Albany on 
reaching net zero status. Can you elaborate on some of the challenges 
that MCLB Albany faced in achieving net zero as well as lessons 
learned, recommendations, and take-aways from that process so that the 
other services can avoid those pitfalls as they work towards net zero 
installations?
    Secretary Owens, Secretary Jacobson, Secretary Berger, and Mr. 
Oshiba, can you each highlight what your organization is doing to 
ensure your services' installations are on track to meet the 
administration's 2021 federal mandate of 100% carbon pollution-free 
electricity by 2030 and a 65% emissions reduction from federal 
operations by 2030? What resources do you need to achieve the federal 
mandate, and what are you currently lacking?
    Mr. Owens. As will be elaborated more fully in the DOD Greenhouse 
Gas (GHG) reduction plan required by Section 323 of the FY22 National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Department takes a broad-based 
approach to reducing GHG. This approach recognizes that we must meet 
emissions reductions goals in a manner that enhances or preserves 
operational effectiveness and ensures installation energy resilience. 
The pathways that we are taking to reduces GHG emissions can be placed 
into two broad categories: reducing demand and substituting clean 
energy and materials.
    These approaches apply to GHG emissions reductions both for 
operational and installation energy. For our installations, reducing 
energy demand is critical to enhancing resilience and reducing 
emissions. Planned efforts related to demand reduction include 
improving data availability, reducing gross facility footprint and 
introducing efficiency upgrades. Scaling the Department's use of clean 
energy includes transitioning to a zero emissions non-tactical vehicle 
(NTV) fleet and achieving net-zero emissions installations.
    Consistent with EO 14057, the Department intends to transition its 
electricity use to 100% CFE on an annual basis by 2030. The Department 
has begun evaluating how to revise its purchasing methods, with initial 
solicitations in progress in Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina. 
The Department anticipates close coordination with other government 
agencies, especially GSA and DOE, to achieve a ``whole-of-government'' 
approach to leverage the purchasing power of the U.S. Government. The 
Department is also pursuing on-site clean energy generation 
technologies including advanced nuclear power and next-generation 
geothermal. Other actions include expanding consultations with CFE 
suppliers and creating a center of excellence at Defense Logistics 
Agency-Energy Office.
    For GHG emissions related to Operational Energy, the Department is 
reducing demand by increasing platform efficiency, exploring new 
operating concepts; and fielding new, more capable equipment. In 
addition, we are substituting current fuels with sustainable liquid 
fuels, preferably produced in a distributed manner, and pursuing 
alternative power generation technologies.
    The Department is also exploring ways in which construction 
techniques and materials can sequester carbon. For example, the 
Department was an early adopter of cross-laminated timber (CLT) 
construction techniques that have lower embodied GHG emissions. DOD is 
also seeking to expand this approach to include steel, concrete, and 
other advanced materials.
    Regarding the need for resources to achieve federal mandates, the 
Department appreciates the support it has received from Congress to 
meet resilience and sustainability requirements and so doing strengthen 
our lethality, resilience, and efficiency posture. Presently, the 
Department's GHG reduction plan, as well as specific strategies for 
CFE, efficient buildings and ZEV, are being integrated into our 
installation and energy master-planning processes to create holistic 
solution pathways. This iterative process will inform any additional 
resource requirements that may need to be addressed through the 
Department's Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) 
process.
    Ms. Sherrill. Secretary Owens, DOD's Climate Adaption Plan 2022 
Progress Report released last October highlights how the Department is 
incorporating climate and energy resilience requirements into key 
strategy and planning documents. What is the current status of DOD's 
comprehensive installation assessments? How does the DOD plan to 
prioritize installation improvements to increase energy redundancy and 
strengthen energy resiliency? Can you elaborate on the current status 
of the DOD Climate Assessment Tool (DCAT)? How successful has DCAT been 
in helping the DOD prioritize installation vulnerability to climate 
related hazards and making changes to reduce those vulnerabilities?
    Mr. Owens. The Department is developing a policy for integrated 
installation resilience against current and future extreme weather, 
climate change, facility-related control systems (FRCS) cyber threats, 
and other human-induced hazards. This policy will guide integrated 
planning and is expected to be released in Calendar Year (CY) 2023.
    The DOD Climate Assessment Tool (DCAT) currently contains Extreme 
Weather and Climate Change Hazard Reports for 1932 locations in the 
Continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and 336 locations internationally. By 
the end of April 2023, all major installations will be included plus an 
additional 71 international locations. Analogues of DCAT have been 
produced for six partner nations: Australia, Germany, Italy, Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom.
    DCAT output has been incorporated in a variety of resilience 
investment programs. This includes the Readiness Environmental 
Protection Integration Program (REPI), the Defense Health Agency 
capital investment program, and the All-Hazards Threat Assessments 
(AHTA). DCAT output is also included in climate wargaming.
    The Department prioritizes energy resilience investments for 
critical installation missions, according to our list of Mission 
Assurance Priority Installations, and for critical missions at other 
installations based on the Services' priorities, as reflected in our 
annual guidance for ERCIP. ERCIP guidance includes the use of DCAT in 
identifying climate exposure and appropriate adaptation for energy 
resilience investments.
    Ms. Sherrill. Alternative fuels can be more cost effective, 
reliable, and cleaner than fossil fuels. As we have seen over the past 
year, U.S. dependence on foreign nations for oil can create issues of 
both cost and availability. It also significantly increases the amount 
of carbon released into the atmosphere. Private companies, such as 
Maersk, which has its U.S. headquarters in my district, have been 
working to advance technology utilizing these fuels, such as biofuels 
and e-fuels.
    The Army Climate Strategy addresses the importance of more 
effective power solutions that reduce GHG emissions. In both the FY23 
Omnibus and NDAA, funds were allocated to the Department of Defense to 
invest in these types of fuels.
    I'd like to hear from each witness about any unique challenges in 
the integration of these alternative fuels into operations and whether 
there are places where its integration is not feasible.
    Mr. Owens. The Department is making investments to ensure we can 
use drop-in compatible Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and naval marine 
fuels in our platforms and infrastructure. Beginning in FY22, the 
Department initiated the certification and testing of additional 
alternative fuels already approved in the commercial market, as well as 
additional pathways in the approval pipeline, to ensure DOD is ready to 
use alternative fuels available on the global market. DOD testing will 
ensure that these alternative fuels are compatible with DOD equipment 
and infrastructure, and builds on previous DOD approvals of four 
alternative fuels for use in tactical platforms.
    Similar to the private sector, the primary challenge to the 
adoption of drop-in compatible alternative fuels is cost and limited 
availability. In operational terms, the production of alternative fuels 
closer to the point of use could reduce the risks facing the storage 
and distribution of liquid fuels in a contested logistics environment. 
To this end, the Department is supporting a pilot demonstration to 
better understand the technological and operational implications of on-
site refining of alternative fuels.
    Ms. Sherrill. Secretary Owens, the GAO recently released a report 
earlier this month on Military Child Care and DOD efforts to provide 
affordable quality care for families. The report detailed steps the DOD 
is taking to address child development center staffing shortages and 
long wait times for new enrollees due to limited child care spaces. 
What is the DOD planning to do or currently doing to address these 
issues to improve sustainability and access to affordable child care 
for service members? What is the projected building timeline for the 
seven new CDCs that were included in FY2022 appropriations? Given that 
the GAO report highlights how this issue is particularly impactful for 
junior service members, are there any efforts planned or currently 
underway to alleviate those issues?
    Mr. Owens. The Department recognizes the importance of providing 
military families and civilians with access to quality, affordable 
Child Development Programs (CDP), and is committed to addressing the 
increased demand and challenges to sufficiently meet the needs for 
quality and affordable childcare. On September 22, 2022, SECDEF 
released the Taking Care of Our Service Members and Families memorandum 
highlighting efforts to meet the childcare need. The expansion of 
Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood PLUS (MCCYN-PLUS) provides 
increased opportunities for childcare fee assistance in Arkansas, 
Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, 
Washington, and Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Department also 
expanded the Child Care in Your Home pilot to a total of 11 locations: 
the National Capital Region; Norfolk, Virginia; San Diego, California; 
Hawaii; San Antonio, Texas; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Seattle/Tacoma, 
Washington; Jacksonville and Fort Walton Beach, Florida; Fayetteville, 
North Carolina; and Las Vegas, Nevada. Finally, to assist with military 
child development program (CDP) staff recruitment and retention, the 
Department standardized a minimum 50 percent employee discount for the 
first child of CDP direct-care workers to improve staff recruitment and 
retention. The Department continues to develop additional strategies to 
increase access to quality, affordable childcare in coordination with 
the Military Services. The CDC projects funded in FY 2022 are in 
various stages of execution. The Army projects are progressing through 
design and the Air Force projects are in acquisition.
    Ms. Sherrill. Last May, Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany became 
the first DOD installation to achieve net zero electricity status, with 
the base producing 100% of the energy they use. MCLB Albany was able to 
achieve their net zero climate and energy resilience goals through 
incorporating innovative energy technologies, such as a biomass steam 
turbine, landfill gas generators and advanced microgrid controls into 
their installation. Other carbon pollution-free resources include wind 
and solar power alternatives, including new systems such as GAF 
Energy's integrated solar roofs that directly integrates solar 
technology into roof shingles.
    Secretary Berger, congratulations on the success of MCLB Albany on 
reaching net zero status. Can you elaborate on some of the challenges 
that MCLB Albany faced in achieving net zero as well as lessons 
learned, recommendations, and take-aways from that process so that the 
other services can avoid those pitfalls as they work towards net zero 
installations?
    Ms. Berger. Each installation has unique opportunities and 
challenges regarding its energy and water needs, and DON is developing 
a guidebook for installation commanding officers to understand the 
tools, authorities, and resources available to them. MCLB Albany's 
success can be attributed to innovative and diverse financing 
mechanisms, partnerships, and long-term commitment.
    First, MCLB successfully leveraged energy financing mechanisms and 
multiple funding sources to achieve net zero electricity outcomes and 
expand resilience capabilities with limited appropriations. The 
Department of the Navy awarded three Energy Savings Performance 
Contracts at MCLB Albany--between 2003 and 2009 to Chevron, and in 2016 
to Constellation New Energy (CNE). Each initiative built additional 
capability to reduce energy demand and increase generation capability: 
lighting upgrades, HVAC controls, efficient transformers, landfill gas 
cogeneration, smart grid controls, and a steam turbine that uses waste 
steam from the neighboring 50-megawatt industrial biomass steam plant. 
MCLB also has an Enhanced Use Lease agreement with Georgia Power 
Company for 150 acres and 44 megawatts direct current/31 megawatts 
alternating current, of on-site solar power generation, which is 
delivered directly to the utility grid while MCLB Albany gained a new 
12-megawatt substation and express feeder. Finally, MCLB Albany 
leveraged the Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program to 
construct a landfill gas generator and geothermal heat pumps and 
identified and tracked multiple funding opportunities to implement 
energy projects, including four borehole thermal energy storage systems 
and base-wide HVAC upgrades.
    Second, MCLB Albany partnered with local entities to make use of 
other resources normally unavailable to military installations and 
create business case opportunities for net zero electricity 
achievement. MCLB Albany partnered with Proctor & Gamble (P&G), Albany 
Green Energy (AGE), GPC, and CNE to structure a deal around a biomass 
steam generator and steam turbine generator. The installation also 
partnered with Chevron and Dougherty County to construct the landfill 
gas generator. Dougherty County owns and operates the landfill gas 
source, and MCLB Albany funded and constructed the landfill gas 
generators and partnered with Chevron to construct the gas piping. The 
installation then partnered with Dougherty County to connect the piping 
to the landfill gas source. Once complete, all three parties conducted 
joint commissioning of the system before placing it into operation.
    Third, MCLB Albany demonstrated that achievement of net zero 
requires commitment over many years to plan, design, and implement 
multiple projects and initiatives. The installation committed to 
pursuing net zero over 15 years ago, including development of a net 
zero plan in 2011. The net zero vision was embraced by commanding 
officer after commanding officer, providing continuity of commitment 
from leadership levels. MCLB Albany's energy team provided the 
dedication, stability, consistency, and passion required to advance net 
zero. Advanced clean energy technologies play an important role in both 
the approach to net zero for installations but also--such as in the 
case of advanced nuclear technology--can also provide clean and 
resilient energy in light of current and emerging threats.
    Ms. Sherrill. Secretary Owens, Secretary Jacobson, Secretary 
Berger, and Mr. Oshiba, can you each highlight what your organization 
is doing to ensure your services' installations are on track to meet 
the administration's 2021 federal mandate of 100% carbon pollution-free 
electricity by 2030 and a 65% emissions reduction from federal 
operations by 2030? What resources do you need to achieve the federal 
mandate, and what are you currently lacking?
    Ms. Berger. The DON takes a broad-based approach to reducing 
Greenhouse Gas (GHG), which recognizes that we must meet emissions 
reductions goals in a manner that preserves operational effectiveness 
and ensures installation energy resilience. Specifically, the DON is 
focused on GHG emissions reductions both for operational and 
installation energy. For our installations, reducing overall energy 
demand and increasing efficiencies is critical to enhancing resilience 
and reducing emissions. To reduce demand, the DON is working across 
multiple fronts, to include: improving data availability to better 
target opportunities for improvement, reducing gross facility 
footprint, introducing efficiency upgrades to existing mechanical and 
electrical systems, partnering with utility providers, electrifying 
building systems, and increasing sustainable and low-carbon design 
elements in all new construction projects and planned renovation work. 
Scaling the Department's use of clean energy includes transitioning to 
a zero emissions non-tactical vehicle (NTV) fleet and achieving net-
zero emissions installations.
    For GHG emissions related to Operational Energy, the Department is 
reducing demand by increasing platform efficiency, exploring new 
operating concepts, and fielding new, more capable equipment. In 
addition, we are substituting current fuels with sustainable liquid 
fuels, preferably produced in a distributed manner, and pursuing 
alternative power generation technologies to address contested 
logistics.
    The DON is leveraging Third Party Financing and DOD ERCIP funding 
to deploy, microgrids, onsite renewable generation, and long duration 
battery storage. Further, the DON is deploying these capabilities in 
conjunction with Interagency, state and local community partnership to 
enable mutually beneficial GHG reductions and increased energy and 
water resilience. Examples include ongoing partnerships in California, 
Hawaii, Virginia, and Georgia.
    The Department appreciates the support it has received from 
congress in leveraging 10 U.S.C 2912, 10 U.S.C 2913, 10 U.S.C. 2916, 
Third Party Financing and ERCIP funding that are enabling investments 
in resilience and sustainability. The DON Chief Sustainability Officer 
is engaged in the Planning Programing Budgeting and Execution process 
through POM guidance and policies that strengthen lethality, 
resilience, and efficiency posture.
    Ms. Sherrill. Alternative fuels can be more cost effective, 
reliable, and cleaner than fossil fuels. As we have seen over the past 
year, U.S. dependence on foreign nations for oil can create issues of 
both cost and availability. It also significantly increases the amount 
of carbon released into the atmosphere. Private companies, such as 
Maersk, which has its U.S. headquarters in my district, have been 
working to advance technology utilizing these fuels, such as biofuels 
and e-fuels.
    The Army Climate Strategy addresses the importance of more 
effective power solutions that reduce GHG emissions. In both the FY23 
Omnibus and NDAA, funds were allocated to the Department of Defense to 
invest in these types of fuels.
    I'd like to hear from each witness about any unique challenges in 
the integration of these alternative fuels into operations and whether 
there are places where its integration is not feasible.
    Ms. Berger. Similar to the private sector, the primary challenge to 
the adoption of drop-in compatible alternative fuels is high cost and 
limited availability. In operational terms, the production of 
alternative fuels closer to the point of use could reduce the risks 
facing the storage and distribution of liquid fuels in a contested 
logistics environment. To this end, the Department of Defense (DOD) is 
supporting a pilot demonstration to better understand the technological 
and operational implications of on-site refining of alternative fuels. 
The DOD is making investments to ensure we can use drop-in compatible 
Sustainable Aviation Fuel and naval marine fuels in our platforms and 
infrastructure. Beginning in FY22, the Department initiated the 
certification and testing of additional alternative fuels already 
approved in the commercial market, as well as additional pathways in 
the approval pipeline, to ensure DOD is ready to use alternative fuels 
on the global market. Testing will ensure that these alternative fuels 
are compatible with equipment and infrastructure.
    Ms. Sherrill. Last February, the Army released its Climate Strategy 
with concrete goals and objectives that will allow the Army to become 
more energy resilient and increase energy redundancy while faced with 
extreme weather challenges impacting readiness, increasing the overall 
effectiveness of the force. And last October, the Army released its 
Climate Strategy Implementation Plan detailing their plan to respond to 
threats, increasing installation sustainability and readiness.
    Secretary Berger, the Navy recently released its Climate Action 
2030 plan in May of last year. Could you expand on the progress made 
during the 90 day implementation planning process guide, the status of 
the Executive Steering Committee stand-up, and any critical initiatives 
your stakeholders identified during the planning process?
    Ms. Berger. During the 90-day implementation planning process, the 
Department of the Navy conducted several Executive Steering Committee 
meetings and working groups with dozens of subject matter experts to 
identify detailed initiatives to further the goals established in 
Climate Action 2030. I am releasing those initiatives in a series of 
memorandums through my role as the DON's Chief Sustainability Officer 
(CSO). To date, the DON published CSO Serial 1 on Infrastructure (3 
January 2023), CSO Serial 2 on Water Security (21 March 2023), and 
Nature-Based Solutions (28 April 2023). Our next one will cover 
Acquisition. Follow-on CSO memorandums will guide the DON's actions 
forward.
    Earlier this year, the Marine Corps published Installation and 
Logistics 2030, which looks at sustaining the Force in the 21st century 
while recognizing that the operating environment is contested across 
all domains and at global scale every day. For the Navy, Global 
Strategy Ashore seeks to enable and improve Fleet readiness, transform 
logistics to better sustain the Fleet, and to sustain the momentum for 
evolving wartime support across the sustainment kill-chain. Both the 
Navy and the Marine Corps are making installations ready for the 
contested environment with a focus on energy, utility, and climate 
resiliency, and the ability to recover rapidly after an attack.
    Ms. Sherrill. Last year I had the opportunity to visit and tour 
Picatinny Arsenal, where I was able to see both our new state-of-the-
art EOD facilities and as well as the much older and worn down software 
center, which still houses a highly talented workforce that are winning 
awards while rain leaks in their building. The Pentagon has expressed 
concern regarding growing deficiencies in critical laboratory 
infrastructure across the department. Heidi Shyu, undersecretary of 
defense for research and engineering, said during a May 12, 2022 
congressional hearing before our CITI subcommittee that her top 
priority is upgrading the department's labs. Secretary Jacobson, what 
progress and updates can you provide on how the DOD is prioritizing 
which labs to upgrade and when can Picatinny Arsenal's labs and 
engineering facilities be expected to be upgraded?
    Ms. Jacobson. The Army recognizes the importance of its laboratory 
and test facility infrastructure. These facilities are critical for the 
efficient and effective development of new combat systems to provide 
Soldiers with materiel for a decisive advantage in conflict.
    The Army also recognizes that many of its RDT&E activities reside 
in aged, failing and marginally functional facilities. The Army 
prioritizes lab and test facility projects in consideration of all Army 
facility requirements as constrained by available funding.
    The Army's FY24 Budget Request features a Ground Transport 
Equipment Building at Detroit Arsenal for $72 million to assess the 
durability and reliability of current and future tactical vehicle 
fleets. Additionally, the Army's FY 24-28 Future Years Defense Program 
includes an Ammunition, Explosives and Toxics Research Building at 
Picatinny Arsenal for $77 million, programmed for FY 27. Within the 
unspecified minor military construction program, an Ammunition Storage 
Igloo is currently under construction at Picatinny Arsenal for $5.3 
million.
    Ms. Sherrill. Last May, Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany became 
the first DOD installation to achieve net zero electricity status, with 
the base producing 100% of the energy they use. MCLB Albany was able to 
achieve their net zero climate and energy resilience goals through 
incorporating innovative energy technologies, such as a biomass steam 
turbine, landfill gas generators and advanced microgrid controls into 
their installation. Other carbon pollution-free resources include wind 
and solar power alternatives, including new systems such as GAF 
Energy's integrated solar roofs that directly integrates solar 
technology into roof shingles.
    Secretary Berger, congratulations on the success of MCLB Albany on 
reaching net zero status. Can you elaborate on some of the challenges 
that MCLB Albany faced in achieving net zero as well as lessons 
learned, recommendations, and take-aways from that process so that the 
other services can avoid those pitfalls as they work towards net zero 
installations?
    Secretary Owens, Secretary Jacobson, Secretary Berger, and Mr. 
Oshiba, can you each highlight what your organization is doing to 
ensure your services' installations are on track to meet the 
administration's 2021 federal mandate of 100% carbon pollution-free 
electricity by 2030 and a 65% emissions reduction from federal 
operations by 2030? What resources do you need to achieve the federal 
mandate, and what are you currently lacking?
    Ms. Jacobson. The Army Climate Strategy (ACS) and Implementation 
Plan (ACS-IP) synchronize climate-related efforts across the force to 
increase capability; enhance installation resilience; prepare for new 
threats and operating environments; and modernize processes, standards, 
and infrastructure while cutting operational energy demand and 
greenhouse gas emissions. The ACS outlined Army goals consistent with 
EO 14057 requirements for carbon-free electricity (CFE) and greenhouse 
gas (GHG) emissions reduction, and the ACS-IP sets interim targets to 
ensure the Army is making quick progress on these goals.
    In FY22, the Army estimated that almost 45% of its installations' 
electricity came from CFE sources: 4.1% from onsite CFE and 40.6% from 
purchased CFE through their utility commodity providers. Additionally, 
the Army has a robust pipeline of 40+ new CFE projects in FY23-27 that, 
once operational, will add over 130 MW of new CFE generation to our 
existing nearly 750 MW of CFE generation capacity. Many of these 
projects are coupled with battery storage and integrated into 
microgrids to support both the Army's CFE and resilience objectives. 
Through 2022, the Army had reduced GHG emissions by 41.3% from the 2008 
baseline. In addition to driving GHG reductions through energy 
efficiency projects, the Army is working to innovate construction and 
planning efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with building 
construction and operations.
    The Army will continue to leverage all available authorities and 
resources, especially performance contracting and 3rd party financing, 
to meet the federal mandates and Army goals in these areas. The Army is 
committed to accomplishing the objectives of EO 14057 and the Army 
climate strategy to ensure our installation meet the mandates of 100% 
CFE by 2030 and 65% emissions reduction from federal operations by 
2030.
    Ms. Sherrill. Alternative fuels can be more cost effective, 
reliable, and cleaner than fossil fuels. As we have seen over the past 
year, U.S. dependence on foreign nations for oil can create issues of 
both cost and availability. It also significantly increases the amount 
of carbon released into the atmosphere. Private companies, such as 
Maersk, which has its U.S. headquarters in my district, have been 
working to advance technology utilizing these fuels, such as biofuels 
and e-fuels.
    The Army Climate Strategy addresses the importance of more 
effective power solutions that reduce GHG emissions. In both the FY23 
Omnibus and NDAA, funds were allocated to the Department of Defense to 
invest in these types of fuels.
    I'd like to hear from each witness about any unique challenges in 
the integration of these alternative fuels into operations and whether 
there are places where its integration is not feasible.
    Ms. Jacobson. The Army is working with the other Services and the 
Defense Logistics Agency to qualify and certify jet fuel made from 
alternative production pathways as drop-in replacements for use in Army 
equipment. To date, the Army has qualified jet fuel manufactured 
through two alternative pathways when blended with conventional 
petroleum for use in all Army equipment, and certified Army aircraft to 
use alternative jet fuel from two additional pathways. Currently, the 
Army has completed testing fuels from four additional pathways which 
are awaiting final approval for use.
    The greatest challenge to adopting these alternative fuels is their 
higher cost and limited availability. Because these alternative fuels 
are intended to replace traditional petroleum-based jet fuels, 
technical feasibility should not be a challenge. However, integration 
of replacement fuels could be stymied by limited production or higher 
cost. The Department is prohibited legally from paying a premium for 
alternative fuels. Title 10 U.S.C. 2922h prohibits purchase of drop-in 
fuels for operational purposes unless the fully burdened cost of the 
drop-in fuel is cost-competitive with the fully burdened cost of a 
traditional fuel available for the same purpose.
    Ms. Sherrill. Last February, the Army released its Climate Strategy 
with concrete goals and objectives that will allow the Army to become 
more energy resilient and increase energy redundancy while faced with 
extreme weather challenges impacting readiness, increasing the overall 
effectiveness of the force. And last October, the Army released its 
Climate Strategy Implementation Plan detailing their plan to respond to 
threats, increasing installation sustainability and readiness.
    Secretary Jacobson, it's great to see you again. I enjoyed your 
guided tour at the Pentagon Energy Expo last year that showcased 
emerging energy-related capabilities. What updates do you have on the 
current status and execution of the Army's Climate Strategy and the 
Army's Climate Strategy Implementation Plan as well as the progress on 
feasibility studies?
    Ms. Jacobson. The Army has made much progress towards achieving the 
tasks outlined in its Army Climate Strategy (ACS) Implementation Plan 
in line with the goals of (1) achieving 40% reduction in Army net 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 (compared to 2008 levels), (2) 
attaining net-zero Army GHG emissions by 2050, and (3) proactively 
considering the security implications of climate change in strategy, 
planning, acquisition, supply chain, and programming. . The Army is 
making progress as set forth below, based on the lines of effort (LOE) 
in the ACS.
    First, the Army continued to enhance resilience and sustainability 
at its installations (LOE 1: Installations) by:
      Increasing the number of microgrids (28 operational, 9 
under construction, and 26 in design as of May 2023) to ensure 
installations have continued power and can operate their critical 
missions during a climate-induced event.
      Awarding 13 new carbon-free electricity (CFE) projects in 
FY22. Once operational, these projects will generate 53 megawatts of 
new CFE. In FY22, the Army consumed 34.5% of electricity from CFE 
sources (5.2% from onsite CFE and 29.3% from purchased CFE).
      Starting planning actions to identify emissions profile 
and feasible/suitable alternatives for replacing building systems 
emissions. The Army has reduced GHG emissions from the Army real 
property portfolio by at least 38%, from a 2008 baseline.
      Producing guidance on implementation of ASA IE&E Building 
Automation Systems (BAS) Policy and beginning additional coordination 
with Commands to identify gaps in current guidance and where updates 
are needed.
      Converting its non-tactical vehicles (NTV) into electric 
vehicles (EVs) with 2,583 ordered for FY22, although, due to lack of 
supply, only half that number was delivered. For FY23, Army ordered 
2,291 EVs.
      Completing pilot Installation Climate Resilience Plans 
(ICRPs) at Fort Carson, Anniston Army Depot, USAG Alaska (Fort 
Wainwright and Fort Greely) and Fort Bliss. Three additional pilot 
ICRPs are underway (at Fort Cavazos, Fort Stewart, and Fort Liberty). 
The ICRPs provide a path for installations to address the threats of 
climate change holistically in the Real Property Master Plans by 
identifying climate-related risks and steps to address those risks.
    Second, the Army is making strides in tactical vehicle 
electrification and contingency basing energy efficiency (LOE 2: 
Acquisition and Logistics). These programs will provide a battlefield 
advantage to the force, reduce supply chain vulnerability, and decrease 
Soldier risk. Specifically, the Army is taking the following actions:
      Developed anti-idle retrofit kits for Joint Light 
Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs) and Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles 
(FMTVs) to enable silent watch, with procurement planned for 2025.
      Initiated testing of two Bradley Hybrid-Electric Vehicle 
Prototypes at Aberdeen Proving Grounds to assess the operational 
benefits of integrating a hybrid electric drive into a combat platform.
      Awarded a Small Business Innovation Research contract in 
September 2022 through the Army Applications Laboratory to demonstrate 
additional configurations and more ruggedized tactical battlefield 
recharge.
      Initiated the electric Light Reconnaissance vehicle 
(eLRV), a new start program for 2023, which will provide a substantial 
competitive advantage through reduction in acoustic, thermal signature, 
silent mobility, increased dash speed, extended range, and increased 
reliability.
    Third, the Army is preparing the force to be ready to operate in a 
climate altered world (ACS LOE 3: Training) by:
      Continuing to build awareness in future leaders about 
resilience, operational energy, and climate change through a 
partnership with the United States Military Academy at West Point by 
establishing the Sustainable Infrastructure, Resilience, and Climate 
Consortium (SIRCC).
      Issuing task orders by Army Training and Doctrine Command 
(TRADOC) in March 2023 directing the following actions:
          Collect and publish climate and weather-related 
        adaption and mitigation best practices and climate change 
        related lessons learned every two years beginning in FY24.
          Produce a digital handbook of potential individual 
        training modifications that could reduce Army GHG emissions 
        beginning in FY26.
          Incorporate climate literacy in Professional Military 
        Education (PME) and Civilian Education System (CES) programs.
    Ms. Sherrill. Last May, Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany became 
the first DOD installation to achieve net zero electricity status, with 
the base producing 100% of the energy they use. MCLB Albany was able to 
achieve their net zero climate and energy resilience goals through 
incorporating innovative energy technologies, such as a biomass steam 
turbine, landfill gas generators and advanced microgrid controls into 
their installation. Other carbon pollution-free resources include wind 
and solar power alternatives, including new systems such as GAF 
Energy's integrated solar roofs that directly integrates solar 
technology into roof shingles.
    Secretary Berger, congratulations on the success of MCLB Albany on 
reaching net zero status. Can you elaborate on some of the challenges 
that MCLB Albany faced in achieving net zero as well as lessons 
learned, recommendations, and take-aways from that process so that the 
other services can avoid those pitfalls as they work towards net zero 
installations?
    Secretary Owens, Secretary Jacobson, Secretary Berger, and Mr. 
Oshiba, can you each highlight what your organization is doing to 
ensure your services' installations are on track to meet the 
administration's 2021 federal mandate of 100% carbon pollution-free 
electricity by 2030 and a 65% emissions reduction from federal 
operations by 2030? What resources do you need to achieve the federal 
mandate, and what are you currently lacking?
    Mr. Oshiba. The department's current budget submission includes 
sufficient resources to achieve the Administration's mandates and 
timelines.
    DAF is seeking novel approaches and technology to deliver carbon 
pollution-free electricity (CFE) to installations, supporting 
infrastructure, and vehicle fleets, and provide continuous and reliable 
power to maintain mission continuity. There are several CFE projects 
underway through a variety of execution vehicles--power purchase 
agreement (PPA), Enhanced Use Lease, Utility Energy Service Contract, 
and Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program. Examples 
include:
      Partnering with the Defense Logistics Agency Energy to 
execute a PPA with a third-party developer, who will license, own, and 
operate a micro-reactor, to deliver electricity on Eielson AFB property 
in exchange for DAF's long-term purchase of the energy it generates.
      Working with the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) to 
leverage geothermal technological innovation from industry to meet 
installation electricity needs at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho and Joint 
Base San Antonio, Texas. The prototype will utilize onsite, behind-the-
meter, geothermal technology that can produce resilient electricity on 
a 24/7 basis to meet critical loads by relying on underground heat 
resources without directly relying on above ground water resources or 
impacting underground drinking water resources.
      Supporting several CFE pilot projects to inform future 
decisions about the procurement of CFE for domestic installations. This 
includes working with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 
(deregulated market) and South Carolina Duke Energy Territory 
(regulated market) on pilot efforts. An additional CFE pilot is 
currently in early planning stages for Colorado.
    Ms. Sherrill. Alternative fuels can be more cost effective, 
reliable, and cleaner than fossil fuels. As we have seen over the past 
year, U.S. dependence on foreign nations for oil can create issues of 
both cost and availability. It also significantly increases the amount 
of carbon released into the atmosphere. Private companies, such as 
Maersk, which has its U.S. headquarters in my district, have been 
working to advance technology utilizing these fuels, such as biofuels 
and e-fuels.
    The Army Climate Strategy addresses the importance of more 
effective power solutions that reduce GHG emissions. In both the FY23 
Omnibus and NDAA, funds were allocated to the Department of Defense to 
invest in these types of fuels.
    I'd like to hear from each witness about any unique challenges in 
the integration of these alternative fuels into operations and whether 
there are places where its integration is not feasible.
    Mr. Oshiba. The Department of the Air Force (DAF) has a goal to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is collaborating with industry to 
lead innovative pilots, delivering combat power to the warfighter with 
less fuel.
    The increased demand for zero-carbon-based energy sources can be 
seen across the commercial market, including zero-emission vehicles 
(ZEVs). To keep pace with this transition, DAF is building and 
communicating requirements to streamline acquisition pathways in order 
to meet ZEV acquisition goals of 45% in 2025; 77% in 2030; and 100% in 
2035 and beyond. Due to current supply chain challenges, DAF has a 
near-term focus on General Services Administration (GSA) leased ZEVs 
while preparing ``Make-Ready'' infrastructure for future incoming 
vehicles. DAF is developing a streamlined process to identify 
concentrations of ZEV candidates and Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment 
(EVSE) through the DAF Fleet Electrification Pilot Program. This pilot 
program, which is just underway, will inform training and facility 
needs for future DAF-owned ZEV and EVSE operations and management.
    To reduce demand for fuel in our aircraft we have funded a series 
of initiatives that reduce drag on our aircraft and increase the 
efficiency of our engines and our mission planning processes. However, 
the DAF will continue to consume large quantities of liquid fuels for 
the foreseeable future and as outlined in our climate action plan, as 
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) becomes more prevalent in the market, 
we must be prepared to leverage SAF to build resiliency, flexibility, 
and security into the energy logistics supply chain for storage, 
distribution, and transportation to the end user. The DAF maintains 
close coordination with the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels 
Initiative (CAAFI), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), 
DOE, and other users to ensure that as SAF becomes more prevalent on 
the commercial market, it is drop-in compatible with our aircraft.
    Ms. Sherrill. Last February, the Army released its Climate Strategy 
with concrete goals and objectives that will allow the Army to become 
more energy resilient and increase energy redundancy while faced with 
extreme weather challenges impacting readiness, increasing the overall 
effectiveness of the force. And last October, the Army released its 
Climate Strategy Implementation Plan detailing their plan to respond to 
threats, increasing installation sustainability and readiness.
    Mr. Oshiba, the Air Force also published its Climate Action Plan 
this past October. Can you provide an update on the current 
implementation status as well as your plan for modernizing 
infrastructure and facilities?
    Mr. Oshiba. We released our Climate Action Plan in Oct 22, which 
defines how we will preserve operational capability and increase 
resilience through specific and measurable objectives and key results. 
We will soon publish our Climate Campaign Plan, which identifies the 
specific actions we must accomplish to produce the key results. Each 
action includes stakeholders, performance metrics, drivers and 
requirements, baseline, and outcomes. Our priorities are to:
      Invest in resilient installations to operate unimpeded in 
all threat environments
      Leverage data and data analytics to make informed 
decisions
      Optimize aircraft energy use to increase readiness and 
operational capability
      Diversify energy sources to increase mission assurance
    Collaboration with allies and partners, national laboratories, 
innovation units, academia, industry, and multiple sectors at the 
federal, state, and local level enables and empowers us to leverage 
transformative approaches and technology.
    We use our Military Construction and Facilities Sustainment, 
Restoration and Modernization funding to accomplish key mission and 
quality of life requirements and incorporate attributes to increase 
resiliency against the effects of climate change. Every project 
accounts for future climate change and the possibility of increased 
severe weather events through application of Unified Facilities 
Criteria (UFCs) in design, as well as thoughtfully siting projects 
using authoritative flood data. Adapting to future changes in climate 
also includes using nature-base solutions which can be less costly, 
self-maintaining, and providing multiple lines of defense against 
storms. As part of its rebuild from Hurricane Michael, Tyndall AFB is 
investing in up to 1,000 feet of living shorelines, 3,500 feet of 
submerged shoreline, and 1,500 feet of new oyster reef habitat.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. ESCOBAR
    Ms. Escobar. Mr. Owens, my district is home to the University of 
Texas at El-Paso, or UTEP, which is renowned for being a powerhouse in 
additive manufacturing innovation. How closely are you tracking the 
applicability of these technologies to milcon projects, and what are 
some opportunities you can identify for academic institutions to 
partner with the Department on innovative testing of new construction 
materials and designs?
    Mr. Owens. To address the effects of extreme conditions on mission 
critical building infrastructure and reduce embodied emissions, the 
Department has begun looking at additive manufacturing in part through 
our Research and Engineering Defense Innovation Unit. While we have 
updated our Unified Facilities Criteria to allow limited implementation 
such as additive concrete construction, pilot efforts are still 
underway to determine where it is applicable. Regarding academic 
partnership, the Department's Environmental Security Technology 
Certification Program (ESTCP) funds academic, industry, and federal 
innovation projects. ESTCP recently established the Climate Resilience 
program area with the objective of developing climate resilience 
construction metrics and technologies.
    Ms. Escobar. Castner Range, in northeast El Paso, Texas was 
acquired by Fort Bliss in 1926 for ordnance and munitions training. The 
U.S. Army ceased all operations at Castner Range in the early 1970s. 
Although the area is safe, there is still a risk of potential munitions 
debris that may become exposed through erosion or encountered in the 
ground during construction activities. How does the Department 
prioritize funding for the cleaned up of formerly used defense sites 
(FUDS) such as Castner Range?
    Ms. Jacobson. Because Castner Range is still under the control of 
the Army, it is not a Formerly Used Defense Site, however, cleanup is 
underway under the Army's active sites cleanup program and is still 
several years from completion.
    Although not currently safe for public access, the property has 
been restricted and limited to authorized Army personnel since the 
range closed in the 1960s to ensure safety. In general, cleanup sites 
are prioritized across the Army based on risk to human health and the 
environment, with highest risk sites sequenced for action before lower 
risk sites. Because of its long history of live-fire training, Castner 
Range is a higher priority site than many others.
    The recent Presidential Proclamation designating Castner Range a 
National Monument includes language that will ensure that the cleanup 
at Castner Range remains a priority for the Army. The Army appreciates 
the continued funding provided by Congress, which is necessary to 
support and sustain the Army's cleanup progress at Castner Range and 
other sites across the Army.
    Ms. Escobar. Ms. Jacobson, in your testimony you mentioned that the 
Army is administering an Installation Climate Resilience Plan 
assessment for Fort Bliss. Can you provide a timeline as to when you 
expect that assessment to be completed?
    Ms. Jacobson. The Fort Bliss Installation Climate Resilience Plan 
is scheduled for completion in June 2023.
    Ms. Escobar. Ms. Jacobson, what milcon and infrastructure 
priorities are being tracked by your office as they pertain to milcon 
requirements of Fort Bliss?
    Ms. Jacobson. My office is tracking, as Fort Bliss's number one 
installation infrastructure project, the Fort Bliss Rail Yard, which 
will improve our ability to rapidly project armored combat formations 
in support of combatant commanders. The Army is requesting $74M for 
this project in our Fiscal Year FY24 Budget Request. Additionally, the 
Army's FY24-28 Future Years Defense Program, includes construction of 
two Collective Training Barracks and one Shipping and Receiving 
Building in FYs 26 and 27, respectively. Other Fort Bliss priorities 
include vehicle maintenance shops, company operations facilities, 
secure operations facilities and road improvements. The Army will 
continue to assess these projects for funding in future budget cycles 
in consideration of all other Army priorities and available MILCON top 
line.
    For FY23-24, the planned R&M investment at Fort Bliss is $79M, to 
make improvements at one Permanent Party Barracks, eleven Enlisted 
Training Barracks and one Fire Protection System.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MOYLAN
    Mr. Moylan. Assistant Secretary Owens, in your testimony you state 
that a ``long term'' extension of H-2B visas is needed to meet DOD's 
construction requirements. Would a failure to extend H-2B create a risk 
that critical DOD construction projects fall behind schedule or go 
uncompleted? Additionally, would this inability to proceed with DOD 
construction disadvantage the United States in the Indo-Pacific?
    Mr. Owens. Without extended relief through at least Dec 31, 2029 in 
both Guam and the CNMI from the H-2B visa requirement to demonstrate 
temporary need, DOD will face significant cost increases and extreme 
schedule delays in all major construction programs on Guam and the 
CNMI, significantly degrading the Department's readiness posture and 
ability to deter PRC aggression and respond to crisis or conflict 
within the Indo-Pacific area of operations.
    The Department has several ongoing and upcoming key posture actions 
in Guam and the CNMI that will require historic levels of military 
construction. Guam's construction workforce is already overextended, 
and ongoing and planned projects require a workforce more than three 
times as large as the local construction workforce. It is difficult to 
find workers willing and able to work in construction in Guam's harsh 
climate and given the limited housing on Guam it requires workers 
willing to live in barracks.
    Without extended relief from the H-2B visa requirement to 
demonstrate temporary need, costs will increase, and construction 
timelines are expected to at least double. Even if additional funding 
is provided, this will render the DOD unable to implement key posture 
actions within expected timelines (Missile Defense Agency Defense of 
Guam, Polaris Point expansion, Marine Corps relocation, Tinian Divert) 
and other planned Guam and CNMI Pacific Deterrence Initiative projects 
would likely be delayed by more than a decade. Ultimately, reliance 
solely on local and domestic workforce capacity would delay final 
completion of critical DOD infrastructure by 10 to 20 years due to both 
cost and timeline overruns.
    Mr. Moylan. Ms. Berger, in 2005 the USS San Francisco ran aground 
in the western pacific and was successfully repaired on Guam. By 
contrast, when the USS Connecticut ran aground in 2021 and proceeded to 
Guam, it languished in harbor unable to be repaired. Can you please 
speak to the dangers posed by America's backslide in ship repair 
capacity in the western pacific and the importance of facilities such 
as Guam's now closed dry dock?
    Additionally, what are some specific ship repair assets/facilities 
that you would like to see return to Guam, or be placed there for the 
first time?
    Ms. Berger. The Navy remains committed to maintaining a robust 
pier-side ship repair capability on Guam, including funding 
infrastructure repairs to Lima, Mike, and November wharves in Guam to 
support additional maintenance capability. Plans for future projects 
include: repairs to Glass Breakwater; Oscar, Papa, and Quebec wharves; 
dredging to support Roll On Roll Off (RORO) operations at Lima wharf, 
additional energy resilience, construction of a new pier on Polaris 
Point to support Virginia Class Block V submarines; and improvement to 
Kilo and Lima wharves. Currently, forward-based submarine tenders EMORY 
S LAND (AS 39) and FRANK CABLE (AS 40) provide repair, supply, weapons 
handing, and tending for submarines homeported and visiting Guam. The 
Navy added 154 Full Time Equivalents in FY24 to support the Pearl 
Harbor Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility-Guam 
Detachment.

                                  [all]