[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]