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

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 118-74]

                                    HEARING

                                       ON

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

                                      AND

                       OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED
                                    PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING

                                       ON

                      FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ENERGY,
                        INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT
                                    PROGRAMS
                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD
                                 APRIL 16, 2024

                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    56-233                     WASHINGTON : 2025

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                        MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida, Chairman

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

                     Kyle Noyes, 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..............................     2
    Waltz, Hon. Michael, a Representative from Florida, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Readiness......................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Berger, Mary, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy,
      Installations, and Environment, Department of the Navy.........     7
    Chaudhary, Dr. Ravi I., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
      Energy, Installations, and Environment, Department of the Air
      Force..........................................................     9
    Jacobson, Rachel, Assistant Secretary of the Army for
      Installations, Energy and Environment, Department of the Army..     6
    Owens, Brendan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy,
      Installations, and Environment, Office of the Secretary of
      Defense........................................................     4

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Berger, Mary.................................................    82
        Chaudhary, Dr. Ravi I........................................   106
        Garamendi, Hon. John.........................................    32
        Jacobson, Rachel.............................................    65
        Owens, Brendan...............................................    35
        Waltz, Hon. Michael..........................................    31

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Rogers...................................................   137
        Mr. Garamendi................................................   139
        Ms. Strickland...............................................   140
        Mr. Gimenez..................................................   142
        Mr. Finstad..................................................   143
        Mr. Davis....................................................   145
        Mr. Veasey...................................................   147

                  FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET REQUEST FOR  DEPART-
                    MENT OF DEFENSE ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND
                    ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                                     Subcommittee on Readiness,
                               Washington, DC, Tuesday, April 16, 2024.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:01 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. Let's call the subcommittee to order.
        I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
    declare a recess at any time.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I also ask unanimous consent that non-subcommittee members,
    if any -- I believe we may have one -- be allowed to
    participate in today's hearing after all other subcommittee
    members have had an opportunity to ask questions.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Ladies and gentlemen, good to see many of you again.
    Welcome to this hearing in the Readiness Subcommittee on the
    fiscal year 2025 budget request for Department of Defense
    Energy, Installations, and Environment Programs.
        I will start with an opening statement and then hand off to
    my friend and colleague Mr. Garamendi.
        So, I just want to thank our witnesses for coming in again.
    I want to thank you for your time and participation in today's
    hearing.
        We will continue what I think have been constructive
    discussions on military construction, on housing, on
    infrastructure, environmental energy programs, as well as base
    and facility counts. It is a broad topic, obviously, but these
    issues are critical to our warfighters. And getting it right is
    critical to our overall readiness.
        So, this fiscal year 2025 budget request included $17.5
    billion and authorizations for more than 120 new construction
    projects. I look forward to discussing how these efforts help
    meet our force posture goals, and support operational efforts.
        However, building the new facilities, as we have discussed
    in the past, is only half the battle. Modernizing and
    maintaining our existing facilities to meet future requirements
    must also be prioritized. I remain concerned about funding for
    facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization, FSRM.
        Maintenance of existing facilities is chronically neglected
    to pay for other priorities. This repair of military facilities
    has had significant impacts on everything from quality of life
    of our service members to sustainment and innovation. We have
    talked about in our last hearing sustaining our labs in
    particular.
        So, I am not going to rehash those previous comments about
    the unacceptable state of our barracks. We are not going to
    flash up what were despicable, frankly, photos of mold and
    feces in our service members' living quarters.
        Assistant Secretary Owens, I appreciate your discussion of
    dealing with that GAO [Government Accountability Office] report
    and its recommendations in your, in your statement. But I do
    look forward to further discussion during questions about how
    this budget request, I hope, really starts taking a serious
    bite out of this issue.
        I am interested in your perspectives, also, as we have
    discussed, on privatization and learning lessons from housing,
    and how we are going to apply that to barracks, and whether it
    is a key piece of the solution here.
        On the operational side, the Department is not far along as
    we should be, given the threats on the environment. And we need
    to posture accordingly.
        And, finally, we have to ensure that our installations -- I
    really can't believe we have to continue to discuss this -- but
    we have to ensure our installations are not reliant on energy
    supplied by our enemies. Recent defense bills have highlighted
    the threat posed by our reliance on Russian energy,
    particularly at our EUCOM [European Command] installations,
    yet, frankly, the Department has dragged its feet on adhering
    to congressional mandates.
        And I am particularly concerned with this Administration's
    focus on climate change as a national security priority and how
    that could impact our operational priorities. I support efforts
    to increase resiliency, of course, but climate change policies
    can't be an end in and of itself that ignore operational
    realities. We have to remove China, in particular, from the
    supply chain of our energy resilience efforts.
        So, thanks again to all our witnesses for being here. I
    look forward to your testimony.
        And over to you, Mr. Garamendi, for your opening remarks.
        [The opening statement of Mr. Waltz can be found in the
    Appendix on page 31.]

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

        Mr. Garamendi. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Looking at our witnesses, we have been here before, haven't
    we? But there is much more to discuss.
        I will continue our conversation as we work through the
    myriad of issues facing our portfolio. We would ask ourselves
    whether we have the right balance between the CoCOM [Command
    Combatants] requirements and service priorities.
        As the subcommittee with the oversight over both military
    construction and the majority of the operation and maintenance
    budgets we must ensure that service requirements such as
    barracks, renovating unaccompanied housing, modernizing our
    nation's research programs, development testing evaluation,
    infrastructure, on and on, that we do not continue to sacrifice
    those for the so-called higher priorities.
        Our investments in the Pacifics will be worthless if we
    cannot recruit and retain talent. How can we expect to do that
    when we continually send the message that our most precious
    resource, our people, are our last priority?
        I will go back to the statement that the chairman made
    about barracks a moment ago. Resiliency is another area in
    which this committee has been focused for years, whether it is
    ensuring our installations are resilient to hurricanes,
    wildfires, ice storms, earthquakes, or building resiliency into
    our installations' power sources to guarantee that the bases
    from which we execute critical missions and projectiles can
    perform those missions in the event of power interruptions,
    whether natural or manmade.
        To date these efforts have been overwhelmingly bipartisan.
        Another area of bipartisanship has been the Department's
    operational energy programs. These programs seek to increase
    the range and on-station time by lowering the fuel consumption
    and providing more survivable weapons systems, less dependent
    on contest logistical lines. We learned that lesson in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, we are watching it play out in Ukraine, and will
    absolutely be a factor in the Pacifics.
        That is why I was a bit disappointed -- no, really
    disappointed that the fiscal year 2024 defense appropriation
    contained a significant mark against what it characterized as
    wasteful climate change projects.
        I just crossed out three lines here, Mr. Chairman, so to
    avoid conflict. So, I will just go on.
        Because the cost avoidance and increase of on-station time
    for our operational energy programs also has the ancillary
    benefit of lowering greenhouse gas emissions, those programs
    were targeted for these cuts. That microgrid was going to allow
    our installations to island for perhaps 10 days or more,
    continuing the installations' critical missions uninterrupted -
    - it, too, might be cut -- if it happened in some way to update
    an old inefficient diesel generator.
        Over the years, this subcommittee has endeavored to
    dismantle the false and ultimately dangerous idea that programs
    can be either good for readiness or good for the climate.
    Actually, it can be good for both. And I think we have proved
    that in many, many ways. And I would hope that we would
    continue to do so.
        Finally, I would be remiss if I did not note the
    significant continuing investments in my favorite subject, the
    Sentinel, Ground Based Strategic Deterrence System, that is
    contained in the President's Budget Request despite the ongoing
    Nunn-McCurdy process. It is mostly where I have been on this
    program -- skeptical, to say the least -- since it is a major
    MILCON [Military Construction] issue. It is before this
    committee.
        I find it particularly galling that the President's Budget
    Request continues to invest billions, including 700 million in
    military construction funds, when we are only midway through
    the mandatory statutory mandate to review the Sentinel program
    in whole and then make a decision about how we continue.
        I guess maybe I just disagreed with the President. Does
    that make you happy, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Waltz. Speak your mind.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
        With that, I yield back.
        [The opening statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in the
    Appendix on page 32.]
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. Appreciate the candor.
        And over to our witnesses.
        We have The Honorable Brendan Owens, Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment;
        The Honorable Rachel Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of the
    Army for Installations, Energy, and Environment;
        The Honorable Meredith Berger, Assistant Secretary of the
    Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment, and;
        The Honorable Ravi Chaudhary -- Chaudhary, excuse me. I got
    it wrong. I thought I got it right last time. Assistant
    Secretary of the Air Force, Energy, Installation, and
    Environment.
        And over to you, Mr. Owens, for your opening remarks.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRENDAN OWENS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
     OF DEFENSE FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT, OFFICE
                      OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

        Secretary Owens. Thank you, Chairman.
        And I agree with your statement earlier about the fact that
    these discussions have been both constructive and critical for
    the warfighters.
        Chairman Waltz, Ranking Member Garamendi, distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss the President's fiscal year 2025 Budget Request for the
    Department of Defense energy, installation, and environment
    programs.
        We appreciate this opportunity to engage on how this budget
    request supports our efforts to address the issues we discussed
    a few months ago, particularly quality of life issues for our
    service members, as well as other critical priorities within
    the portfolio.
        When we spoke in February, I discussed how we were working
    with the military departments on three lines of effort to guide
    our infrastructure investments: adopting human centered
    requirements; optimizing our footprint; and transforming our
    portfolio management. The Department has codified these
    priorities into the Resilient and Healthy Defense Community
    Strategy which will ensure that our spaces are healthy, safe,
    functional, resilient, and enhance the quality of life and
    readiness of our service members, their families, and the
    civilian workforce.
        The RHDC lays out key strategic enablers that underpin
    these efforts. And we look forward to sharing with this
    committee, working in partnership to deliver on these quality
    of life improvements.
        Together, our efforts will drive changes across the Defense
    Infrastructure Enterprise and ensure that it is managed as a
    strategic asset to promote the well-being of our total force.
        To that end, we are requesting $15.6 billion for military
    construction across the Department. This includes $1.8 billion
    for facilities that will enhance and support quality of life,
    including child development centers, unaccompanied housing,
    health care and dining facilities, and schools.
        To provide ongoing support for our existing facilities, the
    Department is requesting $13.6 billion in facility sustainment
    funding, and $6.3 billion in restoration and modernization
    funding. To ensure these investments are optimized for
    readiness and quality of life we are working with the DoD
    components to transform our military construction processes and
    adopting a sustainment management strategy to support
    consistent and sustained delivery of high-performing assets.
        For housing specifically, we are requesting $2 billion for
    family housing construction, operations, and maintenance, and
    nearly $1.1 billion for unaccompanied housing projects.
        These investments, synchronized with the efforts of the
    Tiger Team we established in February, will support our efforts
    to enhance our oversight of the portfolio. We have a lot of
    work ahead of us, but we are all committed to getting after it.
        Reliable, adaptable, and resilient energy remains essential
    to military capability and readiness. And we are requesting
    $3.8 billion for installation energy, and $3.6 billion for
    operational energy to enhance resilience and ensure the
    Department is postured to fight and win in contested
    environments.
        But, a resilient, mission-ready installation is much more
    than just what is inside the fence line. Partnership with the
    defense -- with the communities that support our installations
    is critical, as is responsible stewardship of the environment.
    I am pleased to note that we have begun our transition from
    AFFF [aqueous firm-forming foam] firefighting foam to PFAS
    [perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances]-free
    alternatives. And the military departments are executing plans
    ensuring a safe transition that does not degrade readiness.
        We are requesting $1.6 billion for our environmental clean-
    up programs to support our efforts to address risks to human
    health and the environment from past DoD activities, including
    nearly $300 million for PFAS clean-up.
        While we are making progress, EPA's [Environmental
    Protection Agency's] new drinking water rule will significantly
    increase the amount of PFAS-impacted drinking water that DoD
    treats, both as a water purveyor and under its clean-up
    program. These efforts, in addition to PFAS-related cost
    increases to other programs will require significant resources
    over the coming years. And we will rely on a partnership with
    Congress to address these new requirements.
        As we continue to ensure our installations are healthy and
    resilient places that support our ready -- support readiness of
    our current and prospective service members, we greatly
    appreciate your sustained attention to and support for these
    critical priorities.
        We stand ready to work with this committee to continue
    aligning our policies and resources to support the National
    Defense Strategy and the readiness and quality of life of our
    soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, and their
    families.
        Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Owens can be found in
    the Appendix on page 35.]
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Owens.
        Ms. Jacobson, for your opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RACHEL JACOBSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
        OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT,
                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

        Secretary Jacobson. Thank you, Chairman Waltz, Ranking
    Member Garamendi, and distinguished members of the subcommittee
    for inviting me to present the Army's fiscal year 2025 budget
    for installations, energy, and environmental programs.
        The readiness and resilience of our force starts with
    providing our soldiers and families with high quality places to
    work and live. We must also ensure our installations support
    reliable and modern infrastructure systems.
        Working with Congress, we will continuously refine our
    planning and programming to make sure we have adequate funding
    to tackle these issues. From nine new barracks buildings, to
    four child and youth centers, the Army's fiscal year 2025
    budget request will improve our soldiers' and families' quality
    of life.
        Our budget request also includes important investments in
    operational facilities, including in the organic industrial
    base that are critical to ensuring our soldiers are trained,
    equipped, and ready to defend our nation.
        Our 2025 budget request will allow the Army to continue to
    address significant risks to our energy and water
    infrastructure. Through conservation, innovation, and
    collaboration with third parties, the Army is upgrading our
    installation utilities infrastructure. But much more needs to
    be done.
        The Army recognizes that we have a sizeable backlog of
    deferred maintenance needs for hundreds of thousands of
    buildings. This deferred maintenance, which emerged over the
    course of many years, has serious repercussions, as we have
    seen with barracks. We welcome the congressional focus on these
    issues, as evidenced in both the 2024 NDAA and the recent
    Quality of Life Report.
        Simply put, any increase in our inventory of poor and
    failing barracks, for any reason, is unacceptable and must be
    reversed. And barracks that are in good condition must stay
    that way. That is why the Army is requesting 100 percent of the
    funding required for barracks sustainment.
        We are also taking a number of steps to improve the soldier
    experience in new and renovated barracks, both in living spaces
    and communal areas.
        To build ready installations of tomorrow we must consider
    resiliency today by modernizing how we construct and operate
    our buildings. It is important to think critically during the
    design phase of a building how it will function efficiently and
    perform under adverse conditions throughout its lifecycle.
        For example, early consideration of the building's location
    can mitigate environmental risks such as flooding. Constructing
    with more durable materials will help the building last longer
    and reduce repairs and maintenance costs.
        These up front considerations will make our buildings more
    resilient and ready to support the Army of the future.
        The Army's 2025 budget request also reflects operational
    energy and research development initiatives that will give our
    Army a competitive advantage over our adversaries. From
    exploring options to hybridize our fleet, to building mobile
    and modular expeditionary energy systems, investing now in
    operational research and development will promote readiness
    tomorrow.
        Tactical vehicles of the future will go further, operate
    longer, be less detectable in the contested global environment,
    and they will reduce our logistical tail by avoiding the need
    to haul fuel convoys across the battlefield.
        We must also ensure that contamination emanating from our
    installations does not pose health risks, both on or off base.
    The Army welcomes the regulatory certainty in the newly
    promulgated Safe Drinking Water Act standards of PFAS, and we
    stand ready to comply.
        Through the investments reflected in our fiscal year 2025
    Budget Request, the Army seeks to improve soldiers' quality of
    life and operational effectiveness. We look forward to working
    with Congress to build and maintain the installations of the
    future.
        Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Jacobson can be found
    in the Appendix on page 65.]
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you for your opening statement, Ms.
    Jacobson.
        Ms. Berger, for your opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MEREDITH BERGER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
        OF THE NAVY FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT,
                         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

        Secretary Berger. Chairman Waltz, Ranking Member Garamendi,
    and distinguished members of the panel, thank you for inviting
    me to come talk to you today about our fiscal year 2025 Budget
    Request.
        We are grateful for the focus of this subcommittee and the
    House Quality of Life Council's Report, which reflects actions
    that uphold a sacred trust: to take care of our marines and
    sailors the way that they take care of us.
        To fight and win, the Department of the Navy requires
    ready, reliable, and resilient installations. And that includes
    the buildings, systems, environments, and assets that comprise
    them. The majority of our infrastructure, whether barracks,
    utilities, or our public shipyards is not in the shape it
    should be. As an institution, we have allowed these assets to
    degrade over time. We have accumulated and deferred significant
    risks, and allowed the risks to accumulate and compound.
        And the adversary always has a say. Whether we are talking
    about kinetics and components, or water and weather, we have
    seen increased external impacts that reduce our ability to be
    resilient and respond, with the emerging urgent frequently
    overtaking the enduring important in a constrained funding
    environment.
        No matter what the cost -- excuse me, no matter what the
    cause, the cost is readiness. And our soldiers and Marines
    shoulder the consequences.
        As I talk about the EI&E [energy, installations and
    environment] portfolio, I often talk about communities,
    critical infrastructure, and climate action. What I am talking
    about are our people, our power projection platforms, and
    making sure that both are ready, resilient, and survivable.
    This is mission critical.
        A sailor or marine recruited and retained that is healthy,
    safe, and trained, with a physical space that supports the
    mission, will return infinitely more value to our warfighting
    force than the dollars that it will cost. Lockstep with my Navy
    and Marine Corps teammates we are prioritizing projects that
    assure mission with the funds we receive.
        The Navy and Marine Corps are taking steps to improve how
    we resource these critical requirements through the
    Installation Investment Plan and the Facilities Investment
    Strategy respectively. These efforts inform the development of
    the Department of the Navy's 30-year infrastructure plan, which
    looks at the interdependencies among projects through mission
    assurance in order to prioritize and sequence necessary
    investments in the infrastructure, both natural and built, that
    keep our people safe and project power around the globe.
        A budget -- and, Mr. Chairman, you make this note often --
    is an investment in institutional values that happens over the
    course of years. Our fiscal year budget request puts executable
    priorities in place to build on the past and anticipate the
    future, and keep on task in the time in between.
        While we do not include MILCON for barracks or CDCs [child
    development centers] in this year's request, we gratefully
    moved faster on the barracks and CDCs Congress pulled forward
    last year, and we anticipate eagerly the 13 CDCs and 10
    barracks that will be across the fydp [Future Years Defense
    Program].
        In between, we use our FSRM to its highest and best use.
        The Department of the Navy is focused on the essential
    warfighting, readiness, and quality of life support that naval
    facilities provide.
        From the Marine Corps Barracks 2030 and their wall-to-wall
    inspection just completed, the Navy's decisive investment in
    the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, to
    strengthening relationships with communities, tribal and
    indigenous partners, and enhancing quality of life and
    resilience through the improvements to energy, water, and
    wireless, we are using authorities and policies to make our
    appropriations go farther.
        Above all, we strive to ensure that we are good stewards of
    every appropriated dollar. The Marines recently completed a
    third party audit that lasted two years, which qualified them
    as the first service that has received an unmodified audit
    opinion in the Department of Defense.
        The Marines are leading from the front. The audit shows
    that we are accountable for the dollars spent.
        Our Navy and Marine Corps respond when the nation calls.
    Around the globe, around the clock our enabled forces are where
    they need to be when they need to be there because of the
    critical readiness enablers across the EI&E portfolio.
        I am grateful to the sailors, marines, civilians and their
    families who answer the call, and to you for supporting them.
    They are trusting us to get it right.
        Thank you for the chance to work with you to do just that.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Berger can be found in
    the Appendix on page 82.]
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Ms. Berger. Appreciate your opening
    statement.
        Mr. Chaudhary, over to you.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DR. RAVI I. CHAUDHARY, ASSISTANT
       SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND
                ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

        Secretary Chaudhary. Chairman Waltz, Ranking Member
    Garamendi, and members of the Readiness Subcommittee, thank you
    for the opportunity to discuss the Department of the Air
    Force's energy, installations, and environment programs for
    fiscal year 2025.
        The Department recognizes that we are in a decade of
    consequence, an era of Great Power competition in which the
    impact of our installations has become crucial to our ability
    to project combat power. Our adversaries have committed to
    using both kinetic and non-kinetic means to cripple
    infrastructure nodes.
        As Secretary Kendall recently stated, we are out of time.
    Whether in the CONUS [continental United States] or abroad, we
    must ensure vital infrastructure at our installations is
    resilient, survivable, and ready to meet the demands of more
    sophisticated threats posed by China or even Russia, who have
    demonstrated their ability and intent to weaponize energy
    resources in their aggression against Ukraine.
        First, I would like to thank the members of the Readiness
    Subcommittee for your support in meeting this imperative. Our
    fiscal year 2025 budget focuses on ensuring we can equip our
    airmen and guardians with the tools they need to effectively
    execute their mission. More importantly, we owe them modernized
    facilities and quality housing that is befitting of their
    service.
        Last year's initiatives marked the beginning of a
    transformative strategic effort at the Department designed to
    ruggedize our installations for integrated deterrence and
    resilience in the face of Great Power competition. To maintain
    our cadence of modernization programs, we are requesting a
    total DAF [Department of the Air Force] MILCON investment of
    $3.45 billion through the fiscal year 2025 President's Budget.
        This is $371 million more than the fiscal year 2024
    requested amount. Pending passage of an appropriation, these
    MILCON funds will support combatant commanders in their most
    critical requirements, to include bed down of new weapons
    systems like B-21, F-35, C-130J, and T-7 Aircraft.
        This effort also includes large-scale investments in the
    Indo-Pacific, like Tinian, where we will be applying agile
    combat employment techniques that complicate the targeting
    solutions for potential adversaries.
        We are also securing critical investments at our Space
    Force installations where mission ready resilient facilities
    are integral to the Space Force's readiness and effectiveness.
    Our Spaceport of the Future Program, which optimizes range
    costs and launch throughput will receive $77 million in MILCON,
    primarily for planning and design, and $84 million in
    operations and maintenance.
        Upon my confirmation in March, I made it my personal
    mission to ensure our airmen, guardians, and their families
    have housing befitting of their service. I visited over 30
    bases and conducted detailed focus groups with our youngest
    airmen, guardians, and their families to garner their feedback.
    As a former Air Force officer and pilot, I have lived in
    military housing, to include raising a family during the
    transition to privatization.
        My service has given me first-hand knowledge of how housing
    can impact quality of life for our personnel. And as a
    concerned parent of an Air Force officer candidate, I can tell
    you that there is no issue that is more personal than this one.
        That is why I am proud to share that in fiscal year 2025
    the DAF requested 1.1 billion for housing, dormitories, and
    child development centers, to include all new dorms at joint
    bases in Virginia and Texas. This is part of a $1 billion FSRM
    investment from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2026 to improve
    the condition of our dormitories that nearly triples the
    investment over the previous five years, and is the largest
    dorm investment in over a decade.
        Additionally, as the Department of Defense's largest fuel
    consumer, the Air Force is implementing groundbreaking
    approaches to improve operational energy efficiency. One of
    these initiatives is our blended wing body aircraft, a novel
    new aircraft design projected to lower fuel consumption by 30
    percent.
        We are also investing in advanced winglets, engine blade
    coatings, and 3-D printed microvanes that will reduce fuel use
    by millions of gallons.
        Once these and other projects are fully implemented, we
    project annual fuel savings of 75 million gallons, roughly $300
    million in savings.
        Increasing our range and endurance will have a crucial
    impact in operations in the Indo-Pacific where the tyranny of
    distance can have a dramatic impact on our geostrategic
    position in the region.
        Finally, we recognize that in the high-end fight our
    installations can no longer be considered a sanctuary. As a
    result, we are transforming our installations with all new
    resiliency initiatives designed to reduce electrical grid
    stress, bolster cyber resiliency with microgrids, and new
    energy storage capabilities.
        We are also pursuing redundant power sources like
    geothermal, small modular reactors, and wind. These
    capabilities are designed to harden installation infrastructure
    and enable commanders to fight the base for extended periods.
        As an example, Kadena Air Base recently installed a
    microgrid funded by energy efficiency savings. This capability
    ensured full power on the installation during a typhoon, a
    testament to the resiliency that can be achieved when we invest
    in innovative technologies.
        I will close with a quote from General Henry Hap Arnold,
    who declared in 1941 that air bases are a determining factor in
    the success of air operations.
        I agree. And add that investments in our installations
    today could prove to be the margin of victory in Great Power
    competition, a competition in which we dare not come in second
    place.
        Once again, thank you for your support of our airmen and
    guardians. And I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Chaudhary can be found
    in the Appendix on page 106.]
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chaudhary.
        And I will go ahead and kick off the questions. And in the
    interest of time, members, stick to the 5 minute, for both of
    us, if that is okay with you, Mr. Garamendi.
        So, let's talk about EUCOM and our bases that are still
    running on Russian gas, which I just find mind-blowing that we
    have to talk about this, and that, frankly, that Congress is
    having to push the Department on this. One would think that
    this would be something the Department would be pushing itself
    on.
        But, nothing like a good visual that shows the supply chain
    and our bases in Baumholder, in Heidelberg, in Hohenfels. This
    is a joint issue in Stuttgart, Aviano, Vicenza, Ramstein. I
    mean, even our bases that house NATO [North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization] are running on Russian gas.
        And I know there have been some efforts. But what is really
    amazing -- actually the Washington Post just had some good
    investigative reporting -- it is now being exported through the
    Black Sea, going into refineries in Turkey and Greece. And
    then, voila, it is now no longer Russian-provided oil and gas,
    it is now NATO gas. But at the end of the day the dollars are
    going to fuel Putin's war machine.
        So, this is a much more complicated issue than just giving
    Ukraine the munitions it needs. We are fueling Russia. Taxpayer
    dollars are fueling Russia's war machine. And we have a pretty
    amazing vulnerability.
        So, since this is truly a joint issue, Mr. Owens, we have
    language in the fiscal year 2023 NDAA, all we asked for was a
    plan to get us off Russian gas in the next five years. And we
    still don't have the plan.
        So, what is the status, Mr. Owens? If you could speak more
    broadly, why do we have -- I know we are reliant on local
    grids, but we are doing a lot of, a lot of kind of back patting
    here on base resiliency.
        And to my friend Mr. Garamendi's point, here is a perfect
    example of where a climate agenda and operational agenda you
    get two for one: you are off of gas, you are off of oil, and
    you get an operational resiliency. And, gee, you start
    impacting Putin's war machine for which we are asking the
    American people to keep digging deeper and deeper into their
    pockets to combat against.
        Over to you.
        Secretary Owens. I certainly appreciate your focus on this
    issue. Last week, we did a swing through EUCOM, AFRICOM. We met
    with leaders in Wiesbaden, Stuttgart, and at Ramstein.
        And, this was a significant point of conversation
    everywhere we went because of the types of graphics that you're
    showing right there.
        One of the things I am encouraged by, is that this is not
    something that when -- this is not, at this point, something
    that OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] is bringing up
    and catching our installation commanders and their energy folks
    off guard.
        They are leaning in. They are settling on this issue. It is
    a challenge as they look at how they engage in the operations
    of their buildings and the resilience of the installations
    themselves. And, in the way that they're posturing themselves
    to bring the energy resources that they need, increasingly
    closer to the fence line.
        I was encouraged by one particular conversation I had with
    the interview team at Ramstein, that was looking outside the
    fence line and looking to really partner with the utility
    providers.
        Mr. Waltz. Mr. Owens, just in the time I have, I appreciate
    that you're having conversations and looking at it. The law
    asked for a plan to change this.
        Not next month, I mean, in five years, to change this
    dynamic. What is the status of this Committee receiving this
    plan, particularly as we continue to spend billions of our
    constituents' dollars?
        Can you imagine if I took this to one of my town halls
    right now as we're talking about billions and billions going
    more to Ukraine. And, that their money is basically fueling the
    other side of the war through our bases. And, oh by the way,
    making our service members vulnerable.
        So, what's the status of the plan? I need to move onto
    another topic.
        Secretary Owens. The plan is under development. I'll come
    back to it as specific --
        Mr. Waltz. It's late. So, what's the --
        Secretary Owens. I'll be happy to come back to you at a
    later date with it in the timeline.
        Mr. Waltz. I'd appreciate an answer this week, at least
    with the timeline.
        Secretary Owens. Understood.
        Mr. Waltz. At least with a goal. Thank you. And, I had an
    amendment in the last, the '24 NDAA. Again, I can't believe
    that Congress needs to push this, weaning our clean energy
    programs off of Chinese Communist Party production.
        So, can you speak to what the Department is proactively
    doing to encourage investment in domestic or allied, for that
    matter, energy capabilities and production sources?
        I'll stick with you, Mr. Owens. These are really -- these
    are really Department-wide issues.
        Secretary Owens. Agreed. And, thank you again, for raising
    this point and giving us this, the opportunity to engage around
    this.
        We have been working through the interagency, through the
    Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries and with our partners
    in industrial-based policy, to onshore and friend-shore the
    critical production of the energy resources that we are going
    to be relying on.
        One other thing that I'll highlight is that in a recent CFE
    [carbon pollution-free energy] procurement that DoD and the
    military departments engaged in, we did have -- we did hold the
    developer accountable on made in the U.S.A. solar panels.
        So, we are moving forward and really focused on making sure
    that we are doing everything we can to send the correct market
    signals. So, that these companies that are moving forward
    domestically are going to be rewarded.
        Mr. Waltz. Great. That's positive news. Final question, and
    I know, Mr. Garamendi, I went over my own rule here.
        But, this is critical because of the years and years of
    backlog and deferred maintenance. So, now that we have the FY25
    request, can you confirm that FSRM lines were requested to meet
    100 percent of the requirement for unaccompanied housing?
        I'll go to each service.
        Secretary Jacobson. For the Army, the answer is yes.
        Mr. Waltz. What about, what would be the cost for the Army
    to address the backlog?
        Secretary Jacobson. It would be multi-billions. I don't
    have the exact numbers here.
        Mr. Waltz. Can you come back to the Committee with that
    number?
        Secretary Jacobson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Ms. Berger, 100 percent unaccompanied
    housing?
        Secretary Berger. For the Navy, yes. For the Marine Corps,
    under the capital planning tool, it's a deviation from 100
    percent to make sure that we are applying all of those funds to
    include demo.
        And so, as we do an assessment, we make sure that we are
    applying it across the board in a way that puts every dollar
    where it counts.
        The capital planning tool, which I'd be happy to come brief
    you on --
        Mr. Waltz. Mm-hmm.
        Secretary Berger. Looks at sustainment in a different way.
    And so, we have maybe sustained it at 100 percent in a
    different approach that I would give you a full brief on when
    there's more time --
        Mr. Waltz. Okay.
        Secretary Berger. Under the Marine Corps capital planning
    tool.
        Mr. Waltz. So, that's not 100 percent of the requirement?
    Or, we don't --
        Secretary Berger. There are items on the UPL [unfunded
    priority list] this year that we could move, left with more
    opportunity. A little bit of sequencing was off.
        But, we're trying to make sure that we are moving it
    forward with what we did request to keep going forward.
        Mr. Waltz. I'll take that as a yes for Navy and a no, to be
    explained, for the Marine Corps.
        Secretary Berger. Yes.
        Mr. Waltz. Air Force? Oh, I'm sorry. And, please come to
    the Committee with what the backlog number is. Thank you.
        Secretary Chaudhary. Mr. Chairman, we're at 100 percent on
    unaccompanied, a backlog of $46 billion. We're going to get it
    with -- by tripling our demo rate.
        And, when I say backlog of $46 billion, that's the total of
    all of our assets. So, we're going to get at that by reducing
    our inventory and utilizing privatization to reduce the
    denominator so that those backlogs go.
        So, turning over things with privatization activities
    allows us to reduce that backlog. But, also, we're roughly
    quadrupling our demo from roughly $30 million a year to about
    $140 to $160 million per year across the FYDP.
        Mr. Waltz. Okay. Great. That sounds smart. But, that is a
    pretty astounding number.
        Over to you, Mr. Garamendi.
        Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that line of
    questioning. And, if the witnesses could provide to the
    Committee specific information on your plans for the
    privatization expansion for both accompanied as well as
    unaccompanied housing and how you might carry that out.
        We know we have a squaring issue on a lot of that. But,
    please come with as much detailed information as you could.
        I wasn't going to go back into the Sentinel. However, Mr.
    Chaudhary, I shall. So, I read your statement. And, you say the
    need remains to recapitalize the over 50 year old ICBM
    [intercontinental ballistic missile] system.
        The Nunn-McCurdy process is specifically designed to answer
    that question, is it needed? What are the alternatives? What
    will not be done, if we spend $130 billion?
        I think, I never shared with you the $130 billion cost of
    the Sentinel going forward does not include the weapon systems
    themselves. That is the bombs and the pits and so forth.
        So, that would be added. And, that's probably another $20
    to $30 billion there. However, the cost of a B-21 is about $700
    million.
        Simple math would indicate you could almost get 180 B-21s
    if you did not spend $130 billion on the Sentinel. Just
    something to think about for deterrence purposes.
        I think I'll go back to local issues. After all, the
    encroachment issue is a very real one. We've talked extensively
    about Travis Air Force Base, and the new city being built next
    to it, and so forth.
        I appreciate the Air Force, them very quickly coming
    forward to assist in trying to figure out what in the world is
    going on there. However, Secretary Jacobson, did you know you
    have a problem at the MOTCO [Military Ocean Terminal] facility?
        You do. Overlooking the MOTCO facility, which is the
    principal way in which the military will move munitions from
    the West Coast of the United States, presumably through the
    west.
        Overlooking directly within a few hundred yards of that
    facility, which is a very high security, secret facility, is
    public land, excuse me, private land that could become a
    development and could easily see exactly what's going on at
    MOTCO. Which I suspect our adversaries would like to know.
        So, let's pay attention to this issue. It's not just the
    two that I've raised, Travis and MOTCO. But, it goes beyond
    most of our bases.
        And, I would suggest there are strategies that we could
    use, principally the purchase of easements. Not necessarily the
    purchase of the land, but rather the purchase of the easements.
    And, let the landowner then maintain the land.
        So, I'll let that one go there. We do have a problem, Ms.
    Berger, Mare Island, doing cleanup. I'll use this as an example
    of cleanups that need to be done almost everywhere for every
    department.
        Muir Island, we're looking to transfer the land. But, we've
    got to finish the cleanups. You and I talked about this in
    detail. I won't take much time here to raise the issue.
        But, please get on with it. We want to get that transfer
    done. Get that land off the military books. There's more to be
    done there as the Navy tries to figure out how to and where it
    might repair more ships that are likely to be in the Pacific.
        For the other Assistant Secretaries, please keep in mind
    this issue is really worldwide. And, you did talk, all of you,
    about the PFAS and the issues there.
        I'd be very interested in hearing the technology that you
    intend to use to meet those requirements, those cleanup
    requirements. I am not sure that that really exists.
        With that, I think I'll let it go. Mr. Chairman, thank you
    for the hearing. Well, excuse me, I've got 29 seconds. Mr.
    Chaudhary, $700 million is a down payment on one of the most
    expensive MILCON projects ever, otherwise known as the Sentinel
    Silos Command Control, on and on.
        Do you have any notion of what is the actual MILCON
    expenditure over the next decade or so?
        Secretary Chaudhary. Ranking Member Garamendi, we are
    currently letting the Nunn-McCurdy process conduct their
    analysis.
        But, we will have a number of facility folks, one of my
    staff members will be engaging in that process. And, we'll be
    looking at that very subject.
        So, we look forward to reporting to you what the result of
    that is and what the future projections are on the facilities.
    We do anticipate, in all transparency, for it to grow, as you
    know as well.
        But, we'll let the Nunn-McCurdy process execute that
    analysis and give us a report.
        Mr. Garamendi. I'm not sure we've ever seen a real baseline
    number. But, yes, we do need that specific information.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. [Presiding] The Chair now recognizes Mr. Moylan
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Berger,
    thanks for visiting my office. Once again, I appreciate it.
        And, there are Navy leaders who have relayed to me that
    forces are preparing the breakwater. And, I've been told that
    this piece of infrastructure is at risk of failing, which in
    turn would destroy Guam's civilian harbor.
        However, the breakwater is also very important to the Navy.
    So, could you please explain why fully funding a repair of the
    Guam breakwater is the Navy's number two unfunded priority?
        Secretary Berger. And, it was very nice to visit with you
    as well. And, this is an unfunded priority because of the
    timing of it.
        And so, we weren't able to get the submission in the right
    way. But, the $600 million that you see there, as you rightly
    note, is for where the Navy has issued ownership of that
    breakwater.
        And so, this would be funding that we would be able to
    obligate within the year and be able to move forward and
    execute on to make sure that we are taking care of the
    infrastructure that supports not only the Navy's work, but is
    shared in this space of the government, the community. And
    then, go forward.
        We will have some challenges, I will note, that we will
    prioritize as we think about material and the support of
    workers and construction.
        Thank you to all of Congress for making sure that we did
    have the extended H2B Visas, which helps us think about how to
    manage work across Guam that we will need to do. But, a
    priority and one that we will be able to execute on if funded.
        Mr. Moylan. Thank you. You also answered my second
    question. But, my third and last would be, Secretary, a
    centralized energy storage system is necessary to provide
    steady shore power for the Virginia Class submarines on Guam.
        Investing in the power grid infrastructure would also
    support resilience for the island civilian population and
    reducing the amount of load shedding my constituents'
    experience.
        Would you advocate the Department of Defense enter and
    negotiate partnership with the Guam Power Authority to install
    a centralized energy storage system sufficient to meet such a
    critical need, and in general, could more be done to work with
    the Guam Power Authority?
        Secretary Berger. Yes, Representative Moylan. We've seen
    some very good results of exactly the construct that you
    describe.
        A near example is in Hawaii, where we've been able to
    combine resilient and renewable energy with battery storage, to
    ensure that not only the mission has the energy that it needs,
    but also the community has the energy that it needs. And, it
    works exactly as you say, by working with our utility, our
    energy providers.
        And so, this is something that very recently my office,
    representatives went out to spend time with Guam Power and make
    sure that we understood both the requirement and the way
    forward.
        And, certainly, something that we are learning more about
    considering and are to continue working with Guam Power to make
    sure that we are thinking together on that. And, I would
    welcome the opportunity to show you some of the places that
    we've had successes.
        Mr. Moylan. Thank you for the invitation. And, thank you to
    the panel. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Scott. The Chair recognizes Ms. Sherrill for five
    minutes.
        Ms. Sherrill. Thank you so much. And, I was happy to hear
    the Chairman mention our labs. Certainly, if we are going to
    continue to attract the best and brightest, we need cutting-
    edge research facilities.
        But, I'd like to talk a little bit about the increased rate
    and severity of natural disasters. Due to the changing climate,
    they're impacting our installations, our readiness every year,
    impacting our national security as a whole.
        So, I understand that in the FY24 installation resilience
    and energy accounts, they were targeted, as we heard from our
    Ranking Member, as quote, wasteful climate change programs.
        And yet, as we've heard in many hearings over the years,
    including on this Committee, these programs are critical for
    building both energy and extreme weather resilience and mission
    assurance at our domestic installations.
        And, developing operational energy programs that increase
    on-station time and mitigate contested logistic challenges with
    near peer competitors.
        So, first Secretary Chaudhary, then Secretary Jacobson,
    could you talk about how these cuts could impact readiness?
        Secretary Chaudhary. Thank you Rep Sherrill. I appreciate
    it. And, I would say in joint base at your home state of New
    Jersey, where we are installing and investing in a microgrid,
    using an energy service performance contract.
        At that location, the power demands at a joint base as they
    have become a joint base, I've experienced it myself, because I
    was stationed there many, many years ago and flew C-17s out of
    that location.
        But, the partnerships required also required a tremendous
    amount of understanding of the, of layered power structures
    within that installation. And, installing a microgrid will
    allow you to do a number of things.
        One, it allows you to add energy storage capability. Should
    the lights go out due to grid stress, it allows you to have key
    redundancies that allow you to keep power moving.
        Second, it allows you to island from a local community. If
    a civil unrest is being disrupted by unfriendly adversaries,
    then you can island from that location and then get the jets
    out of town.
        As you know, C-17s are key to mobility and activating our
    response in any threat, anytime, anywhere. So, getting those
    jets out of town is critical.
        By having a microgrid, you can get those jets out of town,
    because you can island from other disruptions, store your
    power, and then get the jets out of town and then, resume
    operations.
        The other -- and then, once you have that installed, you
    can train to that standard. You can conduct energy resilience
    readiness exercises that allow you to find gaps, understand
    where critical redundancies need work, and evaluate yourself.
        And, that all occurs in conjunction with resiliency
    programs. Not to mention operational energy programs, when if
    you add small 3D printed microvanes to the side of a C-17, you
    could save millions and millions of gallons of fuel. And, that
    builds agility for the fight.
        So, all these things in both portfolios add up to the
    criticality of building resiliency and how those climate funds
    can benefit our readiness going forward.
        Ms. Sherrill. Thank you so much. Certainly, in a state like
    New Jersey, which has withstood super storm Sandy, and we see
    attacks on our pipelines from foreign adversaries. So, you can
    imagine an attack on our grid.
        Having those microgrids and the resiliency they provide, as
    well as you were suggesting, being able to meet some of the
    logistics challenges with some of these technologies, is
    something I hear requested from many of our services.
        Ms. Jacobson?
        Secretary Jacobson. Thank you very much for that question.
    And, just to address also, you were interested in the labs. I
    know we talked about this last time.
        I just wanted to report that in our five-year program, we
    do have a substantial investment for Picatinny Arsenal. So, I'm
    glad to report that.
        Our investment, which some had tagged as climate change
    investments, and therefore were reduced from the FY24 budget or
    eliminated, I should say, they're about readiness. It's about
    resilience.
        Congress has directed us in previous legislation, to
    maintain ready and resilient installations. And, that's what
    this is about.
        The vulnerabilities to our power, and not just from severe
    weather, sometimes they're from manmade vulnerabilities. There
    was a shooting at a substation at Fort Liberty that caused a
    loss of power to 45 thousand people for several days.
        We can't afford to lose power. If we lose power, we lose
    training. With respect to severe weather, if our bases are
    inundated with flooding, for example, as was West Point last
    summer. In this very severe storm where West Point was the
    epicenter, West Point lost power. There's at this point over
    $200 million of damage and counting.
        So, this is about keeping our bases resilient and ready to
    train. Operationally again, this is -- everything we're doing
    operationally for hybridization and future, potential future
    electrification of our tactical vehicles.
        Not now, it's operation. It's meant to be, right now it's
    research. It's meant to improve combat efficiency. It's meant
    to save fuel.
        It's meant to make sure that our vehicles of the future are
    silent, are faster, don't have a heat marker, and make the war
    fighter more ready. We would never, ever compromise the
    effectiveness of our mission, ever.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Ms. Sherrill. Mr. Scott?
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Chaudhary, I represent Moody Air Force base
    in Valdosta. I also represent Robins Air Force Base in Warner
    Robins, Georgia.
        And, it's one of the three depots. And, as you know, these
    are extremely important parts of our organic industrial base.
        And, my question gets to just the general base
    infrastructure, these organic industrial bases are aging. And,
    what is the Air Force doing, from a strategic standpoint, with
    regard to the basic structure at those depots?
        Secretary Chaudhary. Thank you for that question,
    Representative Scott. I really appreciate your question. I was
    actually stationed at Robins Air Force Base at the depot in my
    career.
        So, I understand the value of what the depots provide. You
    can't win a war without the type of sustainment capability that
    our nation provides. And, our three depots provide that.
        I was there through the transition wherein the C-5 depot
    workload came to Warner Robins. And, what a great boon that
    was. Those incredible hangers that overlay and accommodate
    overhaul work, and now being operated on C-17s, is absolutely
    critical.
        The amount of work that goes in at our depots is critical
    to our nation. And so, that's why the Air Force in FY25 is
    going to be investing roughly $700 million in infrastructure at
    our three depots.
        I believe the portion that goes to Robins is roughly $230
    million. I can double check and get that to you. But, I had a
    chance to visit Robins in the fall. And, looked at some of
    their industrial capabilities.
        One there as it concerned me, was there were a number of
    boilers there that are at the end of their life. They've been
    rehabilitated and replaced. Several of them have been replaced,
    but the replacement did not go as well.
        So, I'm going to not check into that. And, look at the
    health of that, because, I think, it's absolutely crucial going
    forward.
        Mr. Scott. I'm going to move onto you Mr. Secretary. You
    know, as we talk about these military construction projects,
    even if it's simply the replacement of a boiler, it seems to
    take us significantly longer than it takes the private sector
    to get anything done in the DoD.
        Not just in the era of construction, but pretty much in
    anything. I think, it took the Army ten years to pick a pistol
    out. Is that right? Somewhere around ten years?
        And, yet most of the guys, if they have the choice of what
    they carry, they carry a different one than the Army picked.
        Anyway, five years to turn the lights on from start to
    finish on a construction project. What is the Department of
    Defense doing to shorten that timeline?
        Secretary Owens. There are a number of initiatives that we
    have underway. Starting in 2018, I believe, it was the first
    time when our office started to look at MILCON reform as a
    significant opportunity to improve on turn time for projects.
        That includes re-looking at the way we do cost estimating,
    re-looking at the way that we do programming, re-looking at the
    way that we are pushing forward with the Corps and with AFOTEC
    [Air Force Operational Test & Evaluation Center] to ensure that
    we are driving on those things.
        I'd be happy to come brief you on specific things that our
    office is doing and to get down to really details.
        Mr. Scott. Let me ask it another way then. So, in the
    states, with commercial buildings, sometimes not as big as what
    we have at DoD, but sometimes they are.
        Dorms would be an example of something that a college
    campus would build, that we sometimes would build. We have
    hotels at Fort Moore.
        Are we looking at the ability to allow the private sector
    to design, build, and lease back to us? They seem to be able to
    do it in a much faster, more efficient manner.
        Have we looked at allowing the private sector to build and
    own the building, and lease the facility back from them for a
    certain period of time?
        Secretary Owens. Sir, I think you've picked two good
    examples. One, with unaccompanied housing, dorms, barracks.
    And, one with temporary, with lodging facilities, temporary
    lodging facilities.
        And, the Army has done an excellent job of privatizing
    their lodging facilities. And, I think that that is a case
    study in terms of how we can leverage private sector speed and
    efficiency to deliver those projects.
        I think to Ranking Member Garamendi's, and Chairman
    Waltz's, earlier remarks, his earlier comments about
    privatization for unaccompanied housing, we are definitely
    looking at how we can get after that and decrease the beds, the
    dollar per bed unit costs that we are experiencing, or have
    experienced, traditionally.
        Mr. Scott. All right. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Vasquez from the great
    state of New Mexico.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
    witnesses for taking the time to be here today. I have the
    privilege of representing New Mexico's Second District, home to
    Holloman Air Force Base and White Sands Missile Range.
        And, as the only member of New Mexico's delegation to serve
    on the Armed Services Committee, I have a vested interest in
    all of New Mexico's installations.
        But, today I want to talk about fixing the problem of
    unexploded ordinance on Tribal lands. In places such as the
    Pueblo of Isleta, which is in my District, just outside and
    bordering Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, our Tribal
    members have been unable to use over 35 thousand acres of their
    own sovereign land for decades due to the amount of unexploded
    ordinance left by the Department of Defense.
        Now, this includes lands that the Tribe would like to use
    for farming purposes, for infrastructure building, for road
    building.
        So, this not only impacts their ability to use their own
    natural resources and access significant cultural sights on
    their land, but it poses an economic hindrance to their
    advancement as a sovereign nation and poses an imminent safety
    risk to their community.
        Now, the Department has taken some steps in the right
    direction, by creating the Native American Lands Environment
    Mitigation Program, to clean up UXO [unexploded ordnance] on
    Tribal lands. But, the Department, and this is what I hear
    directly from the Tribe, has failed to provide the partnership
    and the resources necessary to clean up these UXO on Tribal
    lands.
        Mr. Owens, and Mr. Chaudhary, how can the Department do a
    better job of honoring the American Lands Environmental
    Mitigation Program and supporting Tribes like the Pueblo of
    Isleta, to prioritize cleaning up UXO and other contaminants to
    keep these Tribal communities safe and able to use their own
    sovereign lands?
        Secretary Owens. Thanks for highlighting this issue. And, I
    think that one of the things, and for highlighting NALEMP
    [Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program] as a
    program that we have established to do exactly what you're
    saying.
        Our budget request for environmental cleanup programs this
    year is $1.6 billion. I don't have the breakdown of how much of
    that goes to NLEMA. I'm happy to come back on that and provide
    that information.
        And then, to work specifically on, with the constituents
    that you're talking with, to be able to make sure that we're
    resourcing that program and in the place that it is needed.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Owens. And, if possible, I
    would love to facilitate a meeting directly with Tribal
    leadership so that we can get some type of timeline for this
    very last, this very large swath of land that is very critical
    and important to them, considering how small some of these
    Tribal territories are.
        Secretary Owens. Absolutely. Thank you.
        Mr. Vasquez. Mr. Chaudhary?
        Secretary Chaudhary. The only thing I'll add is you have my
    commitment to work with Tribal nations to make sure that we're
    partnering in the right way, we're engaging.
        And, I look forward to meeting with you on this topic, as
    well as visiting, if I need to.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much. All right. My other
    question, and New Mexico has a legacy of both contamination but
    also because of our nuclear legacy and missile testing, we have
    not just UXO, but of course, we're dealing with the show of
    RECA [Radiation Exposure Compensation Act] and uncompensated
    victims of nuclear testing in places in my District, right
    around the Trinity site.
        But, we're also seeing now today, is increased PFAS
    contamination. In fact, there's a recent study that just came
    out that showed PFAS contamination in almost 100 percent of New
    Mexico's waterways.
        And, a lot of this is attributable to Department of Defense
    activities at places like Kirtland, which had its bulk fuel
    facility jet fuel leak discovered in 1999. And, we're still
    trying to figure out how we're going to clean that up today and
    how we're going to fund that today.
        Mr. Owens and Mr. Chaudhary, what is the status of the Air
    Force's efforts to work with local partners on the ground and
    agencies and communities to continue to clean up these
    contaminants?
        Secretary Owens. I'll start generally. And then, I'd ask
    Dr. Chaudhary to talk specifically to the Air Force piece. But,
    with the release of the new maximum contaminant limit for PFAS
    that EPA put out last week, this is a huge change in terms of
    the way the Department needs to engage around this specific
    issue.
        So, we have been working in the anticipation of this rule
    coming out for the last eight months, to be postured to be able
    to understand the scope and scale of the challenge that we now
    face with these lower MCLs [maximum containment level].
        And, we have been working in partnership with the military
    departments to put together that plan about how we're going to
    address these in a prioritized way.
        And, I think that that is a, it's going to be a significant
    long-term, decades long-term challenge that we need to get
    after consistently and in partnership with the military
    departments. And, working with Congress to get the funding to
    be able to do that.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Owens. I appreciate that. And,
    for the record, I'm also asking this Committee to include the
    reauthorization and expansion of RECA to include New Mexicans
    in their FY25 NDAA.
        Thank you all for your great work and your dedicated
    service to our country. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Vasquez. And, in the interest of
    time, since votes have been called, without objection, I'd like
    to change the clock to three minutes.
        So, that, I believe, that will get us nine minutes. We've
    got ten minutes remaining. And then, we can hoof it over there.
        Ms. Tokuda.
        Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, as you know, my
    District spans all eight of the major Hawaiian Islands,
    including Maui, which expands the horrific wildfires last
    August.
        The Department of Defense played an essential role in
    supporting initial relief efforts and ongoing relief efforts.
    And, I would just like to Mahalo, especially the Army Corps of
    Engineers and so many who have worked on behalf of our
    community.
        At the same time, the fires have spread a broader awareness
    of the challenges of pre-disaster mitigation and post-disaster
    recovery across our communities. And, as one of the largest
    landowners of Hawaii with significant and local impacts, people
    are looking at the Department of Defense as an important
    partner to help the efforts going forward to rebuild and
    recover.
        So, my questions today relate to local opportunities by
    which the Department may be a helpful partner to our
    communities, while also improving installation resilience,
    readiness, and quality of life.
        Dr. Chaudhary, as you know, the fire destroyed thousands of
    homes on Maui, making what is already a tight housing market
    that was challenging for locals to afford. That is also true
    for several dozen Department of the Air Force personnel and
    contractors assigned to the 15th Space Surveillance Squadron on
    the Island of Maui, tasked with essential space-related
    missions.
        In this worsening housing crisis, we have heard antidotal
    reports that Maui residents unaffected by the fires, are losing
    their leases. Given that Department personnel on Maui were
    known to have challenges with securing housing prior to the
    fires, I am concerned about their situation after the fires.
        Dr. Chaudhary, has the Department of the Air Force
    considered, or will the Department consider, creative housing
    solutions, including acquiring and developing government owned
    housing on Maui, to help provide housing stability for its
    personnel and contractors on Island, and to not further burden
    any of the private inventory we have for our residents?
        Secretary Chaudhary. Rep Tokuda, I thank you for that
    question. The answer to your question is yes. What, I believe,
    my team is taking it, for the record, to make sure that we take
    a look at all the housing options.
        We have a number of opportunities and capabilities within
    our quiver to address housing issues across our Department of
    the Air Force.
        One of the victories that we've had is at Altus Air Force
    Base, Oklahoma, where we've partnered with the local community,
    established partnerships, and entered governmental service
    agreements that will allow us to do that. That doesn't mean
    that I would rule out a potential government housing
    opportunity.
        But, what I would ask for your assistance with, is to work
    with your team to better understand what the tailored needs are
    within that particular market. And then, come up with a
    solution that works for members that are serving there and
    doesn't impact the community.
        Ms. Tokuda. Absolutely. I look forward to working with you
    on that. Just to touch upon one other issue. One of the reasons
    why the fire in Lahaina was so deadly, was limited road access.
    Once blocked, it made it very difficult for entire
    neighborhoods to evacuate quickly.
        And so, I would like to talk about Kolekole Pass, Kolekole
    Road, situated on Army/Navy property. Kolekole Road cuts
    through the Waianae Mountain Range and in a hypothetical
    disaster on the west side, could be a crucial evacuation route
    for those communities.
        However, while there is a standing agreement permitting use
    of Kolekole in emergency situations, the road is not in proper
    condition to support a major evacuation. I know I cannot go on
    further.
        But, Ms. Jacobson and Ms. Berger, I hope we can work with
    your Departments to improve Kolekole Road for maintenance and
    safety so that we can use this as a way to quickly evacuate our
    residents in times of need.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Ms. Tokuda. Time has expired. Mr.
    Veasey?
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. I want to ask some
    questions about some switching station issues that we've had in
    Fort Worth.
        And, I was hoping that Ms. Berger, that you could answer
    specifically. Could you first explain why an electrical
    switching station is critical for base operations and mission
    readiness?
        And, how does it support the overall functionality and
    security of a military installation?
        Secretary Berger. Yes, Congressman Veasey. Most broadly,
    energy is going to keep the lights on, keep everything working
    to make sure that the base can accomplish the mission.
        Mr. Veasey. So, my staff recently visited Naval Air Station
    Fort Worth. They were in town, some of the D.C. staff were in
    town recently.
        And, the installation commander mentioned the most pressing
    issue was obtaining a new electrical switching station. The
    current station's infrastructure is very old and shuts down and
    causes power outage and water supply issues.
        And, I wasn't sure if you were aware of that.
        Secretary Berger. I have become aware. Yes, Congressman.
        Mr. Veasey. Okay. And, given those concerns, can you commit
    to working with my office and collaborate on some sort of a
    plan to address those outdated switching station issues?
        We could, you know, obviously make sure that nobody's
    safety is compromised and that the base can do everything that
    they need to be able to get done to address that?
        Secretary Berger. Absolutely. Yes, sir. And, you create the
    critical connection that we see, why resilience is so important
    for our bases.
        So, I'm very eager to work with your team and the onsite
    team to make sure that we are scoping something going forward.
    And, this is another example of why energy resilience is so
    important for our installations.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. Mr. Panetta?
        Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Garamendi. Thank you for allowing me to join you today.
        I want to, the three of you, I'm focusing on Ms. Berger
    right now, so you guys can just kind of zone out. But, just to
    let you know, I want to thank Ms. Berger for her help to push
    forward the new Naval Innovation Center at Navy Post Graduate
    School in my District, the 19th Congressional District of
    Monterey, California.
        You've worked very closely with the Secretary of the Navy,
    Secretary Del Toro, on the Naval Innovation Center, the NIC as
    I call it, which is part of his initiative to propel innovation
    by transforming how the DoD leverages the private sector and
    DoD innovation hubs to bring capabilities quickly.
        Our adversaries understand that one of our greatest
    challenges is bringing solutions to the battlefield quickly.
    And, innovation is deterrence and directly affects the
    credibility of the United States to forestall China from taking
    aggressive action against Taiwan, deter Russia from expanding
    the conflict in Europe, and defending allies in the Middle East
    from Iranian aggression, as you know well.
        The NIC will create innovative solutions by enabling
    interdisciplinary teams to curate, experiment, and collaborate
    on cutting edge technologies. Industry and other partners will
    work side by side with the Navy Post Graduate Schools' 15
    hundred plus U.S. and international students to address
    strategic competition and regular warfare.
        Now, Ms. Berger, we appreciate all of your efforts with the
    Secretary to accelerate the construction of the NIC, including
    securing the planning and design funds for FY25 and FY26.
    Prioritizing the completion of the 1391 Form, which outlines
    the funding and intent of the Center.
        Accelerating the environmental assessment review and the
    Secretary highlighting the Center recently, even at the Reagan
    National Defense Forum. One quick question, because I have a
    limited amount of time.
        What can I, what can Congress do to support the Center's
    inclusion in the Navy's FYDP for FY26?
        Secretary Berger. So, Congressman, first we plan, then we
    go forward. So, as you know, we've got $25 billion in there for
    P&D.
        And then, from that informed and scoped way forward, we
    come back, and we make an informed request. And so, first start
    planning for sure.
        But, as you note, under so many assets and benefits that
    come from our Naval Education Enterprise, specifically at the
    Naval War College. And so, we learn from the history. We act in
    the present.
        And, we anticipate the future so that we are creating the
    best war fighters. The same is true of our infrastructure.
        And so, as we build forward, we build towards that
    environment in a resilient, sustainable, using the materials,
    the water, the energy, all of the things that we want to
    prioritize as we move forward.
        So, you will see the planning that mimics the war fighters
    that we are trying to create.
        Mr. Panetta. And, in five seconds, anything else that I can
    be doing to make sure that the Navy stays on track?
        Secretary Berger. We are on track. And, we will make sure
    staying in close touch with you.
        Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses and the
    preparation that goes into this. I used to be in the Pentagon
    preparing for these hearings. And, I think it's an incredibly
    important part of our system that I now have a new appreciation
    for.
        But, thank you. The hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 April 16, 2024

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

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 April 16, 2024

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

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                 April 16, 2024

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

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ROGERS

        Mr. Rogers. In the FY24 NDAA, Sec. 2811 included explicit authority
    that the DOD and the military services may use areawide contracts to
    procure utility services from a utility service supplier. Does the Sec.
    2811 language provide the legal clarifications needed for DOD and Army
    (or Navy/USMC) to overcome all the hurdles to using the areawide
    contract for utilities services? If not, what are the remaining legal
    or policy obstacles, and what are your suggested legislative solutions?
        Secretary Owens. The Department recognizes the value of areawide
    contracts (AWC) and is already using them widely, with $663M obligated
    since 2013. Even prior to the FY24 provision on AWCs, DoD-as a delegee
    of GSA-routinely used the authority at 40 U.S.C. 501, as implemented at
    FAR Part 41, to procure utility services such as electricity, natural
    gas, water, wastewater, and steam through AWCs.
        Multiple DoD installations have also leveraged AWCs to procure non-
    regulated energy-related services that help meet resilience goals.
    Examples include the acquisition of electric vehicle support equipment
    (EVSE), advanced meters, and utility infrastructure. DoD uses this
    authority where (1) DoD has a requirement for utility services within
    an area covered by an areawide contract and (2) the area is a
    vertically integrated market in which there is no other available
    supplier, aside from the regulated utility. DoD believes that the
    existing Title 40 authority has been useful, and DoD does not believe
    that it is constrained by hurdles to using AWCs for utility services.
        FY24 NDAA Section 2811(b)(1)(C) expanded-or at least clarified an
    expansion of-the scope of "utility services" that DoD may acquire
    through AWCs. In addition to those traditional utility services that
    DoD historically has acquired through its delegated Title 40 authority,
    2811(b)(1)(C) explicitly permits DoD to use AWCs to "implement[]
    utility system infrastructure projects." DoD reads this language as
    providing it the authority to add onto existing AWCs new task orders
    for the construction and maintenance of new infrastructure that will
    integrate with the existing utility services provided by the regulated
    utility. These projects could include local supply-side, demand-side,
    or micro-transmission projects.
        However, DoD does not read Section 2811(b)(1) as excepting DoD from
    the Competition in Contracting Act (10 U.S.C. 3201). DoD may
    choose to sole source these types of infrastructure projects to
    regulated utilities, but because the regulated utilities are not the
    exclusive available source for constructing that type of
    infrastructure, DoD would need (and would want) to complete a
    justification and approval (J&A) demonstrating that non-competitively
    awarding such infrastructure work to a regulated utility meets one of
    the exceptions enumerated within 10 U.S.C. 3204 and
    implemented at FAR 6.302.
        The Department does not seek additional statutory authority to sole
    source (without a J&A) these types of infrastructure projects through
    AWCs. Competitive procurements reduce costs to the taxpayer, spur
    innovation, yield improvements in the quality of products and services
    rendered, and curb fraud.
        If a regulated utility with whom DoD has an AWC is best positioned
    to implement infrastructure projects to help an installation become
    more resilient, DoD-either through competitive acquisition or through
    an other-than-competitive J&A-will select the utility to do the work
    and acquire the work through an AWC. But DoD objects to any legislation
    that would compel it to use vertically-integrated utility companies to
    implement resilience infrastructure projects as a service, particularly
    through a non-competitive award under an AWC, as such a mandate would
    undermine all of the benefits of competition and would curtail DoD's
    ability to get the best value for the taxpayer.
        In sum, there are no remaining legal or policy obstacles to using
    AWCs to procure infrastructure as services from regulated utilities,
    and DoD suggests that Congress refrain from adding new language on this
    issue.
        Mr. Rogers. Underground utility strikes during military
    construction are dangerous and costly events. There are many ways to
    mitigate the risk of utility strikes, but general data suggests that
    hand digging still leads to a considerable amount of incidents. Vacuum
    excavation is another method of reducing the risk for utility strikes
    during construction, how have the military departments considered this
    method and associated best practices to avoid potential utility
    strikes?
        Secretary Owens. The Military Departments have used this minimally-
    intrusive method of excavation in construction projects to reduce the
    risk of damaging underground utilities. It has particularly been used
    to excavate test holes to determine the location of critical utilities
    prior to full scale excavation. Use of non-destructive methods prior to
    excavation such as ground penetrating radar help the Department
    determine the level of risk for associated with subsurface utilities
    and inform the decision to employee more precise excavation methods
    such as vacuum excavation.
        Mr. Rogers. In the FY24 NDAA, Sec. 2811 included explicit authority
    that the DOD and the military services may use areawide contracts to
    procure utility services from a utility service supplier. Does the Sec.
    2811 language provide the legal clarifications needed for DOD and Army
    (or Navy/USMC) to overcome all the hurdles to using the areawide
    contract for utilities services? If not, what are the remaining legal
    or policy obstacles, and what are your suggested legislative solutions?
        Secretary Jacobson. The Sec. 2811 language provides a broad
    definition for utility services that the DoD and military services may
    procure under an areawide contract, however, that authority does not
    waive the requirement to compete those services, when retail
    competition for those services is allowed under state law. To further
    streamline the procurement of utility services under an areawide
    contract, Congress could expressly authorize the DoD and military
    services to contract for those service on a sole source basis.
        Mr. Rogers. Underground utility strikes during military
    construction are dangerous and costly events. There are many ways to
    mitigate the risk of utility strikes, but general data suggests that
    hand digging still leads to a considerable amount of incidents. Vacuum
    excavation is another method of reducing the risk for utility strikes
    during construction, how have the military departments considered this
    method and associated best practices to avoid potential utility
    strikes?
        Secretary Jacobson. The Army is strongly committed to safety,
    especially when performing demolition of or working around existing
    infrastructure. For construction projects, the Army requires the
    contractor to prepare a project and site-specific demolition plan which
    must detail the means, method, and equipment to perform the work, as
    well as the work sequence. That plan must be approved by the Army.
    Before starting any definable feature of work, the Army's Construction
    Quality Control procedures require a preparatory meeting with contract
    and government personnel, which includes review of all safety measures.
        Mr. Rogers. In the FY24 NDAA, Sec. 2811 included explicit authority
    that the DOD and the military services may use areawide contracts to
    procure utility services from a utility service supplier. Does the Sec.
    2811 language provide the legal clarifications needed for DOD and Army
    (or Navy/USMC) to overcome all the hurdles to using the areawide
    contract for utilities services? If not, what are the remaining legal
    or policy obstacles, and what are your suggested legislative solutions?
        Secretary Berger. The areawide contract is one of several valuable
    tools available to the Department of the Navy to procure utility
    services or complete utility projects. The current language provided in
    Section 2811 of the FY24 NDAA, which is consistent with prior NDAA
    language authorizing the use of the areawide contract, provides
    sufficient clarity to ensure appropriate use of the areawide contract.
    The language in Section 2811 of the FY24 NDAA also allows the
    Department of the Navy's Heads of Contracting Activity the discretion
    they need in order to select the best contracting method for each
    individual utility services procurement or utility project.
        Mr. Rogers. Underground utility strikes during military
    construction are dangerous and costly events. There are many ways to
    mitigate the risk of utility strikes, but general data suggests that
    hand digging still leads to a considerable amount of incidents. Vacuum
    excavation is another method of reducing the risk for utility strikes
    during construction, how have the military departments considered this
    method and associated best practices to avoid potential utility
    strikes?
        Secretary Berger. The Department of the Navy requires that our
    contractors utilize safe construction practices. As a means and method
    of construction, Contractors may choose to utilize vacuum excavation in
    conjunction with hand-digging when in the vicinity of marked
    underground utilities.
        Mr. Rogers. In the FY24 NDAA, Sec. 2811 included explicit authority
    that the DOD and the military services may use areawide contracts to
    procure utility services from a utility service supplier. Does the Sec.
    2811 language provide the legal clarifications needed for DOD and Army
    (or Navy/USMC) to overcome all the hurdles to using the areawide
    contract for utilities services? If not, what are the remaining legal
    or policy obstacles, and what are your suggested legislative solutions?
        Secretary Chaudhary. DAF has successfully used areawide contracts
    (AWCs) for Utility Energy Savings Contracts (UESCs). GSA AWCs are
    typically used for electricity purchases where utility providers
    participate in the Department of Energy (DoE) areawide contract
    vehicles. UESCs have been used by DAF to obtain energy management
    services, including energy efficiency, demand reduction, and energy
    resilience.
        Mr. Rogers. Underground utility strikes during military
    construction are dangerous and costly events. There are many ways to
    mitigate the risk of utility strikes, but general data suggests that
    hand digging still leads to a considerable amount of incidents. Vacuum
    excavation is another method of reducing the risk for utility strikes
    during construction, how have the military departments considered this
    method and associated best practices to avoid potential utility
    strikes?
        Secretary Chaudhary. The DAF does not stipulate the use of any
    particular method for excavation on our installations. Instead, the
    Department relies on the expertise of contractors and in-house military
    and civilian craftsmen to analyze each situation and apply their
    experience to determine the best means of safely excavating without
    striking utilities.
        The DAF has used vacuum excavation on occasion, because in some
    circumstances it may be the safest, most-suitable method. However, the
    technique may not be optimal in certain situations. For example, vacuum
    excavation is not the best choice for large excavations or when speed
    of excavation may be critical to a project or mission. Additionally,
    depending on local environmental regulations, the collected soil and
    water spoils may need to be brought to an off-site collection facility
    instead of deposited on-site.
                                     ______

                RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI

        Mr. Garamendi. We've talked about the BRAC installations that
    remain on the Army's books due to long term requirements for
    environmental clean-up. In some cases, such as Sharpe Army Depot, it
    may be possible to transfer these facilities so they can be put to
    beneficial use before the cleanup is complete. The Army would retain
    its clean-up requirements, but the surrounding community would get the
    benefit of using the land while the clean-up continued. Does the Army
    have any mechanisms to execute these types of transfers, where
    appropriate?
        Secretary Jacobson. Enabling beneficial reuse while the Army
    continues its environmental response obligations under the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
    (CERCLA) or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is a
    fairly common occurrence at Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
    locations as well as large non-BRAC excess properties such as Sharpe
    Army Depot.
        In general, Army may pursue several strategies to support community
    beneficial re-use while the Army completes its environmental clean-up
    obligations. The Army's options include: (1) leasing or granting a
    less-than-fee interest in the land (such as an easement) to allow
    compatible redevelopment or reuse activities to commence which do not
    interfere with Army clean-up activities; (2) splitting the parcel(s) in
    question so that the Army can transfer a clean parcel , while
    maintaining Army ownership over contaminated parcels until such time as
    the parcels are ready for transfer; or (3) requesting permission from
    the Governor of the particular state for a CERCLA "covenant deferral",
    allowing early transfer.
        The Army has used these approaches at many sites. For any of these
    options, the beneficial reuse would be subject to land use restrictions
    to protect human health and the environment while the Army completes
    its remedial obligations. Additionally, in conjunction with the third
    (early transfer) option, the Army could sell the parcel for "in-kind"
    consideration whereby the transferee agrees to perform the clean-up on
    behalf of the Army.
        Under this scenario, the transfer documents would contain one or
    more financial assurance provisions to ensure the clean-up is performed
    and regulatory close-out achieved. As a general matter, CERCLA Section
    120(h), requires the United States to provide a covenant in the deed
    conveying the property warranting that all remedial actions necessary
    to protect human health and the environment have been taken prior to
    the date of transfer. For federal facilities not listed on the National
    Priorities List (NPL), the Governor of the state in which the property
    is located may agree to defer the CERCLA covenant requirement and allow
    for an "Early Transfer."
        For federal facilities that are listed on the NPL, the early
    transfer requires approval from both the Governor of the state in which
    the property is located and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Once the cleanup at an Early Transfer location is complete, the United
    States executes the CERCLA warranty post-transfer. We would be happy to
    explore the feasibility of each of these options for the Sharpe Army
    Depot and report back to you.
        Mr. Garamendi. It is imperative that installations pay close
    attention to the issue of encroachment and the risk that activities and
    purchases outside may have on operations inside the installation. The
    military must do a better job of identifying and preventing
    encroachment. One area of concern to me is the land surrounding MOTCO.
    Although the land may currently be privately owned, we've seen
    previously that without taking action, such as agreements with
    surrounding communities or leveraging the REPI program to obtain
    easements, private developers can acquire land and develop plans which
    inhibit the military's ability to carry out its missions. Secretary
    Jacobson, what steps the Army is taking to ensure there is no
    incompatible development around MOTCO?
        Secretary Jacobson. The Army will perform an encroachment analysis
    for MOTCO and then determine the feasibility of using Army REPI plan to
    address potentially incompatible use. Army Installation Command plans
    to meet with MOTCO Garrison leadership before the end of the calendar
    year 2024 to identify potential Army REPI partners and the Army's
    capacity to pursue such opportunities.
                                     ______

               RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STRICKLAND

        Ms. Strickland. Secretary Jacobson, I want to express my
    appreciation for you and your team's partnership with my office to
    address the housing issues at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. Working
    together to address our shared concerns about military housing, both
    family and unaccompanied housing, on base is vital to ensuring that
    servicemembers have what they need to have safe, high-quality living
    situations.
        Moving forward on a new housing project to address the revised
    housing shortage at JBLM is the right step forward, and I know my team
    is looking forward to the site selection visit this week. I am pleased
    that after three or almost four years of advocacy from my constituents
    and office, there appears to be a path forward to improving and adding
    military family housing at JBLM.
        I know that the Garrison, members of the Army Installations team,
    and my staff are participating in site visits this week. What is your
    anticipated timeline for building these new homes?
        Secretary Jacobson. Thank you for your continued interest and
    support of the Army's housing program at Joint Base Lewis-McChord
    (JBLM). Members of the Army Installations team met with the local JBLM
    team on 16-18 April to continue to discuss the potential future
    expansion of the JBLM family housing inventory.
        We were pleased that Ms. Larter, the District Director for your
    state office, was able to participate in the briefing with the Command
    Group and has followed up with very useful information to support our
    work. The Army is working actively with the current Military Housing
    Privatization Initiative (MHPI) company at JBLM - Liberty Military
    Housing. Liberty has agreed to construct an additional 212 family homes
    on the installation.
        The original schedule assumed that that site work would begin in
    August 2024. Vertical construction was expected to begin in April 2025
    with all units delivered by the end of May 2027. To meet the needs of
    JBLM families, the Army continues to review the housing inventory and
    monitor housing costs. Should the Army adjust the inventory
    composition, a delay of up to six months may result.
        Construction of additional housing on JBLM beyond the 212 Liberty
    Military Housing will construct hinges on a variety of factors,
    including Liberty's ability to obtain financing, the demand for
    additional housing, and future changes in the rates of Basic Allowance
    for Housing for Soldiers assigned to JBLM. As a result, the Army is
    continuing to assess the housing situation at JBLM and we will continue
    to keep you and this committee informed of our progress.
        Ms. Strickland. Secretary Jacobson, I want to address a pressing
    issue for my local community - the North Clear Zone. In September 2009,
    the City of Lakewood entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the Army
    to ensure that the North Clear Zone is compatible with the Department
    of Defense's safety and mission readiness requirements.
        While the Air Force provides the majority of the funds, it is the
    Army that is managing the real estate transactions. It took 850 days
    for the first purchase under the Cooperative Agreement to be completed.
    This is unacceptable. There are 20 other transactions within the North
    Clear Zone, and these commercial properties and the City of Lakewood
    need a reasonable process for purchasing these properties.
        How can we work together to create a sensible policy that
    guarantees that these transactions are completed in a timely manner and
    ensures public and flight safety?
        Secretary Jacobson. Our process is very thorough and includes
    several due-diligence actions such as an appraisal, a boundary survey,
    a title search, etc. Only after these actions occur can the Army move
    forward with acquisition. While the first transaction took over 2
    years, we have since been able to streamline the process through
    communication and collaboration with the City of Lakewood and expect
    future transactions to be completed more quickly.
        Ms. Strickland. The Department of Defense was first authorized to
    undertake research, development testing, evaluation, study, and
    demonstration activities as it pertains to carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
    in the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 223. Direct Air
    Capture and Blue Carbon Removal Technology Program of P.L. 116-92).
    Since then, the Department has received $10 million annually to explore
    Direct Air Capture (DAC) and potential pathways to turn this captured
    CO2 into fuel. These activities have been funded under RDTE Programs
    within the United States Navy.
        1. This program was devised to include 2 stages, (1) research &
    development and (2) testing and evaluation. Has phase 1 of this program
    concluded? Thus far, what are the results of this phase?
        2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) has
    concluded deep decarbonization across all systems won't be enough to
    achieve global climate goals, and all pathways that limit warming to
    1.5 degrees C depend on some quantity of carbon removal. Given this
    reality, do you believe that the Department should pursue
    decarbonization efforts along with carbon removal Do you believe the
    Navy should pursue procurement of high quality carbon removal credits
    as a means to achieving net zero?
        3. As the chief sustainability expert at the US Navy, what role do
    you believe carbon removal should play in managing the risks associated
    with climate change?
        4. The 2023 State of Carbon Removal Report found that the
    overwhelming majority of carbon removal patents are held in China. What
    is the Department doing to ensure that the United States remains the
    global leader in carbon removal? What are the geopolitical implications
    of governments and private companies turning to the Chinese, instead of
    the United States, to meet their climate commitments?
        Secretary Berger. 1. Phase I of the program continues. All research
    and development (R&D) efforts are supporting further development of
    components and materials related to direct air capture, direct ocean
    capture, and fuel synthesis.
        Technology maturation continues as the components and the systems
    that support the components are tested and evaluated for scaling,
    process efficiencies, and integration. At this stage the research phase
    is on-going and testing and evaluation of the technologies is in
    progress. Thus far the results of the R&D phase have led to
    advancements in key materials, small scale component demonstrations,
    and prototypes of direct air capture technology and the electrolytic
    cation exchange modules for process efficiencies and CO2 removal from
    the air and the oceans.
        These small-scale prototypes of CO2 reduction technologies are
    currently being tested and evaluated by researchers at Naval Research
    Lab, Army Research Lab, academia, and industry partners to enhance
    carbon utilization and fuel qualifications.
        2. Decarbonization is central to Navy's efforts and we recognize
    that our net zero goal cannot be achieved by decarbonization alone. The
    Department of the Navy manages nearly five million acres of land and we
    partner with other agencies, private landowners, and conservation
    groups on millions more. We are actively investing in nature-based
    carbon sequestration and are undertaking assessments to ascertain the
    greatest potential opportunities to sequester carbon. We are doing this
    not only to draw down carbon, but also because by working with nature
    on and off our installations, we can increase the resilience of our
    installations. At this time, we prefer this approach where we directly
    invest in carbon drawdown and build resilience at our installations,
    rather than purchasing external carbon offsets.
        3. The DON is quickly moving forward with opportunities to remove
    carbon emissions. The Department of the Navy also recognizes, as the
    IPCC reports state, that globally we cannot reach the goal of net zero
    by 2050 relying on emissions reductions alone. That is why we are
    investing in nature-based carbon drawdown projects on our bases, with
    the dual benefit that working with nature we increase our resilience to
    climate hazards.
        The Department of the Navy is pursuing many opportunities to reduce
    carbon emissions generated. We have also been investing for several
    years in priority research that removes dissolved carbon dioxide from
    seawater and uses it to make jet fuel. At this time, we do not have a
    robust pathway for the Department of the Navy to engage in carbon
    removal at scale, apart from these efforts. We are pursuing these
    efforts for operational reasons and to make us a more lethal and
    resilient force.
        4. The Navy is pursuing decarbonization efforts as a key component
    for the Department, and for the United States as a whole, to reach net
    zero by 2050. These efforts align with maintaining and enhancing
    warfighting capabilities and mission effectiveness. Priority research
    in science and technology investments are developing concepts and
    technologies at carbon removal and synthesis into fuels, as described
    above.
        We also understand that climate change and the energy transition
    offer an important opportunity for competition, and that countries and
    companies that master the technologies of this transition will have an
    advantage. As the Department of the Navy, we set requirements that
    support our Naval forces' ability to maintain warfighting advantage and
    enable mission success. We are committed to working closely with
    industry and academia, and other US agencies to support US
    competitiveness in this important transition, to include support for
    carbon removal technologies that may be relevant to Department of Navy
    equities.
        5. Thank you for your concern over wait times and housing
    availability at Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West. The Department of the
    Navy (DON) is paying close attention to this issue. Improving the
    quality of unaccompanied housing (UH) and family housing (FH) continues
    to remain a focus area for the Navy, and we will continue our efforts
    for Key West. The Navy is continuing work on major UH renovations at
    NAS Key West, and we anticipate that those will be complete February
    2025.
        To help reduce long wait times while these repairs are completed,
    affected Sailors have been given Certificates of Non-Availability for
    purposes of Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) eligibility, and NAS Key
    West's Military Housing Office has been counseling affected Sailors on
    housing options using their BAH, including in-town options, privatized
    housing, and new Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) vacation rentals
    located on the base.
        The DON has had positive results through the use of the 10 U.S.C.
     2881a authority to establish pilot programs for privatized
    UH, currently in San Diego and Norfolk. The privatized UH structure
    successfully piloted by DON has allowed these facilities access to
    private financing at initial start-up to make improvements and build
    new facilities, proving to be a powerful tool to help the UH facility
    conditions and improve quality of life.
        The DON has started evaluating other fleet concentration locations
    for UH privatization feasibility. Concerning, the DON's privatized the
    FH requirement at NAS Key West, the Navy is exploring opportunities
    within existing privatized and leasing authorities to explore
    additional new family housing.
                                     ______

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GIMENEZ

        Mr. Gimenez. How do you ensure that your installations don't have
    exposure to power stations with foreign adversary supply chain
    concerns? Within the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program (DCIP) do
    you monitor your local energy partners for exposure to foreign
    adversaries and compromised gear being installed?
        Secretary Owens. DoD continues to collaborate with the Department
    of Energy on Defense Critical Energy Infrastructure efforts, a subset
    of DoD work with the interagency on Defense Critical Infrastructure
    efforts, and we strongly support that program. DOD is also leveraging
    is efforts through the National Defense Industrial Base Strategy to
    engage and work with partners across the U.S. Government, to align USG
    efforts to expose and prevent foreign adversary presence in our
    infrastructure systems.
        Mr. Gimenez. In your testimony, you cite the GAO report on Military
    Unaccompanied Housing that noted that service members living in
    privatized barracks consistently stated that they were satisfied with
    the condition of their housing, and it has improved their quality of
    life. I'm glad to hear that. Does this mean the Navy will continue to
    pursue privatized barracks and housing options for our Sailors?
        Secretary Berger. The Navy is continuing work on major UH
    renovations at NAS Key West, and we anticipate that those will be
    complete February 2025. To help reduce long wait times while these
    repairs are completed, affected Sailors have been given Certificates of
    Non-Availability for purposes of Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
    eligibility, and NAS Key West's Military Housing Office has been
    counseling affected Sailors on housing options using their BAH,,
    including in-town options, privatized housing, and new MWR vacation
    rentals located on the base.
        The DON has had positive results through the use of the 10 U.S.C.
     2881a authority of to establish pilot programs for privatized
    UH, currently in San Diego and Norfolk to get Junior Enlisted sailors
    access to BAH when assigned to a ship. The privatized UH structure
    successfully piloted by DON has allowed these facilities access to
    private financing at initial start-up to make improvements and build
    new facilities, proving to be a powerful tool to help the UH facility
    conditions and improve quality of life. The DON has started evaluating
    other fleet concentration locations for UH privatization feasibility.
        Mr. Gimenez. What is the plan for housing in NAS Key West? Is
    privatized housing part of that plan? What is the timeline to fix this
    housing crisis for servicemembers in Key West?
        Secretary Berger. Thank you for your concern over wait times and
    housing availability at Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West. The
    Department of the Navy (DON) is paying close attention to this issue.
    Improving the quality of unaccompanied housing (UH) and family housing
    (FH) continues to remain a focus area for the Navy, and we will
    continue our efforts for Key West.
        The Navy is continuing work on major UH renovations at NAS Key
    West, and we anticipate that those will be complete February 2025. To
    help reduce long wait times while these repairs are completed, affected
    Sailors have been given Certificates of Non-Availability for purposes
    of Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) eligibility, and NAS Key West's
    Military Housing Office has been counseling affected Sailors on housing
    options using their BAH, including in-town options, privatized housing,
    and new Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) vacation rentals located
    on the base.
        The DON has had positive results through the use of the 10 U.S.C.
     2881a authority to establish pilot programs for privatized
    UH, currently in San Diego and Norfolk. The privatized UH structure
    successfully piloted by DON has allowed these facilities access to
    private financing at initial start-up to make improvements and build
    new facilities, proving to be a powerful tool to help the UH facility
    conditions and improve quality of life.
        The DON has started evaluating other fleet concentration locations
    for UH privatization feasibility. Concerning, the DON's privatized the
    FH requirement at NAS Key West, the Navy is exploring opportunities
    within existing privatized and leasing authorities to explore
    additional new family housing.
                                     ______

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FINSTAD

        Mr. Finstad. I am concerned about the Air Force's plans to renew
    the class justification and authorization (Class J&A) for other than
    full and open competition under the HVAC Chiller Replacement
    Standardization Project. As you are likely aware, in 2019, the Air
    Force Civil Engineering Center (AFCEC) issued a Class J&A limiting
    chiller purchases to a single company on each of 77 Air Force
    installations, eliminating competition for new purchases through the
    end of FY24.
        While there are four major U.S. chiller producers, one manufacturer
    is listed for 45 of these installations, one is listed at 22 bases, and
    the remaining two vendors are permitted to sell chillers to just five
    bases. This policy flies in the face of the Air Force's efforts to
    promote competition and fair bidding practices, and I am concerned it
    is not achieving the costs savings the Air Force intended. I urge you
    and your colleagues to reconsider the renewal of the Chiller Class J&A
    when the current policy expires at the end of this fiscal year.
        1. Assistant Secretary Chaudhary, it is my understanding that
    original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have transitioned towards
    virtual training to allow technicians to learn at their own pace,
    increase information retention, and reduce costs. How did the Air Force
    consider this industry-wide shift towards blended learning in making
    its determination to renew the Chiller Class J&A?
        Secretary Chaudhary. 1) The DAF has not seen an industry-wide shift
    towards virtual training. The two major original equipment
    manufacturers have been investing in in-person training centers. The
    Air Force has found that technicians maintaining the systems learn best
    by physically handling the equipment. Virtual training is used to
    augment in-person training and when necessary to provide timely
    updates, but is not considered the most effective method of training.
        2) The DAF's current facility tracking systems are not designed to
    track cost differentials between initial procurement and ancillary
    equipment with and without competition. However, we are tracking
    components of the total cost of ownership and procuring updates to our
    tracking systems to improve our data analysis. Furthermore, the DAF is
    standing up a working group to establish standards for determining
    chiller costs and to define what ancillary equipment is included and
    excluded. This includes contracting involvement to provide
    specifications as a part of contract documents. Additionally, the
    working group will recommend any changes that are necessary in the
    tracking tools to improve data fidelity.
        3) The Class J&A initiative does not eliminate competition. Each
    Department of the Air Force installation requested its standard HVAC
    chiller and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center reviewed and approved
    the installation's requested HVAC chiller manufacturer brand. The
    identified brand can be procured from local authorized distributors
    that support the installations.
        The preponderance of these distributors are small businesses. The
    average life of an HVAC chiller is approximately 17 years and
    replacements occur only through attrition and we have not had enough
    replacement to determine potential improvement. The DAF acknowledges it
    is behind in establishing performance metrics.
        However, the Department has started making modifications to its
    tracking database systems to enable better tracking and metrics related
    to chiller systems. Notwithstanding this, installations have provided a
    great deal of anecdotal data that supports the program. Technicians at
    DAF installations indicate they are happy with the Chiller Class J&A.
    In terms of energy costs, the DAF has determined that energy
    consumption across a family of HVAC systems is typically a zero-sum
    gain and does not provide any significant differentiation between
    Manufacturers.
        Therefore, energy is being held as an equivalent across industry.
    The DAF will continue to examine performance of newer systems as
    manufacturers evolve and innovate to meet efficiency and resilience
    goals for DoD.
        Mr. Finstad. I am concerned about the Air Force's plans to renew
    the class justification and authorization (Class J&A) for other than
    full and open competition under the HVAC Chiller Replacement
    Standardization Project. As you are likely aware, in 2019, the Air
    Force Civil Engineering Center (AFCEC) issued a Class J&A limiting
    chiller purchases to a single company on each of 77 Air Force
    installations, eliminating competition for new purchases through the
    end of FY24.
        While there are four major U.S. chiller producers, one manufacturer
    is listed for 45 of these installations, one is listed at 22 bases, and
    the remaining two vendors are permitted to sell chillers to just five
    bases. This policy flies in the face of the Air Force's efforts to
    promote competition and fair bidding practices, and I am concerned it
    is not achieving the costs savings the Air Force intended. I urge you
    and your colleagues to reconsider the renewal of the Chiller Class J&A
    when the current policy expires at the end of this fiscal year.
        2. When installations replace chillers, the chillers are purchased
    using subcontracts for installations projects and packaged with other
    products. Given that installations receive a packaged bid, how is the
    Air Force assessing the costs of chillers procured under the Class J&A?
    What efforts has the Air Force pursued to compare the cost differential
    between initial procurement, not only of chillers but also ancillary
    equipment, with and without competition?
        Secretary Chaudhary. 1) The DAF has not seen an industry-wide shift
    towards virtual training. The two major original equipment
    manufacturers have been investing in in-person training centers. The
    Air Force has found that technicians maintaining the systems learn best
    by physically handling the equipment. Virtual training is used to
    augment in-person training and when necessary to provide timely
    updates, but is not considered the most effective method of training.
        2) The DAF's current facility tracking systems are not designed to
    track cost differentials between initial procurement and ancillary
    equipment with and without competition. However, we are tracking
    components of the total cost of ownership and procuring updates to our
    tracking systems to improve our data analysis.
        Furthermore, the DAF is standing up a working group to establish
    standards for determining chiller costs and to define what ancillary
    equipment is included and excluded. This includes contracting
    involvement to provide specifications as a part of contract documents.
    Additionally, the working group will recommend any changes that are
    necessary in the tracking tools to improve data fidelity.
        3) The Class J&A initiative does not eliminate competition. Each
    Department of the Air Force installation requested its standard HVAC
    chiller and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center reviewed and approved
    the installation's requested HVAC chiller manufacturer brand. The
    identified brand can be procured from local authorized distributors
    that support the installations.
        The preponderance of these distributors are small businesses. The
    average life of an HVAC chiller is approximately 17 years and
    replacements occur only through attrition and we have not had enough
    replacement to determine potential improvement. The DAF acknowledges it
    is behind in establishing performance metrics.
        However, the Department has started making modifications to its
    tracking database systems to enable better tracking and metrics related
    to chiller systems. Notwithstanding this, installations have provided a
    great deal of anecdotal data that supports the program. Technicians at
    DAF installations indicate they are happy with the Chiller Class J&A.
    In terms of energy costs, the DAF has determined that energy
    consumption across a family of HVAC systems is typically a zero-sum
    gain and does not provide any significant differentiation between
    Manufacturers. Therefore, energy is being held as an equivalent across
    industry. The DAF will continue to examine performance of newer systems
    as manufacturers evolve and innovate to meet efficiency and resilience
    goals for DoD.
        Mr. Finstad. I am concerned about the Air Force's plans to renew
    the class justification and authorization (Class J&A) for other than
    full and open competition under the HVAC Chiller Replacement
    Standardization Project. As you are likely aware, in 2019, the Air
    Force Civil Engineering Center (AFCEC) issued a Class J&A limiting
    chiller purchases to a single company on each of 77 Air Force
    installations, eliminating competition for new purchases through the
    end of FY24.
        While there are four major U.S. chiller producers, one manufacturer
    is listed for 45 of these installations, one is listed at 22 bases, and
    the remaining two vendors are permitted to sell chillers to just five
    bases. This policy flies in the face of the Air Force's efforts to
    promote competition and fair bidding practices, and I am concerned it
    is not achieving the costs savings the Air Force intended. I urge you
    and your colleagues to reconsider the renewal of the Chiller Class J&A
    when the current policy expires at the end of this fiscal year.
        3. Because chillers are a major source of energy utilization,
    lifecycle cost analysis is necessary to ensure the Air Force is
    selecting the right product for project-specific cooling needs. I am
    especially concerned that a March 2023 Congressional Requested Report
    (CRR) on the Chiller Class J&A stated that the Air Force had not yet
    developed the performance metrics and data to support the total cost of
    ownership (TCO) model. How is the Air Force justifying its plans to
    renew a policy that eliminates competition without data to demonstrate
    the Chiller Class J&A is achieving overall cost savings?
        Secretary Chaudhary. 1) The DAF has not seen an industry-wide shift
    towards virtual training. The two major original equipment
    manufacturers have been investing in in-person training centers. The
    Air Force has found that technicians maintaining the systems learn best
    by physically handling the equipment. Virtual training is used to
    augment in-person training and when necessary to provide timely
    updates, but is not considered the most effective method of training.
        2) The DAF's current facility tracking systems are not designed to
    track cost differentials between initial procurement and ancillary
    equipment with and without competition. However, we are tracking
    components of the total cost of ownership and procuring updates to our
    tracking systems to improve our data analysis.
        Furthermore, the DAF is standing up a working group to establish
    standards for determining chiller costs and to define what ancillary
    equipment is included and excluded. This includes contracting
    involvement to provide specifications as a part of contract documents.
    Additionally, the working group will recommend any changes that are
    necessary in the tracking tools to improve data fidelity.
        3) The Class J&A initiative does not eliminate competition. Each
    Department of the Air Force installation requested its standard HVAC
    chiller and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center reviewed and approved
    the installation's requested HVAC chiller manufacturer brand. The
    identified brand can be procured from local authorized distributors
    that support the installations.
        The preponderance of these distributors are small businesses. The
    average life of an HVAC chiller is approximately 17 years and
    replacements occur only through attrition and we have not had enough
    replacement to determine potential improvement. The DAF acknowledges it
    is behind in establishing performance metrics. However, the Department
    has started making modifications to its tracking database systems to
    enable better tracking and metrics related to chiller systems.
    Notwithstanding this, installations have provided a great deal of
    anecdotal data that supports the program.
        Technicians at DAF installations indicate they are happy with the
    Chiller Class J&A. In terms of energy costs, the DAF has determined
    that energy consumption across a family of HVAC systems is typically a
    zero-sum gain and does not provide any significant differentiation
    between Manufacturers. Therefore, energy is being held as an equivalent
    across industry. The DAF will continue to examine performance of newer
    systems as manufacturers evolve and innovate to meet efficiency and
    resilience goals for DoD.
                                     ______

                  RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. DAVIS

        Mr. Davis. In your testimony, Assistant Secretary Owens, you state
    that the FY 2025 request includes funding to "support[] a transition of
    the Department's non-tactical vehicle fleet to zero-emission vehicles."
    You go on to say that "[w]e recognize that China dominates the supply
    chain lithium-ion batteries that many of our critical defense systems
    rely upon-we are working with our partners investing in on-shoring and
    friend-shoring of key supply chain capabilities to evolve this paradigm
    and ensure our ability to access these critical batteries."
        Please state how and whether current planning and funding is in
    place to also evolve the paradigm for enhancing resilience of
    stationery sources to avoid or avert the procurement and installation
    of CATL equipment (or any other equipment manufactured by a foreign
    company with direct or indirect ties to a foreign adversary) at a US
    military base.
        Secretary Owens. The Department's concerns and efforts regarding
    battery security include, but also extend beyond, stationary storage.
    Two briefings requested by Congress in Section 225 of the FY23 NDAA and
    Section 154 of the FY24 NDAA are being generated to answer these
    questions in depth and will be delivered to Congress in the next few
    months. One key challenge is the dominance of China in the grid storage
    sector.
        If DOD is to avoid procuring products from CATL, BYD, EVE, and
    others identified in Sec 154 of the FY24 NDAA, it will need
    alternatives. Specific key initiatives underway include: Publication of
    the DOD's Lithium Battery Strategy 2023-2030 and associated lines of
    effort being executed.
        Investment in critical minerals associated with battery security
    through the Defense Production Act Title III Program
        Close collaboration with the Department of Energy's Office of
    Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains (MESC), Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) efforts and
    investments through the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries
    (FCAB)
        Development of a DFARs rule to ensure the DOD complies with FY24
    NDAA Section 154 sourcing limitations from Chinese companies beginning
    in 2027. In addition to our internal efforts, it is worth noting that,
    because of DOE grants and loans and tax incentives through the
    Inflation Reduction Act, a number of companies are establishing cell
    production for the energy storage market here in America. Some of these
    are South Korean and European companies and some are new American
    suppliers like Our Next Energy. The DOD looks forward to shifting to
    these more secure sources manufactured here and generating good paying
    jobs as they become available.
        Mr. Davis. On April 4, 2024, I sent a letter to your office
    regarding a FY 2024 NDAA provision that I authored on "Indoor Air
    Quality Monitoring and Remediation." This NDAA provision directed DOD
    to provide a report to the House Armed Services Committee on the status
    of the directives to "prepare a plan for a pilot project to implement
    integrated air quality monitoring and remediation systems to improve
    the indoor air quality of military installations, healthcare
    facilities, and military housing facilities." by February 1, 2024. The
    report has not been delivered to date. The Letter requested an update
    on the delayed report required in the NDAA language from your office by
    April 30, 2024. Could you please provide an update on the status of
    your response to my letter, the delayed report, and an update on the
    pilot program, including a firm deadline for when the report will be
    completed, as well as a timeline for when you expect to begin the pilot
    program?
        Secretary Owens. Improving indoor environmental quality for our
    military members and their families is a strong priority of the
    Department of Defense and a personal priority of mine. I anticipate
    providing the report required by House Report 118-125 by the end of
    2024. Producing this report and development of a pilot program requires
    the assistance of external organizations to provide expertise not
    available internal to the Department. Commencement of the pilot program
    will be determined by the methodology established in the report and
    therefore, the Department will provide a timeline for pilot program
    commencement in the report.
        Mr. Davis. It was reported In a recent Military.com article, titled
    China-Made Batteries Eliminated from Navy, Marine Corps Infrastructure
    After Camp Lejeune Incident, dated April 11, 2024, that following the
    disconnection of CATL batteries from Camp Lejeune due to security
    concerns, the Department of the Navy stated that it would be taking a
    "proactive approach" to procure American or Allied-supplied batteries
    for its installations.
        Please expound on the new "proactive approach": How will it differ
    from the previous framework and approach that were in place when
    decisions were made to install the CATL batteries? To what extent, will
    American-supplied batteries receive just as, if not more favorable
    consideration than Allied-supplied batteries for these installations?
        Secretary Berger. To mitigate against potential future supply chain
    risks, the DoD will require, to the maximum extent possible, that our
    partners source all components from American or other allowable allied-
    nation sources by inserting appropriate contract requirements.
    Additionally, host installations will inspect all DON property
    improvements to assure compliance with these clauses. Contract
    requirements are standardized and will be drafted in accordance with US
    law.
        Mr. Davis. Assistant Secretary Chaudhary, you mentioned that the
    Air Force budget request included $1.1 billion for housing, dorms, and
    child development centers. In addition, you emphasized the importance
    of decreasing Air Force fuel consumption and increasing the resiliency
    of energy grids and storage systems. In keeping with these goals, how
    will you incorporate technology designed to improve indoor air quality
    as a part of these programs? What role can industry play to assist in
    meeting these goals?
        Secretary Chaudhary. The Air Force follows Unified Facilities
    Criteria (UFC) 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building
    Requirements, which addresses indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and
    indoor air quality (IAQ) through adoption of the American Society of
    Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHREA) 90.1.
        This UFC focuses on high performance and sustainable building
    requirements. When a building meets the requirements of this UFC, it is
    considered compliant with the High Performance and Sustainable Building
    (HPSB) Guiding Principles. ASHRAE 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings
    Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, defines the minimum requirements
    for mechanical and natural ventilation systems and the building
    envelope to provide acceptable IAQ in residential buildings.
        DAF is working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to
    implement resilient and healthy defense community objectives, which
    include creating livability standards for facilities and housing. The
    livability standards will target specific standards such as air and
    water quality and thermal, lighting, and acoustic comfort; availability
    and reliability of utilities and amenities; walkability and
    accessibility; prevalence of shared and community-oriented spaces; and
    proximity to critical services, such as child development centers,
    schools, healthcare facilities, and dining facilities.
                                     ______

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. VEASEY

        Mr. Veasey. It was reported In a recent Military.com article,
    titled China-Made Batteries Eliminated from Navy, Marine Corps
    Infrastructure After Camp Lejeune Incident, dated April 11, 2024, and
    in prior press reports that batteries and network-equipped systems made
    by Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL) were
    decommissioned at a U.S. military base after lawmakers, defense
    officials, and national security experts raised a number of security
    and vulnerability concerns. CATL is a Chinese battery manufacturer and
    technology company that manufactures lithium-ion batteries for electric
    vehicles and energy storage systems as well as battery management
    systems.
        In your testimony, Assistant Secretary Owens, you state that the FY
    2025 request includes funding to "support[] a transition of the
    Department's non-tactical vehicle fleet to zero-emission vehicles." You
    go on to say that "[w]e recognize that China dominates the supply chain
    lithium-ion batteries that many of our critical defense systems rely
    upon-we are working with our partners investing in on-shoring and
    friend-shoring of key supply chain capabilities to evolve this paradigm
    and ensure our ability to access these critical batteries." Please
    state how and whether current planning and funding is in place to also
    evolve the paradigm for enhancing resilience of stationery sources to
    avoid or avert the procurement and installation of CATL equipment (or
    any other equipment manufactured by a foreign company with direct or
    indirect ties to a foreign adversary) at a US military base.
        Secretary Owens. The Department's concerns and efforts regarding
    battery security include, but also extend beyond, stationary storage.
    Two briefings requested by Congress in Section 225 of the FY23 NDAA and
    Section 154 of the FY24 NDAA are being generated to answer these
    questions in depth and will be delivered to Congress in the next few
    months.
        One key challenge is the dominance of China in the grid storage
    sector. If DOD is to avoid procuring products from CATL, BYD, EVE, and
    others identified in Sec 154 of the FY24 NDAA, it will need
    alternatives. Specific key initiatives underway include:
        Publication of the DOD's Lithium Battery Strategy 2023-2030 and
    associated lines of effort being executed.
        Investment in critical minerals associated with battery security
    through the Defense Production Act Title III Program
        Close collaboration with the Department of Energy's Office of
    Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains (MESC), Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) efforts and
    investments through the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries
    (FCAB)
        Development of a DFARs rule to ensure the DOD complies with FY24
    NDAA Section 154 sourcing limitations from Chinese companies beginning
    in 2027. In addition to our internal efforts, it is worth noting that,
    because of DOE grants and loans and tax incentives through the IRA, a
    number of companies are establishing cell production for the energy
    storage market here in America. Some of these are South Korean and
    European companies and some are new American suppliers like Our Next
    Energy. The DOD looks forward to shifting to these more secure sources
    manufactured here and generating good paying jobs as they become
    available.
        Mr. Veasey. It was reported In a recent Military.com article,
    titled China-Made Batteries Eliminated from Navy, Marine Corps
    Infrastructure After Camp Lejeune Incident, dated April 11, 2024, that
    following the disconnection of CATL batteries from Camp Lejeune due to
    security concerns, the Department of the Navy stated that it would be
    taking a "proactive approach" to procure American or Allied-supplied
    batteries for its installations. 1. Please expound on the new
    "proactive approach": a. How will it differ from the previous framework
    and approach that were in place when decisions were made to install the
    CATL batteries? b. To what extent, will American-supplied batteries
    receive just as, if not more favorable consideration than Allied-
    supplied batteries for these installations? 2. What specific
    modifications to the previous approach and procurement framework would
    help ensure that a similar occurrence does not happen in the future?
        Secretary Berger. To mitigate against potential future supply chain
    risks, the DoD will require, to the maximum extent possible, that our
    partners source all components from American or other allowable allied-
    nation sources by inserting appropriate contract requirements.
    Additionally, host installations will inspect all DON property
    improvements to assure compliance with these clauses. Contract
    requirements are standardized and will be drafted in accordance with US
    law.

                                      [all]