[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]