Source: United States Navy
MICHAEL WALTZ:
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m calling to order the first hearing of the Readiness Subcommittee on Energy, Installations and Environment Program Update. First hearing of the 118th Congress. I’d like to welcome the members of the Readiness Subcommittee for our first official hearing. I’m deeply honored to serve as chairman of this impactful subcommittee and lead it — it’s crucial work.
I am very pleased, again, to work with Mr. Garamendi as the subcommittee ranking member and was honored to work with him as the ranking member as chairman to show the bipartisan — when he was chairman and show the bipartisanship of these issues and supporting our warfighters. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed working with him over the last year and appreciative the great work conducted during his time as committee chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for your time and participation at today’s hearing to discuss military construction, environmental programs, energy programs as well as base and facility accounts. And you know, I just want to say right out the gate, it’s become a trend, I wish we could be having this conversation after the release of the president’s budget.
There is no doubt plenty of issues we can discuss even without the budget figures. I welcome a continued dialog on these matters as we do see the budget release and as we work through this year’s NDAA process. Now, the Armed Services Committee will deliberate a lot this Congress on the present and future capabilities needed for the great power competition that we face in line with the National Defense Strategy and a potential Taiwan contingency.
And as we discuss these capabilities, we must also recognize the need for investment in new infrastructure as well as the maintenance of our existing infrastructure. And unfortunately, maintenance of existing facilities has been chronically neglected, often to pay for other priorities. And this lack of investment in aging and failing infrastructure has resulted in negative impacts to readiness and retention as well as inefficient facilities that don’t adequately support our intended missions.
I think we can do better, and I think our warfighters deserve better. I look forward to discussing the path forward with new military construction on how the services prioritize sustaining existing infrastructure with the understanding that we must get this mix right to both support our platforms and our service members.
Any MILCOM and facility sustainment effort must also prepare our military installations at home and abroad for the future challenges with better planning that focuses on resilient infrastructure investments. We have made progress to this end by requiring master plans with previous committee work that we intend to — to continue.
And these master plans consider these risks because the services have begun to submit these master plans for their two most at risk installations after being required to do it and the FY ’22 NDAA. However, we must do more to shape the best posture that we can for the future. Nowhere else is the issue of aging infrastructure more evident than our shipyards.
The recent operational impacts to dry docks at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard due to seismic resiliency issues is concerning. I’m sure it concerns everyone here. I’d like to hear from our witnesses today, what’s being done to remedy this problem, mitigate risk to readiness, and use this as an impetus to look across our shipyards and invest in critical updates to ensure their long-term viability.
Our installations also remain largely dependent on commercial electrical grids. I know a lot of work has been done in this space and I look forward to hearing it that are vulnerable to any disruptions they suffer. To protect our mission capability — I believe we must continue to pursue — pursue solutions like islands and capabilities and generation from micro reactors.
On the operational side, I am very concerned the department is not as far along as we should be given the threats on the horizon. Our ability to supply energy forward to sustain operations forward in contested environments and a way that we have not had to do and in recent decades is — it’s just critical with today’s threat environment.
Contested and challenge environments are the new normal. And we need to posture ourselves accordingly. Furthermore, we must endure our installations are free of dependency on energy supplied by our adversaries. It sounds like an obvious statement, but I think we’re in a position where we need to do more work there.
Recent NDAAs have highlighted the threat posed by our reliance on Russian energy at our European command installations. The Department has begun this work. I look forward to hearing where we are with it. And it’s paramount that we develop and adhere to transition plans at every installation under [EUCOM]. Taking care of our military members is the utmost responsibility of all of us here.
And our Defense Department leaders continuously tout people first strategies, ensuring our service members are the priority. But I remain skeptical, frankly, of this being put into practice when we look at the status of some of our housing and our barracks. We must provide safe barracks housing and infrastructure.
I know Ranking Member Garamendi shares in this — in this effort and has done a lot of work to that end. Recent NDAAs, have authorized historic levels of spending for the cleanup of PFAS at contaminated military installations and surrounding areas. We hope to see that momentum continued. And furthermore, in last year’s NDAA, we authorized $1 billion for the Red Hill Recovery Fund.
I think you’re seeing a theme here that — that we are going to continue the work and try not to reinvent the wheel of — of — of previous years despite a switch in the majority. We need to also prioritize making our strategic stockpiles whole as well as reducing our reliance on adversarial nations for our critical minerals and for our supplies.
The DLA has identified, the Defense Logistics Agency has identified 14 critical defense materials that are 100 percent foreign sourced. That’s unacceptable in my view. We have insufficient national defense stockpile reserves to support essential defense requirements. Of those 14 materials, 11 are sourced from China.
Again, unacceptable. This is an unacceptable threat to our national security. I look forward to working with this subcommittee on — on further solutions and additional — in addition to the critical mineral stockpile we’ve authorized in previous NDAAs. This administration’s focus on climate as a national security priority.
Oftentimes, I find that concerning. Just to be completely candid, I want to dig into the Department of the Army’s strategy to electrify our tanks, fighting vehicles and others given the supply chain concerns and — and other pieces involved. At the end of the day, I think our priority should be on developing and implementing the most lethal capabilities for deterrence and to counter China.
And — and if that so happens to have green effects, I — I think that’s — that’s completely appropriate. Finally, the ongoing war in Ukraine and the ever-growing aggressive China are a constant reminder of the importance of this work. Smart investments must be made now. I thank you again — once again for our witnesses for being here today.
I look forward to your testimony. And with that, I turn it over to Ranking Member Garamendi.
JOHN GARAMENDI:
Thank you very much, Mr. Waltz. I’ve got all of this written speech that I’m going to give, but I like what you said. I like your priorities. I like what you’ve laid out. And whether we’re going to put a hybrid Abrams tank out in the field or not remains to be seen, But everything that you’ve talked about, most of what you talked about is what we’ve done over the last four years.
And we did that in a bipartisan way. And we will continue to support you and the majority as you go about the agenda that you’ve laid out here. If I don’t read this, you know, my staff’s going to be really upset. They spent a lot of time writing this, but I’m going to try to really shorten it. We’ve been with these witnesses before.
As you’ve said, Mr. Waltz and we’ve talked about these issues. We haven’t talked about them to the end of the process because the process doesn’t end. There’s always more to do. And so, we’re going to be working diligently together on the department’s infrastructure. All of the bases, all of the shipyards, all the dry dock, all of those things, they have to be dealt with.
And they brought — they have to be brought up to modern standards and actually beyond modern standards. We’ve seen that the general attitude has been to accept risk. It turns out that the acceptance of risk is really risky and leads to a significant degradation of the readiness of the troops, the readiness of the ships, the readiness of the airplanes.
So, take — I don’t know, take the shipyards, take the F-35, lots of examples out there. So, we need to really be very diligent, very diligent in pressing hard to make sure that the bright shiny things that everybody would like to have and certainly the defense industrial base would love to make, do not result in a degradation of the essential infrastructure upon which the entire military system relies.
I can give examples here. We’ve accepted the risk of Tyndall Air Force Base being built in a, I don’t know, maybe a foot above sea level. Florida, I believe Mr. Waltz.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Great state of.
JOHN GARAMENDI:
And you know, it was wiped out, literally wiped out. But yet we accepted the risk of rebuilding at the same location to the tune of several billion dollars. And I’m — I hope I’m not around for the next earthquake that goes — or the next hurricane that goes through that. But it may be the same result in the last earthquake — in the last hurricane.
My mind has shifted to China Lake and to earthquakes, which is California. And a few other places on the West Coast. And you mentioned Mr. Waltz, the question of the dry docks. Absolutely critical. Dry docks they are not going to be use for some time. How long have we accepted, how long have we known the risk, the earthquake risk there?
And how long have we accepted to have got to the point where, oh, my goodness it has to be dealt with now or else. And so, we can go on and on about those risks. Thank you for mentioning housing, barracks and the like. This committee, even before I became chairman, had dealt with the housing issue. And I suspect four or five chairmanships beyond you, and I will continue to deal with it because it has to be watched all the time.
Backsliding is always there. And this is for the troops. And the barracks, you’ve mentioned that and absolutely true. We have to deal with that. There’s an issue that we’ve not dealt with in the — past and I want to put it on the table for us to think about. We, this committee had not really dealt with it and that is the issue of encroachment.
Who is and what is going — to is buying land and putting up projects around our military bases? What is that? And what is the threat of that encroachment? It may be a wind turbine that somehow screws up the radar at our Air Force base. Or in the case of Travis Air Force Base, what is this LLC that has literally purchased every piece of property around the base and 14,000 acres beyond that?
Who are they? What are they? And it turns out that I think the base commanders have not been charged with the responsibility of watching carefully what’s going on outside the base. We need to pay attention to that. We’ve had this issue in North Dakota, an issue that ultimately resulted in the Chinese company that wanted to buy the land saying no, you can’t because of the potential security risks associated with it. I want to — want us to pay more attention to it because it’s down home, my district and perhaps in other members districts also.
We’ve got a lot of work to do. You talked about the energy issues. There is an enormous potential for divisiveness on energy. But if we look at it in the way of cost savings, readiness, availability and you mention of microgrids, Mr. Chairman, that’s a piece of that puzzle. There are — excuse me, small reactors and microgrids.
All of these things are out there. Again, this comes back to resiliency. The great deep freeze in Texas, there’s some Texas folks around here. What if we had a different strategy? We can go on and on. With your permission, I’d like this wonderful speech that my staff put together to be on the record.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Without objection.
JOHN GARAMENDI:
Thank you. I yield.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. Again, welcome to our witnesses. Just brief introductions, the Honorable Brenden Owens, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment . We have the Honorable Rachel Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of the Army. Go Army! Installations, Energy and Environment.
The Honorable Meredith Berger. Good to see you again. Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy Installations Environment. And Mr. Edwin Oshiba, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations and Environment . Over to you, Mr. Owens, for your opening statement.
BRENDEN OWENS:
Thank you, Chairman Waltz, Ranking Member Garamendi, distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of myself and my military department colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department’s Energy, Installation and Environment programs. This is my first time testifying before this subcommittee.
I’m 30 days into the job, and I look forward to working with you in the coming months to continue aligning our priorities and resources to support the National Defense Strategy. The 2022 NDS is clear. We are operating in an increasingly complex global threat environment characterized by significant geopolitical, technological, economic and environmental change.
The People’s Republic of China remains the department’s pacing challenge with its increasingly aggressive efforts to undermine US alliances and security partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. We also face threats from actors like Russia, North Korea, Iran, as well as climate change and other transboundary challenges.
Together, these threats not only pressure the Joint Forces power projection and maneuver capabilities, but also put the safety and security of the homeland at risk. Countering these threats requires a resilient Joint Force and Defense ecosystem that can operate in a contested environment at home and abroad.
As such, we are ensuring that our installations and infrastructure are resilient to a wide range of challenges by implementing policy updates, innovation in how we plan design and build, and deployment of technology to counter the diversifying threats we face. In the Indo-Pacific — specifically, there are two key priority — priorities that will be critical to the success of this effort.
Retaining vital mission capabilities in the state of Hawaii and ensuring the critical military construction efforts in Guam and the Commonwealth of the more Northern Mariana Islands remain on track by extending the exemption from the H-2B visa temporary need requirement through 2029. We look forward to partnering with Congress, the state of Hawaii, Guam, the CMNI [ph] and other federal stakeholders in doing the work that’s necessary to ensure that these priorities can be addressed.
More broadly, we are making significant investments in both installation and operational energy to enhance resilience and reduce demand to improve joint lethality, support distributed operations and reduce sustainment risks in contested environments. We are improving our approach to facility management to increase the — efficacy of our sustainment, restoration and modernization investments.
And to optimize the condition of our facilities. These efforts will enhance our facilities direct mission support capabilities. And they will also enhance the health, well-being and readiness of our service members and their families. Our installations, however, do not exist in a vacuum. And we recognize that the department cannot achieve these goals on its own.
The Defense communities and host nations provide indispensable support to the mission. Acknowledging this interconnectedness, it is imperative that we be good stewards of the environment in addition to being conscientious and committed partners with the communities that support our installations, our service members and their families.
To that end, we remain committed to maintaining our robust environmental cleanup program, improving the safety and efficiency of our facilities and improving the quality of life for our military personnel by ensuring access to safe, quality and affordable housing. The Department is committed to working in close coordination with the US interagency state, local tribal territorial and industry partners as well as our international allies to achieve these goals.
I would like to highlight specifically the progress we’ve made to develop and demonstrate PFAS free alternatives for aqueous film forming foam. Congressional authorizations and appropriations made it possible for the Department to continue its ongoing work to evaluate fluorine free alternatives. Based on the hard work of numerous dedicated DOD employees and industry partners, the Navy published a new military spec — for replacement forms in January.
Several fluorine — free foams are currently proceeding through the military specification qualification process. And the Department plans to begin the transition to the use of these products this summer. So, while we implement new technology to avert future risk, we continue our cleanup efforts intended to safeguard the health and well-being of our people.
Nothing is more important than our people, soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, guardians and their families. The investments we make to improve the built and natural environments where they live and work are investments that pay off by improving their health and well-being. We appreciate Congress and this subcommittee’s continued support for these efforts.
And we look forward to your questions.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Thank you, Mr. Owens. Ms. Berger?
MEREDITH BERGER:
Chairman Waltz, Ranking Member Garamendi and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The Department of the Navy’s Energy Installation and Environment portfolio is foundational to making sure that our sailors, marines and civilians are ready able to do all that our nation asks them to do. I started my last statement before this committee with an ask.
Today, I start with a thank you for the inclusion of the Fallon Range Training Complex modernization in this year’s NDAA. This is an example of the way things should be. We worked with Congress, tribal, local, state and federal partners to ensure we protected culture, the environment and the economy to guarantee the readiness for the fleet, making sure that they can train like they fight.
At that time, we were also at the beginning of responding to a terrible event, the contamination of drinking water from the fuel spill at Red Hill. I’m proud to report progress and also to commit to the work that is still before us. Today, the water is safe to drink, and the Navy is conducting long term monitoring to ensure there is no fuel contamination.
Secretary of Defense Austin has directed Joint Task Force Red Hill to safely and expeditiously to fuel Red Hill and Navy to the permanent closure of Red Hill. And we’re working on these monumental tasks together. With every action we take, we are prioritizing the health and safety of the people, environment and communities in Oahu.
We recognize that earning trust takes hard work and commitment and relies on all sides. We’re working every day to keep up our end of the bargain and we’re grateful to the partnership of the people of Hawaii. Secretary Del Toro has identified three enduring principles that guide the work of the Department of the Navy, strengthen our maritime dominance, our people and our partnerships.
In my role, I implement Secretary Del Toro’s guidance by focusing on three cross-cutting areas: communities, critical infrastructure and climate action. Communities are where our people come together. The districts you represent, the towns where our installations are and the environment and economies that surround them that enable our sailors and marines to live, train and operate.
I’m talking about communities like Southern California, where late last summer, record breaking temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit caused record breaking demands on the grid of more than 50,000 megawatts. Utility operators were ready to mandate rotating power outages, but instead, the Navy unplugged 20 ships from the grid.
And the Marine Corps shifted from the commercial grid to its microgrid, ensuring that neither the naval forces mission nor the lives of the citizens were interrupted. The example above also demonstrates the second C, critical infrastructure. Energy security is critical to mission success. More broadly, critical infrastructure is the means to our ends.
Our Navy and Marine Corps installations located in the United States and around the world are essential shore platforms from which we project our power. Currently, we see infrastructure that is weakened because of age vulnerable to physical and cyber threats and a changing climate. We recognize the need to drastically change our approach.
And the Department of the Navy is beginning planning on a 30-year infrastructure plan that is proactive and anticipates the requirements of our future force and their mission. We protect our communities and critical infrastructure with a third C, climate action. No matter what we call it, extreme weather, temperatures, a rising sea and depleting water sources among other challenges are threatening the naval services installations and investments, the infrastructure that supports our critical missions, complicating logistics and demanding more disaster and conflict response from the Navy and Marine Corps while hampering their ability to respond.
Bless you. These factors are changing our operational environment and by default changing the cost and calculus when it comes to mission success. We build resilience across the people and platforms of the fleet as a war fighting advantage, a tactical operational and strategic enabler. Ashore, we’re making our structures, power grids and fuel distribution systems and water lines more survivable.
Afloat and forward deployed, we are untethering from long and contested logistics tales to ensure we can stay on station longer, operate securely, independently, always keeping mission first. Climate change can be used as a tool and a weapon. We see that across the conflict continuum. And Mr. Chairman, we talked about energy as a weapon last year.
We will continue to build our resilience to reduce the threat and promote innovation to ensure that the Navy and the Marine Corps remain the world’s greatest maritime fighting force in every environment. Thank you.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
[Inaudible]
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Garamendi and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the current state of Army’s installations and to answer any questions you may have. I’m grateful to the Committee for its continued support and for its commitment to Armys soldiers, families, civilians and soldiers for life.
I look forward to working with you to help build the force of 2030 and beyond. To realize Army’s 2030 goals, the future of installations must be now. Installations are at the epicenter of everything we do in the Army. They are where we train, work, learn and live. To strengthen Army readiness and build the force of the future, we must be laser focused on providing state-of-the-art installations.
I am pleased to report that with the help of Congress we are making progress. We are continuing our investments in barracks with over 11 billion planned between fiscal years 2024 and 2032. We are constructing new child development centers in multiple locations. We are building on Congressional directives to deliver high quality family housing and strengthen our oversight of the privatized housing providers.
Each of these measures will help us recruit and retain soldiers and families. A key component of creating installations of the future is improving our infrastructure and tackling our deferred maintenance backlog. These challenges will take focus and strategic spending to slow the progression of these deteriorating facilities.
With timely, adequate, predictable and sustained funding, we can continue to reduce our maintenance backlog. I thank the committee for your support in that regard. Resilient installations foster ready soldiers beginning with reliable access to energy. We have all witnessed threats to the electric grid, whether from cyberattacks, physical attacks or severe weather events.
Installations can’t afford to lose power when the commercial grid goes down. That is why we are developing on site carbon free power generation, battery storage and a microgrid to support critical missions at all Army installations. Thanks to Congressional authorities, we are collaborating with third parties to guarantee energy resilience without the need for upfront expenditures by the Army.
An integral part of installation management is environmental stewardship and protection of natural, cultural and archeological resources. Installations are home to 261 threatened and endangered species, 1.3 million acres of wetlands and over 85,000 archeological sites. Our success as an environmental steward is due in part to the Army’s compatible use buffer program which is marking its 20th anniversary.
The Army’s exemplary stewardship of lands and resources reflects meaningful collaboration with state and local governments, tribes, landowners and other stakeholders. The Army also bears the responsibility for cleaning up pollution at current and former Army sites. We share concerns about PFAS chemicals.
And we are taking our obligations to address PFAS seriously in a transparent manner. Ensuring our soldiers and civilians are ready to support the Army Mission requires prevention of accidents and injuries. The Army recently implemented the Army Safety and Occupational Health Management System. This Modern Safety-First program provides comprehensive oversight of each installation’s safety and occupational health programs.
And seamlessly integrates essential safety practices into daily operations. Installations provide the foundational support of our people. As we build the Army of the future, we must make strategic installations — investments in our installations today using the most cutting edge technologies, innovative public private partnerships and streamlined processes to accelerate results.
Although this work will not be completed overnight, the future of our installations is happening right now. Thank you for your continued support of our soldiers, families, civilians and soldiers for life. I look forward to your questions.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Thank you. Mr. Oshiba?
EDWIN OSHIBA:
Thank you, Chairman Waltz, Ranking Member Garamendi and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am honored to join my colleagues this afternoon and equally honored to represent the nearly 700,000 airmen and guardians that defend our nation each and every day. We are thankful for your consistent support over the years, specifically in the areas of Energy, Installations and Environment.
In the December 1941 edition of the Society of American Military Engineers Journal, General Hap Arnold in assessing the state of the Army Air Corps at the time said the following “air bases are a determining factor in the success of air operations. The two-legged stool of men in planes would topple over without this equally important third leg.” He goes on to justify his words using the experiences of Germany and the United Kingdom in the European theater where the resiliency of airfields and in some cases the lack thereof made the difference between victory and defeat.
General Arnold — Arnold didn’t mention the Pacific, but I’m sure General MacArthur would have made a very similar statement given the importance of airfields in his island-hopping campaign. 82 years later, these words continue to ring true. They hold true for air and space operations. They hold true for airmen and guardians.
They hold true for air and space weapons systems. And they hold true for air and space bases. We view that third leg, our bases as foundational to enabling and projecting combat power in air, space and cyberspace. Everything we do begins and ends at our Air and Space Force bases. The Department remains committed to ensuring they are ready by investing in the right capabilities at the right time and the right place, and with a team of trained and equipped airmen and guardians resilient against a full range of natural and man-made threats and optimized for effective and sustainable mission execution.
Since 2019, the Department’s Infrastructure and Investment Strategy has served as our roadmap to make our bases ready and resilient through decisions meant to optimize the balance between effectiveness and efficiency. The strategy informs policy and investment decisions supporting weapon system modernization and — and combatant command priorities while balancing the need to recapitalize our aging infrastructure and facilities, which improve the quality of work and life for our airmen, guardians and their families.
To that end, we recognize the crux of successful operations rests with our airmen and guardians. Our missions would be impossible to accomplish without them. This underscores the need to balance operational priorities with preserving the readiness and resilience of our most important resources, our airmen, guardians and their families.
We continue to emphasize continued quality of life investments in housing, dormitories, child development centers and other support facilities. I want to thank Congress for your generous support in this area. Additionally, we remain committed to ensuring the safety and health of our service members and families who work and live on our installations and in our surrounding communities.
We greatly appreciate Congress’s substantial funding for environmental cleanup and research, including resources to tackle PFAS, which helps — which help us accomplish this important priority. Finally, we are pursuing policies, investments and activities that increase our agility, energy diversification and quote-unquote lethality per gallon.
This improves our ability to field and sustain a combat critical — combat credible force now and in the future. By reducing the energy demand of our aircraft, we are increasing the range and cargo carrying capacity of these legacy platforms. And by broadening the aperture of financing opportunities to include smart third-party investments matched to energy vulnerabilities identified through in-depth planning and realistic exercises, we improve mission assurance through energy assurance.
In summary, your Department of the Air Force is committed to preserving ready and resilient installations, our platforms to enable and project combat power using a strategy which optimizes operational effectiveness and resource efficiency as part of our focused and determined one team to win our one fight.
Chairman Waltz and Ranking Member Garamendi, thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. We appreciate your continued support of our Energy, Installations and Environment enterprise. I look forward to your questions.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Thank you. At this time, we’ll go to questions. I’ll begin by just saying, you know, the committee is going to get tired of hearing me say this, but we have a teachable moment right now with what’s going on with the Russian military in terms of readiness and how much that matters. Along those lines, as I mentioned in my opening statement, recent NDAAs have sought to wean the department and the services off their dependance on Russian energy.
But we still — we still have a problem. We’re not there. Following — obviously, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this became even more pressing. In the ’23 NDAA, we established a DOD goal or a goal for DOD to eliminate use of Russian energy at all main operating bases and UCOM within five years.
The provision also required planning for energy security resilience mitigation to reduce reliance on Russian energy for any new military base in UCOM. So Mr. Owen, if you can start with what is — just update us on the status of eliminating reliance on Russian energy in UCOM? How are we ensuring energy resilience for both main operating bases and or smaller installations across UCOM? I know the NDAA requires you to identify those I believe by June those bases and then start implementing the plan.
But if you could update us where you are in that — that process?
BRENDEN OWENS:
Thank you for the question. And I think you’re exactly right. As I’ve watched from the outside the energy markets deal with the pivot away from Russian energy. And in Europe, it’s been apparent that the things that have already been pointed out that energy as a weapon — the reality of energy as a weapon is here.
And it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. Relative to the specific things that are underway within DOD, there are people at this table who probably are better positioned to answer that, although I will take that question for the record. Pulling back from that, one of the things that is apparent to me this early on is that all of the things that we are doing to maintain mission assurance within the United States are things that we need to be aggressively deploying in UCOM and in Europe.
So that is efficiency, reducing the amount of energy that we need, resilience and reliability, and working with our partners and allies in these places to make sure that we are advancing our ability to be independent from any risks associated with energy supply.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Mr. Oshiba, can you address that as well? My understanding is Rammstein was on — I mean it’s on the host nation grid, right? So therefore, it’s on Russian gas, Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. At one point, my understanding was we exported domestic coal. We moved away from that about a decade ago, but I think we moved from one dependency to another.
So, can you address where we’re going?
EDWIN OSHIBA:
Thank you for the question, sir. You’re right. What — what we are doing and what we are focused on is completing our installation energy plans in the UCOM theater. We’ve — we’ve finished the one at RAF Lakenheath [ph] in the UK earlier this year. Ramstein is actually days away from being completed. We got the draft back in. And — and that focus area is on both what are the sources of energy we have as — as well as vulnerabilities that we need to mitigate moving — moving forward.
We have four more that we plan to accomplish this year, Aviano Air Base in Italy, RAF Menwith Hill and Mildenhall back in the UK and Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany. And that’s been our focus area. And once we get those plans done, the idea is to then turn that into a requirement so we can — we can apply our resources to.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Great, thank you. My other question, then I want to move on to — to Ranking Member Garamendi and — and — and the members. Again, along the lines of reducing dependency on our adversaries and where we just cannot continue along this path, I understand a number of installations are moving to solar. It’s not only carbon reducing, but it’s — it’s energy diversifying.
Obviously, you need battery and storage for that. I can tell you, for example, Florida Power and Light is moving to 30 million panels by 2030. However, they source them from China. And we can point to the irony of the — one of the largest solar producing plants in the world in Western China on forced labor.
And if you follow the transmission lines, they are being powered by coal. And China’s open — is opening more coal fired plant — coal fired plants than us and the rest of the world combined. So, talk to me about the sourcing of your panels and the sourcing of your battery materials. Are they being sourced domestically or are you also even if you buy from domestic utilities who are ultimately buying from China?
And what’s the department’s plan to reduce that dependency? Go with Mr. Owen or anyone who wants to dive in, because obviously that’s a department strategy, understanding your 30 days on the job.
BRENDEN OWENS:
It is, sir. And I — I really appreciate that. I hope I don’t have to use that get out of jail free card very much.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
You only get one.
BRENDEN OWENS:
All right. I — I think — I really like the way that you have drawn a complete picture of the Energy ecosystem. Because the irony of solar panels powered by — by coal is — is truly something that we are aware of. I — I think that the — the — the onshoring of these critical capabilities is something that we have as part of a larger industrial base strategy that’s going on within other parts of DOD with other parts of the Acquisition — Acquisition and Sustainment team within DOD. So, in terms of the — the work that’s going to be undertaken under the battery medal — sorry, the Battery Materials initiative under the IRA under the bipartisan — bipartisan infrastructure and the CHIPS Act, I think all of those things are — are moving us in the right direction in terms of being able to divest ourselves from these vulnerabilities that you’ve correctly pointed out.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Mr. Jacobson, could you — I mean you mentioned specifically, and I get it, this is — it’s — it’s carbon reducing, but as I said in my opening remarks, that has secondary and tertiary effects when China controls the cobalt mines in the Congo and that’s necessary for battery storage, that’s a — that’s an issue.
Can you talk to me about that supply chain surety?
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Chairman Waltz, thank you very much for that question. It is absolutely essential that we address supply chain throughout our portfolio, but especially here. Where, as you say, China and other countries control the supply of those critical minerals. And because we are so intent on putting islanding power on every single installation through a microgrid along with battery technology, it’s very, very important to us. We — we recognize that the challenges of relying on foreign sources of mining processed minerals that we have to bring that domestically.
And we’re teaming with DOD and other federal agencies in this effort to stimulate domestic mining and processing of these minerals so that we can produce batteries domestically. And so many partners in the industry are already taking this on, as you know. There’s huge investment in domestic battery manufacturing along with sourcing of those raw materials.
We are — DOD is using the Defense Production Act as was set forth in a — in a presidential executive order. And we’re involved in the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries as part of DOD. But Army is committed to doing our part to make sure again that we have a robust and secure domestic industrial base for batteries.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
I yield to Mr. Garamendi, but I’ll just say it from my perspective. I understand we’re — we’re charging headlong into our climate plans and executing those plans. But we cannot trade risk to climate, to risk to force, right? And — and I will be looking at detail, I know — understand what we have to do, but I’ll be looking at details of how the Department’s actually doing it. Or do we need to tap the brakes on some of these plans until we can get — that onshoring can be complete?
Over to you, Mr. Garamendi?
JOHN GARAMENDI:
Can I be your partner as you explore all of those issues. It’s very, very important. We have to do that. I would just add and then a couple of questions that the other pieces of legislation you mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure and the CHIPS Act and the Science in the CHIPS Act are all intended to deal with these — the totality of the energy issue.
And the military is a piece of that. And certainly, will be the — the beneficiary of those other acts. With regard to onshoring the energy systems, if you want to take advantage of the tax credits in the legislation and they are very, very significant, it has to be made in America. And so, that will bring a lot of that back home on the tax side of it.
AUSTIN SCOTT:
Can the gentleman yield for one second on that?
JOHN GARAMENDI:
Please.
AUSTIN SCOTT:
But Ford Motor Company is partnering with CATL, which is a Chinese company to get the tax credit. So — so that’s where I think — I think if–
JOHN GARAMENDI:
Well, there ought to be a law.
AUSTIN SCOTT:
I agree.
JOHN GARAMENDI:
And we ought to watch — we have to watch that very carefully. There’ll be a lot of ways to escape and to take advantage inappropriately. And so, we — we — it is our task and the oversight to do that. And if we do, we’ll be able to resolve those particular problems. I’m — there are so many — different pieces to this puzzle.
And we need to make sure that the Departments are — are looking at all of the opportunities and engaged in — in all of these areas. So, you know, there’s information that all of us might have. We should bring it to the attention of our committee as it involves the installations, the energy systems or the environmental pieces of it. And if we do, we’ll be making some very, very good progress.
I don’t know how much time I have to ask questions, but I’m certainly opining here for a while, so forgive me for that. But there — there are some things that are going to be really important as we go forward. And I’m going to go back to something that I’ve — has been bothering me all these many, many years.
And that is the facilities themselves, the depots, the repair facilities, the shipyards. And in the testimony, all of you mentioned or at least touched on this on the issues of the necessity of improving, upgrading and indeed even making viable these critical facilities. And I would like you to quickly provide us with assurance that these are high priorities.
We didn’t bring up the arsenals and the make — and the making of 155 artillery shells, which I suppose we could spend time on, but that’s included in this. So, let’s just go down the line. Let’s start with the — with the Navy. How many times do we have to talk about the PSYOP program? Please don’t tell if it’s 30 years.
Tell me what you’re doing this year and the next four years. And then, we’ll go to the other bases, please.
MEREDITH BERGER:
Yes, Congressman Garamendi. As — as — as we focus in the — the near term, we are taking steps on what we see as an historic opportunity. And thank you to Congress for the funding to do it for our shipyard infrastructure optimization plan. This is a place where we have area development plans for two of our — our shipyards on the East Coast and we can —
UNKNOWN:
[inaudible]
MEREDITH BERGER:
We continue forward to make progress in — in all of those in all of those efforts in incremental and in steps. This is a place where we can integrate some of what you were just talking about in terms of the IRA and the IIJA. There’s tremendous opportunities to make sure that we’re reaching that end state of — of resilient infrastructure that supports the mission that is critical, that comes out of those shipyards.
And in parallel, we have our organic industrial base, some of our fleet concentrate — or excuse me, our fleet areas and our facilities that support some of our aviation depots and others, we’re also investing and making sure that we are keeping those up to — up to scruff so that way we can ensure that we are supporting the mission.
JOHN GARAMENDI:
Specifically, you’ve got four dry docks that are not being used now for earthquake. Specifically, what is the situation if you can share it with us? If it’s — if it’s classified, we’ll take it up elsewhere. The four — four dry docks in Washington State.
MEREDITH BERGER:
Yes, sir. Let me take the details for the record for you, but we moved swiftly to shut down when we saw that safety and readiness concern. And we have put forward the projects that will get us on track to be able to start to make those corrections. Already starting on two of the dry docks. And I will be glad to follow up with you in detail to provide exactly where everything is.
JOHN GARAMENDI:
The 1st of March is nearby. How about by the end of March?
MEREDITH BERGER:
Yes, Congressman.
JOHN GARAMENDI:
The details.
MEREDITH BERGER:
Absolutely.
JOHN GARAMENDI:
I think I’m out of time, Mr. Chairman, but I’d go down the line — and let’s let it go at that.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Mr. Wilson?
JOE WILSON:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And indeed, I agree with Chairman, Mike Waltz that energy is so critical for our continuity at our check installations and additionally a great opportunity, and that’s small modular reactors. And I want — always enjoy working with Congressman Garamendi to fill in puzzle pieces. And a puzzle piece is small module reactors.
And I — I’m really grateful that in meeting with our allies last week in the Czech Republic, they’re making tremendous progress on small modular reactors. And they’re in a contest, a good one, with Romania to see who can build it first. And we need to be there too. And so, I hope every effort is being made to develop.
And in particular, Mr. Oshiba, the Air Force, is it on track with the guidance provided by the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act to identify suitable locations for development and operation of micro reactors, small modular reactor for the year 2027? And I would tell you, a beautiful location for energy independence and it’d be wonderful to have — spend a lot of time there, is the beautiful territory of Guam.
And then after you do that, I want to invite you to South Carolina. The Savannah River and Nuclear Laboratory is 310 square miles. It’s probably the largest open sector — open area or secure area and it’s really close to Augusta National Golf Course, so it’s a good place to visit. And — but indeed, those are two locations that come to mind.
EDWIN OSHIBA:
Congressman Wilson, I think I feel like I — I’ve — I’ve swung behind the ball and missed twice. But we — we do have a small modular reactor pilot project going on right now at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. It was chosen based upon the reliance of that — of the power system there to — to a coal fired power plant that we need to get rid of. So, we’ve actually gone out with the request for proposals.
We received some very attractive proposals. We’re in the process now of going through the licensing process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And — and from what I can tell — from what I’ve heard so far, everything is going along very, very smoothly. We’ve gotten a lot of — a lot of interest, a lot of community support.
And I’ve taken note of the two other candidate locations you’ve mentioned.
JOE WILSON:
And indeed, we need to work with our NATO allies, Czech Republic and Romania. And then — but gosh, you can’t have a better location than beautiful Guam. You get to go to the beach. And then — and nothing is as good as Savannah River Nuclear Laboratory with its proximity to Augusta National. Okay, along with that, Secretary Owens, the Department of Defense’s Readiness Environmental Protection Integration program, known as REPI, is a vital tool for preserving the training missions and operations of military installations in South Carolina’s Midlands region, including Fort Jackson, which is the Army’s largest and most active initial entry training center by protecting more than 20,000 acres throughout the Midlands from incompatible development that would threaten military readiness.
Is — if the DOD continues the trend of increasing the budget for REPI as DOD has done in recent years, what locations across the United States would be prioritized to ensure preserving training missions and operations at military installations? We’ll make the entire state of California an open space. That would be —
BRENDEN OWENS:
There might be some arm wrestling up there, if that’s — that’s — if that’s proposed. I think the REPI program is an excellent example of the type of capability that can be deployed when compatible use is something that we are focused around. My understanding of the way that that program operates is that we work with the military departments to understand what their needs are and then prioritize projects according to how we can best serve the military departments from a readiness and mission assurance standpoint.
JOE WILSON:
And additionally, I would like to ask in regard to the United States European Command area of operations, what additionally have we done to reduce our reliance on the — Putin’s utilities into countries such as Bulgaria and Romania? Secretary?
BRENDEN OWENS:
We have continued to drive efficiency in — in essentially looking at all the things that our partners and allies were doing in Europe. We have taken steps that are similarly aggressive on the energy efficiency side of things at our installations.
JOE WILSON:
And indeed, with the — the pipelines through Ukraine, hopefully things are changing. And so, I you back. Thank you.
BRENDEN OWENS:
Thank you.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Ms. Sherrill?
MIKIE SHERRILL:
Thank you. It’s wonderful to see all of you. Nice to see you Secretary Jacobson. Thank you for joining me at the Expo at the Pentagon, as we saw some of our future energy saving technologies. Last year, I had the opportunity to visit and tour Picatinny Arsenal in my district. And I — I was able to go through the software center which really houses some of our most highly talented workforce, winning awards, as quite frankly, the building is falling down around them.
Highlights include peeling paint, leaks during rainstorms. It really is unfortunate given that we are — we continue to face recruiting shortfalls and here we are trying to recruit some of the most talented workforce and — and trying to do so with these aging labs and infrastructure. So, it really makes it difficult to attract top talent.
And I know the Pentagon has expressed concern regarding growing deficiencies in critical laboratory infrastructure across the Department. Heidi Eshoo, undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering said during a May 2022 Congressional hearing that her top priority is upgrading the Department’s labs.
So what progress and updates can you provide on how the DOD is — prioritizing which labs to upgrade? And when can Picatinny Arsenal’s two labs and four engineering facilities may be — expect to be upgraded? Secretary Jacobson?
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Thank you so much, Congressman Sherrill. It’s very nice to see you again. And thank you so much for visiting our Energy Expo. It was a — was a great day to have you there. We fully share your concern about the aging facilities that house our incredibly important labs. And we recognize that by not addressing these facilities and upgrading them to acceptable standards, we do lose talent.
And we recognize that part of making sure our facilities are — are in good shape that we have this sustainment funding the MILCOM funding, the Restoration and Modernization funding to — to accomplish necessary repairs, that that presents a recruiting challenge when we don’t do that. We are prioritizing and prioritizing and prioritizing using a lot of different tools and models to determine which infrastructure is at most risk, where does it fall in terms of the design?
If it’s an MILCOM project and we every year go through this, you know, facilities investment process to make sure that we are addressing the most important need. And what — with respect to the two labs at Picatinny Arsenal, I commit to getting back to you about specifics about status of modernization and upgrades at those labs.
Because I agree. They are critically important. And we want to recruit the best talent available. Thank you.
MIKIE SHERRILL:
I appreciate that. It was, as I met with the general, one of his top concerns as well, so thank you so much. I really do appreciate that and look forward to hearing from you. Last May, the Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany became the first DOD installation to achieve net zero electricity status with the base producing 100 percent of the energy they use.
They were able to do so through incorporating innovative energy technologies such as biomass steam turbines, landfill gas generators and advanced microgrid controls into their installation. Other carbon pollution free resources include wind and solar power alternatives, including new systems such as GF Energy’s integrated solar roofs that directly integrate solar technology into roofs shingles.
So, Secretary Berger, congratulations on that success at reaching net zero. Can you elaborate on some of the challenge that MCLB Albany faced in achieving net zero as well as lessons learned, recommendations and takeaways from that process so other services can avoid those pitfalls as they work towards net zero installations?
MEREDITH BERGER:
Congresswoman, thank you. We’re — we’re very excited about this. And I had the honor of going down with the commandant of the Marine Corps to be able to celebrate this milestone with him. And the first thing that he talked about was how this was war fighting. This was about mission success. This is a logistics base which is foundational to the Marine Corps.
And so, as we talk about a contested logistics environment and how we are facilitating the way that we support the fight, it’s just a wonderful example in a number of ways. They’re — this is a testament to the Marines who were committed year after year commanding officer after commanding officer to work with the community that surrounded them through trial and — and error and continuity of commitment.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Ms. Berger, I hate to interrupt you. If you could submit the rest for the record. Her — the members time has expired.
MIKIE SHERRILL:
I’ll take that for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Yeah, thank you. Mr. Scott?
AUSTIN SCOTT:
Thank you. Mr. Chairman. And the chair, Congressman Waltz hit on this a little bit with regard to solar panels and battery technology. And I will tell you that Secretary Owens, I do think that the DOD should make it very clear that the DOD, the United States Department of Defense is not going to purchase any vehicle that utilizes CATL or any other Chinese battery technology.
I refuse to believe that we’ll — with all of the great companies in this country and with all of the great minds at Georgia Tech, MIT and everywhere else in this country that we in this country cannot develop better — better technology than the Chinese have. And if it takes us 12, 18, 24 months to do it, then that’s better than sending people who don’t share our interest or our values US tax dollars to — And so, I think that corporate America is going to have to understand that if they’re going to partner with China, then they’re not going to sell their vehicles to the Department of Defense.
That said, I realize part of that manufacturing is not going to come back to the US. It doesn’t all have to come back to the US. It’s just we shouldn’t be buying it from people who don’t share our interests or our values. Secretary Oshiba, can you briefly explain what materials the Air Force considered for its facility to be built under the pilot program on the increased use of sustainable buildings?
EDWIN OSHIBA:
Congressman Scott, I apologize, I may have to take that one for the record as far as the details go.
AUSTIN SCOTT:
My — my understanding is that you only considered concrete. Is that correct?
EDWIN OSHIBA:
For the — for the — for the pilot project that we are undertaking, I think it’s at Patrick Air Force Base, that was the one material that we are — that we — that we focused on for that one project.
AUSTIN SCOTT:
And so, the — the whole purpose of the project is innovative concepts, new materials. Why didn’t you consider cross laminated timber?
EDWIN OSHIBA:
Sir, I — I would have to take that one for the record. I’m not sure exactly why we didn’t look at a — at a — at a broader range of — of — of materials. I do know the focus was specifically on concrete. And then, we also looked at what other kinds of resilient design techniques that we could — we could incorporate as part of the design for that specific area.
AUSTIN SCOTT:
There’s also been language that specific to not telling you that you have to use it, but that you have to consider cross laminated timber. And the use of cross laminated timber is certainly a much more renewable resource than concrete is. I mean, when you take concrete down, you create a pile of rubble that nothing can be — nothing can be done with.
And so, I — I just want to make sure that cross laminated timber is part of the discussion as we — as we look to —
EDWIN OSHIBA:
Sir, we could certainly took — take a look at that specifically. And if it’s not there, then I don’t see why we couldn’t consider it.
AUSTIN SCOTT:
I would — I would appreciate that. And then, Secretary Jacobson, the Army somewhat did the same thing in it, but in your testimony, you say while lower emission building materials are in development, these materials are not currently at the appropriate technology readiness level for direct implementation of the project.
But other countries and — and the private sector are using cross laminated timber now. Can you explain those comments further?
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Congressman Scott, thank you for the question. And I want to start by saying that we have two projects underway at Joint Base Lewis-McChord using sustainable material. They’re both barracks projects. The first one as you mentioned is using sustainable low carbon concrete. But the second one is going to use cross laminated timber.
Really it was just a planning issue with the Army Corps of Engineers. And they were a certain way along in the planning for that first barracks and to change the material so substantially would have affected the timing of the construction and so forth. But the second barracks project for fiscal year ’25 will be made of cross laminated timber.
We are committed to that.
AUSTIN SCOTT:
Well, as somebody from the private sector, I think that you will find that the more options you have with the way you construct buildings, not only are you going to get a better building, but you’re going to get it at a better cost. And so, I — I would hope that you would consider cross laminated timber where — where it can be used.
I realize there are some situations where it’s probably not appropriate. But where it is appropriate, I hope that you’ll consider it. And again, Secretary Owens, I know you’re new to the job, but I will tell you. We’re not going to spend DOD dollars on Chinese technology for batteries. And if it slows us down 12, 18, 24 months that’s the price.
DALE STRONG:
The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Scott. The chair recognizes Mr. Davis from North Carolina.
DON DAVIS:
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and to the ranking member as well. Fort Bragg, North Carolina is an installation that’s the home of some of the most elite military units as we understand. Also, have understanding that the North Carolina Department of Transportation has offered to take over maintenance roads at Fort Bragg as soon as the Army brings the roads up to the DOD — DOT standards.
Letting NCDOT take over maintenance would save the Army nearly $400,000, we estimate in maintenance per mile at Fort Bragg. And which we understand have over 1500 miles of road total. There are many examples of public-private partnerships and third-party financing that have led to vast improvements in conditions and sustaining infrastructure.
Yet the Army here remains resistance to this program. At this time, when the Army is facing multimillion dollars of maintenance backlog and facing hard choices about how they use dollars, the Army should be using all tools at its disposal to improve infrastructure, especially when a continued decline of these roads are present.
So, does the Army have any alternative plan to correct these conditions and invest in installations such as Fort Bragg?
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Congressman Davis, thank you very much for that question because the programs, of course, that you’re talking about intergovernmental service agreements, Army is the biggest user across the Department of those programs. And we recognize that they save enormous amount of costs to the taxpayer because of making these agreements with state and local agencies who have the expertise to supplement — the expertise that Army simply doesn’t have.
We recently entered into such an agreement for road maintenance with the state of Texas where the state of Texas Department of Transportation will provide road maintenance for — and this was actually with all the other services — for all services in Texas. I am not familiar with why there’s any progress not being made on an intergovernmental services agreement at Bragg with respect to road maintenance and working with the DOT, but I will find out and make sure we get back with you.
DON DAVIS:
Thank you so much. Unfortunately, Camp Lejeune has a long history of service members that’s been harmed by environmental contaminations, specifically dealing with the water. In recent years, we’ve learned that service members have been exposed to another contaminant, PFAS, that exposes them to additional health risk.
In fiscal year ’21 NDAA, you were asked to provide a timeline and cost estimate for cleanup of all sites that’s been contaminated by the P — the PFAS. The response to that requirement indicated that while the Navy has begun the cleanup process, phase two of the process of the remedial investigation and feasibility study will not be completed until the last quarter of fiscal year 2029, which means we’re probably looking at 2030 before to meaningful cleanup.
My question is with the timeline like that, explain how you believe that the Department is fulfilling its commitment to clean up the responsibility, this responsibility here of cleanup at Camp Lejeune in particular? And why is it taking so long? Why will it take so long?
MEREDITH BERGER:
Congressman, we share your concern for people who are harmed by contaminants in water and take that very seriously. And anybody who has had exposure should get the medical care to which they’re entitled to from all the different places that it is provided. I’ll need to take for the record what the — the time is that will take us out to ’29. And I’d be happy to follow up with you on — on that answer so that you get the details that you’re looking for.
DON DAVIS:
Thank you. I yield back.
DALE STRONG:
Thank you, Mr. Davis. The chairman recognizes himself for five minutes. Thank you each for being here today. During my time as chairman of the Madison County Commission in Huntsville, Alabama, I saw firsthand the impact a strong community can make on an Army installation. To name a few instances. At Redstone Arsenal, the region pulled together to move the most popular entrance back three quarters of a mile to comply with new regulations and growth of the installation.
We built new officers and based leadership housing, contributed over a half a billion dollars to improve infrastructure, started new partnerships with some of the best research universities in the nation. And my personal favorite. We built a $55 million minor league baseball stadium, The Rocket City Trash Pandas, which sits right outside of Redstone Arsenal along with a $50 million amphitheater at no cost to the Department of Defense.
Because it was the right thing to do to support our war fighters, their families and our contractors. Quality of life makes a difference. With the DOD facing a maintain — a maintenance backlog of around 130 billion, my question is, what can the communities do to better serve their installations?
BRENDEN OWENS:
Thank you for — for the specific examples of what I believe to be very true relative to the — the interdependency of Defense communities and installations. The Office of Local Defense Community Collaboration is a program that is run as a Defense field agency that is — that is resourcing communities to be able to look at that question specifically.
So, to try to find out what needs the Department has in communities, what OLDCC can provide to make it possible for those communities to come to the table as partners, as collaborators to identify the places that we should be partnering together to improve quality of life for all of the people in the community.
70 percent of our — of our service members and their families don’t live on installations. They live in — in the community. So, specific to any ideas right now, I’d be happy to take that for the record. But I think you’ve pointed out some specific examples of quality-of-life improvements that could be used other places to — to be — to be replicated to improve the conditions for our service members.
And I — Trash Pandas is an outstanding name. That’s really commendable. [Laughter]
DALE STRONG:
It’s been great for our community, no doubt. Thank you.
BRENDEN OWENS:
I’ll bet. Yeah.
DALE STRONG:
The next question is what benefit has the Defense Community Infrastructure pilot program provided for installations?
BRENDEN OWENS:
The — I have a list in the binder. I’d be happy to share that with the committee for what — specific things that have happened. But — but DCIP is another example of a program that is again organized and — and operated by all DCC to be able to provide the resources to stitch together the infrastructure that exists on the other side of the fence line that our — our military service members and our communities rely on.
DALE STRONG:
Thank you. Ms. Jacobson, the Ukraine conflict has highlighted shortfalls within the US Defense production capacity and supply chain. I think we can all agree it’s better that these issues be fixed before we find ourselves in the middle of our own conflict. In Alabama, we have Army Materiel Command at Redstone Arsenal and the compact — the combat vehicle center of the Free World.
And one of the largest storage and distribution centers of ammunition and missiles at Aniston’s Army Depot. My question is what lessons has the Army learned regarding the ability of our arsenals and ammunition facilities to meet future wartime demands?
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Thank you very much. And thank you for your support of Redstone Arsenal. We really appreciate it. It’s obviously, as you say, home to Army Materiel Command and so many other important functions across DOD, actually across the federal government even. What we recognize is that as we start to build new operations systems and new platforms, we have to have the facility to house those platforms.
So not only do we need to make sure our organic industrial base is modernized enough to be able to keep pace with the new platforms that we have to replenish, but also to make sure that we have the facilities, the maintenance facilities and so forth to house those new — new — new equipment. And to make sure that we’re giving it state of the art maintenance facilities and so forth and manufacturing facilities.
And this is obviously a huge priority and part of our facilities investment planning.
DALE STRONG:
Thank you, Ms. Jacobson. I yield back. The chair recognizes, Ms. Tokuda of Hawaii.
JILL TOKUDA:
Thank you, Chair. First of all, thank you everyone for your testimony and for coming before our committee. I have some questions as you can guess on the Red Hill tragedy that took place in Hawaii. I appreciate the conversations we have had as well. I appreciate for all the testimony including what you’re doing — doing and planning to do. But as we’ve discussed before, what’s at the core of this is rebuilding a broken trust that exists right now.
That takes more than words. It takes action. And it takes giving people confidence that the injustice that has happened is recognized and will not happen again. And so, you know, when I take a look at what is still being required in terms of questions about important information that they would like shared, I’m even — even the fact that video that was released by independent sources of the fuel leaking out and spilling out, spewing out, quite frankly, of the Red Hill pipeline in November 2021 has still not officially been released right now.
What efforts do we — our — you know, what assurance do we have, I guess, Ms. Berger, that, you know, the information that people are demanding, the transparency and disclosure that people expect after something like this will actually take place, including a lot of the relevant FOIA requests that have been put forward so that the people of Hawaii can really know what happened and what will happen.
And have — can have confidence that the relationship going forward will be one of openness and of trust.
MEREDITH BERGER:
Congresswoman, thank you, too, for — for the time and recent conversations. And I’m grateful to have had the opportunity to engage across the Hawaii delegation with both on island and off island leadership and — and citizens and constituents to understand. I think that part of building trust is — is building understanding as well.
And it comes from all sides who are involved. And so, every day we at the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense need to make sure that we are being responsive, being transparent, providing that information. You note that there are some FOIA requests that have come. FOIA is — is a process that does take some time, but we will make —
JILL TOKUDA:
If I could just interject here, since I am limited in time, do you feel that you folks have been, in fact, responsive? And I understand that FOIA is a process, but given the extreme urgency of having 20,000 gallons of jet fuel pumped into your water and people poisoned, your families worried about if they’re getting sick because of what they’re exposed to, do you feel that it has been responsive?
Do you feel the timelines are fair given the information people are demanding right now over Red Hill?
MEREDITH BERGER:
Congresswoman, if there are specific pieces of information that I can help you to find, I would be glad to.
JILL TOKUDA:
I think we’re taking a look at what people have been asking. It’s been in the paper. It’s been well documented. Again, and I know I’m running short of time, but I want to continue this discussion. This really is a disrespect that happened to the people of Hawaii. What we’re looking for is transparency and urgency.
And regardless of the processes and the timelines that exist for things like FOIA, I think if we’re going to rebuild what is a broken, a sadly, badly broken trust, it is about going above and beyond to make sure people have the timely answers to the questions that they deserve answers to and exposure to. So, if I could go on, you know and I know we had a conversation both — both Mr. Owens and yourself about the post closure plans.
And even during my tour of Red Hill last week, I had mentioned that whatever the contractor Naka put — Naka Pono [ph] was doing that it had to be done right and well, or it would not only be a distraction, but it would be further mistrust. It would be further degradation of the relationship. So, I was sad to see an article yesterday talking about the fact that this contract was an “enigma” because they couldn’t get basic information about what the contract would do and how they would even engage.
Would it be one on one? Would it be a website? They were actually told, the newspaper, to go FOIA your request. That is not the response that we want. Is this acceptable that your contractors and subcontractors can operate in the dark while again people are asking for light and answers in this case?
MEREDITH BERGER:
Congresswoman, thank you for — for noting that. I saw the same article yesterday and it is something that I have asked my team to help me to understand what happened there. I — I saw it yesterday for the first time and will provide a response to your office.
JILL TOKUDA:
Okay. Do you think that’s acceptable of an answer, a company that you have hired to basically engage with the community saying they will not explain how to the taxpayers of Hawaii, they will be doing this?
MEREDITH BERGER:
Congresswoman, what’s acceptable is a clear answer and a transparent process. And that is what I owe to you. And I will get to you.
JILL TOKUDA:
Thank you. And you owe to the people of Hawaii as well given what we have experienced.
MEREDITH BERGER:
Yes.
JILL TOKUDA:
My last just comment here because I know I don’t have time for an answer. Infrastructure is a problem. Sadly, we are not surprised about Red Hill. We haven’t been surprised about the Maui Space facility, Schofield Barracks and so many others.
DALE STRONG:
The gentlewoman’s time has expired.
JILL TOKUDA:
Thank you very much. Infrastructure is a concern. We need to keep up on this.
DALE STRONG:
Thank you, Ms. Kahoda — Tokuda of Hawaii. Thank you. The chair now recognizes, Mr. Gimenez of Florida, for five minutes.
CARLOS GIMENEZ:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Owens, what’s the greatest existential threat to America today?
BRENDEN OWENS:
The pacing challenge for the Department of Defense is the People’s Republic of China.
CARLOS GIMENEZ:
Okay. Ms. Jacobson, same — same question.
RACHEL JACOBSON:
I agree with Mr. Owens’ answer.
CARLOS GIMENEZ:
Okay. Ms. Berger?
MEREDITH BERGER:
Same, sir.
CARLOS GIMENEZ:
And Mr. Oshiba, same thing?
EDWIN OSHIBA:
Same thing, sir.
CARLOS GIMENEZ:
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I am — I am 100 — I’m 100 percent in — in support of Mr. Scott’s assertion that any — any material that goes into our combat vehicles, none of it should be manufactured by the People’s Republic of China. It would make — it would be insanity to have our greatest adversary supplying us with the materials needed for us to defend ourselves.
Would you — would anybody disagree with that? Any of you? I guess not. Okay. I am concerned. And also — I also am agreement with — with our ranking — Ranking Member Garamendi about — about nuclear and — and small nuclear reactors to be able to power our — our military bases and essential infrastructure, military infrastructure.
I am really concerned about solar panels, not only because they’re — there — the materials come from China and they’re manufactured from China, but also from a security perspective. How do you defend them? Anybody have an answer for that? How do you defend solar panels if you — if you start putting out solar panels to power our bases, how do you defend that?
How do you secure them?
BRENDEN OWENS:
Representative, I will take a stab. I — I think that the — the strategy for DOD is not dependent on any one technology. What we are trying to do is diversify our energy ecosystem in a way that allows us to be able to take advantage of multiple different sources of energy to be able to harden and make resilient all the various aspects of how we procure and use energy.
So that’s electricity from wind, from solar, from nuclear, from gas, from diesel. All of those sources, when you — when you try — when you would deploy a distributed energy platform, disruption of any one of those things is not catastrophically problematic for the entire system. Right, so mission assurance is guaranteed by diversity.
CARLOS GIMENEZ:
Now we’re talking about military bases now, especially in Europe, right? I mean, we’re talking about trying to get away from Russia and energy, etc, etc. And so, when I started thinking about it, wouldn’t — wouldn’t solar panels be the most difficult thing to defend in a military base? You can’t harden it. They have to be outside.
So how do you defend solar panels? How do you defend wind power? That has to be outside too. So how do you do that in a military base?
BRENDEN OWENS:
Thank you for your question. I’ll — I’ll — realizing that I am way over —
CARLOS GIMENEZ:
Hmmm, hmmm, right? Hmmm, hmmm.
BRENDEN OWENS:
No, —
CARLOS GIMENEZ:
Have you all figured that one out? Have you figured that out yet?
BRENDEN OWENS:
The solution —
CARLOS GIMENEZ:
That you’re — you’re now going to put in our military bases two sources of energy that are probably the most difficult things to defend against attack?
BRENDEN OWENS:
The solution is in much broader diversity than we currently have. And that makes for resilient, reliable.
CARLOS GIMENEZ:
Well, I would — I would argue that it would be much more resilient and reliable to go with two nuclear, you know, small nuclear plants than putting some wind and one nuclear plant. I would argue that because A, nuclear plants are much more reliable. They don’t need when. They don’t need sun to power them.
And you could probably, probably fortify them much, much easier than solar and wind. This is talking from a pure — I’ll yield the rest of my time back. Thank you.
DALE STRONG:
Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Vasquez — Mr. Vasquez of New Mexico.
GABRIEL VASQUEZ:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m very pleased to see the Readiness Subcommittee — prioritize — prioritization of MILCOM projects-based infrastructure, environmental protection and energy resiliency. I would also like to thank the honorable witnesses here today for taking the time to speak with us this afternoon.
For your public service to strengthen the defense of our nation. The military installations in New Mexico’s Second District play some of the most critical roles in our national defense. But if you saw the condition of the infrastructure at these — some of these bases, you wouldn’t believe. For example, the service members at White Sands Missile Range and Holloman Air Force Base who are testing groundbreaking technologies are still living in communities with buildings built just after World War II. At a time when our military is struggling with recruitment and retention, we should prioritize improving the quality of life of facilities like housing and child development centers for our service members and their families.
We ask them to do a dangerous job and they deserve better. To make matters worse, the Air Force recently notified the New Mexico Environment Department in 2018 that PFAS is prevalent in surface and ground water throughout the state, particularly in Albuquerque, right outside of Kirtland Air Force Base. And samples collected at Holloman Air Force Base also showed PFAS fast levels as high as 1.29 million parts per trillion.
Experts state that the lifetime of drinking water exposure to these toxic chemicals is 70 parts per trillion. That’s over 18,000 times the lifetime level of exposure. And we should do more to protect the health and well-being of our service members. I think the time to act is now. And I look forward to discussing these important issues with you all.
As a former city councilor in the city of Las Cruces, New Mexico where the National Guard was found liable for contaminants of PCE and a Superfund site that cost the City of Las Cruces, $6 million. We, as a city with limited resources, had to go to court with the Department of Defense in order to clean up those contaminants because they were found by the EPA to be in the drinking water of our residents.
That, to me, as a local elected official was an unacceptable response from the Department of Defense, not to accept the liability that it later took a local government to be able to find at fault. Now my first question is for Mr. Owens. Mr. Owens, could you provide just a quick status update on the Department’s efforts to completely phase out all firefighting agents containing PFAS by 2024?
BRENDEN OWENS:
I’d be happy to and thank you for your commitment to this issue. It’s — it’s vitally important that the — the full Department takes its responsibility to — to deal with the legacies of the decisions that we’ve made. In January of this year — the Department — the Navy certified a military spec for a PFAS free firefighting foam.
The military departments are — we are in the process now of certifying that that is — that that — that those formulations do in fact work. And after that, the military departments will be implementing their phase out plans according to the plans that they’ve developed.
GABRIEL VASQUEZ:
Thank you, Mr. Owens. And can you provide any insight on specific steps that the Department has taken to ensure that aging legacy infrastructure like family housing, child development centers on installations are being properly modernized as mandated in previous NDAAs?
BRENDEN OWENS:
My first job out of college was working as an energy manager at Fort Belvoir, which is just south of here. And — and I — have sort of lived both ends of this now in terms of the — the infrastructure challenges from an installation level and from a — from a department level. I think that there are — the FSRM backlog, the challenges that we have facing a chronic underfunding of the — the infrastructure maintenance and — and the deferred maintenance and repair is — is a very big problem and something that I’m going to be focused on going forward.
And I look forward to partnering with the military departments to make sure that we are bringing the resources that are needed to modernize and — and repair these pieces of infrastructure, particularly on the housing side.
GABRIEL VASQUEZ:
Thank you, Mr. Owens. And that is something that I believe myself and other members of this subcommittee in a bipartisan way are willing to work on to make sure that there’s accountability. And that, I can tell you, it is very hard to attract not just service members, but families to the missions at Holloman Air Force Base when there is a danger that they will be ingesting toxic chemicals from buildings that have asbestos and other chemicals that have yet to be remediated.
Despite the record investments that we have made in our Defense budget year after year, I think this is a critical readiness component, especially where we are handling such critical missions in places like White Sands Missile Range and Holloman Air Force Base that are so critically important to our — the defense of our nation.
Lastly, just one more quick question with these 15 seconds I have, Ms. Jacobson, are there any plans to nominate White Sands for any additional ERCIP, energy resilience and conservation investment projects as far as you’re aware?
RACHEL JACOBSON:
May I take that for the record and let you know?
GABRIEL VASQUEZ:
Yes. Thank you, Ms. Jacobson. I yield back. Thank you.
DALE STRONG:
Thank you, Mr. Vasquez. The chair recognizes Mr. Moylan of Guam for five minutes.
JAMES MOYLAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Berger, were you in Guam recently? Did you — I thought I saw you. Were we sitting next to each other at the commencement there of the Camp — thank you for coming to Guam.
MEREDITH BERGER:
It’s nice to see you again.
JAMES MOYLAN:
I appreciate that. And so I do have a question for you. So, in 2005, the USS San Francisco ran aground in the Western Pacific and was successfully repaired on Guam. By contrast, when the USS Connecticut ran aground in 2021, it proceeded to Guam. It languished in the harbor and was unable to be repaired. So, [Ms. Berger] can you please speak to the dangers posed by America’s backside in ship repair capability — capacity in the Western Pacific?
And the importance of facilities such as Guam now closed dry stock — dock?
MEREDITH BERGER:
It is — it is very nice to see you again. And it was — it was a good thing to spend time at Camp Laws [ph] which emphasized the importance of — of Guam. And as we — as we build out some of the geo — GEO strategic importance of our focus there. As — as far as the ship repair, I’d like to take the detailed question for the record to make sure that I provide for you the perspective of some of my partners who work in that section of the Department of the Navy.
But certainly, it is why we are focused on capitalizing right now our shipyards to make sure that we are able to provide that infrastructure. And as you noted is a critically important to supporting our warfighting mission. So let me get back to you with more, but I would be glad to follow up.
JAMES MOYLAN:
It has been shown successful when we did have it. And with this current threat, I think it’s very important that we extend H-2B and therefore have construction projects fall behind deadlines or to be left uncompleted would leave the United States in a disadvantage position in the Indo-Pacific.
BRENDEN OWENS:
Absolutely, I do.
JAMES MOYLAN:
You gave a really good statement in your — in your report here, which I read through. Do — do us a favor and just highlight this a little bit for me. Just about a minute or two.
BRENDEN OWENS:
I’d be happy to. And — and I really appreciate you enabling us to — to talk about this a little bit more because it is a critical — a critical aspect. The — the construction workforce to do all of the work, the MILCOM work that needs to happen on Guam to support the — the — the port — the posture that we need in the Indo-Pacific does not exist.
And try as we have over the course of the last several years to bring more construction contracts, being — labor, particularly aspects of construction contracts not being available to keep on schedule and on budget. So, the extension that would — that we are asking for in our legislative proposition would solve for — for Guam and for — for the Indo Pacific.
And I — and I would say that we are going to continue all the efforts that we have been doing to encourage US workforce to get to Guam and do this work. But absent that, we need certainty so that we can be able to deliver these projects on time and on budget.
JAMES MOYLAN:
Thank you, sir. And — and that has been —
BRENDEN OWENS:
Thank you for have — letting me speechify. Thank you.
JAMES MOYLAN:
So, all of our efforts there and all our communications with Indo PACOM, the generals is basically this needs to be done. And it can be done with the continued extension of the H-2, so I appreciate your support in continuing to push that. That’s about just it for me, but Mr. Oshiba, I’m looking forward to visiting you — or your visit to Guam again, okay, so I appreciate it. Thank you.
EDWIN OSHIBA:
Thank you, sir.
DALE STRONG:
Ms. Escobar of Texas is recognized for five minutes.
VERONICA ESCOBAR:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and many thanks to our witnesses today. Really appreciate your service to our country and your time with our subcommittee. I have the privilege of representing Fort Bliss. Actually, I share Fort Bliss with my colleague, Gabe Vasquez, which is the second largest installation in our country, as well as the largest joint mobilization force generation installation.
And I recently had the opportunity to see the 3D printed barracks on Fort Bliss. And was very impressed with what’s happening there. And so, Ms. Jacobson, I have a question for you about that. I’m wondering if you can give us an overview of what kind of facility construction this technology could potentially be used for going forward to meet the Army’s infrastructure needs?
And what are some creative ways we can transport this technology on deployments for our service members stationed abroad?
RACHEL JACOBSON:
And Congresswoman Escobar, it is very nice to see you again, so thank you so much for all of your support of Fort Bliss.
VERONICA ESCOBAR:
Likewise.
RACHEL JACOBSON:
We — it is greatly appreciated. The 3D barracks is — is an interesting and a novel approach to construction. I know General Daly is a big fan of it and talks about it all the time. And we are looking at ways, especially in contingency basing where we can use this type of construction, which is very fast and very efficient.
And I — I promise to get with the Corps of Engineers and talk about how they can come up with sort of a proposal for how we can increase our use of 3D printing both at installations and at contingency bases as well.
VERONICA ESCOBAR:
Wonderful. Thank you. I look forward to that. I have a couple more questions about Fort Bliss. In your testimony you mentioned that the Army is administering an installation climate resilience plan assessment for Fort Bliss. Can you give me some detail on when you expect that assessment to be completed? How can we on the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee help compliment the Department of the Army’s efforts to shore up the state of our installations based on the findings of these assessments?
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Thank you so much for that question. The — these assessments called these ICRP, two of them have completed — been completed so far at Fort Carson and at Anniston. And they are really comprehensive and directed specifically to bases based on regional environmental conditions. They are ecosystem driven. And so, the notion is to put together those bases that are essentially the same ecosystems, so we can very specifically target what are the climate associated risks based on that ecosystem.
So, in the next group of these assessments that we’re doing, will be Fort Bliss and Fort Hood. And part of what comes out of these recommendations are suites of projects where we can enhance base resilience based on what we learn comprehensively about the risks associated with changing weather and other environmental conditions in that region.
So, Bliss and Hood are in the next group. And if there are specific recommendations for projects, we’d be happy to report back to you about that.
VERONICA ESCOBAR:
I appreciate that. And do you have any idea on — of the timeline for that? When that next group might — the assessment might begin for that next group?
RACHEL JACOBSON:
I can find out specifically the timeline and get back with you about that.
VERONICA ESCOBAR:
Okay. That would be great. Thank you. And also, I’m wondering if the Army EIME office is tracking couple of priorities for Fort Bliss that have been on our radar? The need for more barracks, but also the rail spur. And are there plans to request MILCOM funding for these projects?
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Well, I’m happy to report for the Fort Bliss barracks projects, we have five modernization project — projects programed for fiscal years ’24 to ’28. That will be an investment of over $187 million. With respect to the railhead, we appreciate the extreme importance of the railhead to mission readiness and power projection.
And I visited the railhead. I know that it needs improvement if — substantial improvement. The — the railhead design wasn’t enough, wasn’t at a sufficient enough stage to make it into the last round of proposed military construction project. But it is a very top priority. And the Corps knows that the design of 35 percent must be complete.
And — and we will make sure it is for the — for the next round.
VERONICA ESCOBAR:
Perfect. And I’ll — I’ll be sure to keep on everyone about that as well. Thank you so much. I yield back.
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Thank you.
DALE STRONG:
Thank you, Ms. Escobar. Mrs. Kiggans?
JEN KIGGANS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to take a few minutes to talk about privatized or unaccompanied soldier, sailor housing. So, I represent Virginia’s Second Congressional District down in the Hampton Roads area. And — and although we lost Norfolk Naval Base with redistricting, it’s still very close. And we’re home to the largest fleet on the Atlantic Coast.
And I have the master jet base Oceana in my district, so. Housing there is atrocious. You know, as a Navy veteran, I was an Navy wife for 20 years. You know, I go on base all the time. I used to shop at the commissary. You know, I see where those guys live. And the quality-of-life aspect, we talk about that.
And I know recruitment and retention is down. And I mean, not only is housing a social determinant of health for people, but if we don’t offer and at least get that quality-of-life piece back, we are never going to improve our numbers. And we — we talk to the leadership over at Oceana, specifically. Those guys are so — there’s three condemned enlisted barracks.
There’s no privatized housing on base or there’s only one at Norfolk. We’re charging our enlisted sailors for Wi-Fi usage. I could not believe the Wi-Fi plans range from $50-$200 for — I mean, the first weekend that I held office here, I brought my DC staff down to Virginia Beach. And I put them in my minivan, and we drove to Norfolk, and we drove to Oceana.
And I said look at where we are asking our single sailors to live. Here’s the barracks. Here’s the galley. Now, think of any four-year college or university you have been to lately, and think about how beautiful those — those places are. And think about what we’re asking those kids in the same age ranges to do. I’ve been to college, and I know what those guys are doing every night of the week.
And think about what we’re asking those 19 and 20 and 21 year olds to do, so if we don’t prioritize that, so I hear you about all these other — and the energy project being specifically, if we are sacrificing quality-of-life like housing and barracks issues for things like energy projects, that’s not the right place to prioritize.
We’re not going to have people to prioritize energy projects for if we don’t focus on the first. For me, as a nurse practitioner as well, sue — vet suicide issues have been real in my district. Quality-of-life is absolutely impacted by where these guys and girls live, so we’ve got to do a better job for them.
So, I know there’s alternatives out there. And — and listening to the discussion — and thank you so much for your testimonies and briefs, but I’m very interested in privatized housing. I know there’s probably pros and cons. I’d like — I think you know the pros, so I — I’d be interested to hear some of the cons.
And then, also, is there a way that we’re prioritizing amongst the service — services? It seems like Army has made some progress. I think Navy, especially in my — in my district. I feel like we’re really behind the power curve down there for — for utilizing some of these public-private partnerships. But can you explain just kind of the order of — of how her prioritizing who’s getting these privatized barracks?
And — and then, also, if — if there are any major cons we should consider?
BRENDEN OWENS:
I — I can tee this off. I — as part of the — the ASCEIN [ph] job, I am also the Department’s chief housing officer, so I am responsible for working with and ensuring that the military departments exercise their oversight authority with — with respect to MHPI projects. And I think that there’s progress that has been made.
So, the Tenant Bill of Rights couple of years ago, the fact that we’ve hired — several hundred housing oversight personnel to be in installations and work. But there — there definitely is as you’ve — as you’ve noted, work left to do. So, the commitment that we have to ensuring that our service members and their families have places to live that are — that respect the dignity of the work that they’re doing is something that — that we’re all committed to. It’s a — it’s a critical readiness issue because of the health.
And if I wrote this down right, your reference to the social determinants of health is something that is right up — right up my alley. I’d love to talk more about that with you if we get a chance. Because there are aspects of this that we can — that we can focus on. In terms of prioritization, I’ll turn to my colleagues to let that be something they can speak to.
MEREDITH BERGER:
And Congresswoman, it’s nice to see you. And thank you for your focus on quality-of-life in a — in a place that is very important to our sailors. As you — as you note, there are barracks in — in disrepair. There’s an example though of what is a great authority that we’ve been excited to have, which is the privatized barracks.
I will get back to you on how we prioritize those, but that is something that we are looking to do more of within those authorities. And your — your district is one of those places. And on your note on wireless, I — I recently learned that [inaudible] is top of my list to — to fix because I understand the connectivity and the mental health that can come from making a simple change.
JEN KIGGANS:
Very much. Thank you. Thank you. In real quick, any cons to privatize housing that we should be considering when we’re, you know, requesting? Or is it as good as it sounds and seems?
MEREDITH BERGER:
From our perspective, it has been a very good experience. And we would love to see more of the opportunity to use the authority.
JEN KIGGANS:
Great. Thank you so much.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Ms. Kiggan’s, I’m going to extend your time a minute because I want to give the Army an opportunity, not from an Army-Navy standpoint, but they have — but the Army has been moving out on this issue, particularly when it comes to the BOQs, the apartment type complexes.
JEN KIGGANS:
Yes.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
And — and I’d like to give Ms. Jacobson a minute.
JEN KIGGANS:
Yeah, and if I could chime in, too, I would concur. It’s painful for me to say, but yes, I think the Army is really blowing some of the — the other branches out of the water, especially on some of this privatized lodging. So, good job.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
We have that on the record, Mrs. Kiggans. [Laughter]
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Feel free to elaborate, Congressman.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Yeah, yeah.
RACHEL JACOBSON:
Thank you. We really appreciate that. Obviously, this is very important to us as you say for quality-of-life purposes. On the privatized housing side, we’ve been — with respect to privatized barracks, we are considering this very, very carefully. We’ve commissioned a RAND study to give us sort of the pros and cons and do a deep dive.
And at the same time, we are right now looking at two proposals from our housing providers about how they would address privatized barracks. We have a great situation at — at Mead. No, wait, Mead? Yeah, I think it’s at Mead. I’m sorry. And where — where it’s working, but of course, it’s — it’s for — for more senior single soldiers.
The question is how do you — how do you ensure continuity of leadership and unit continuity? How do you make sure that leaders have access to the barracks? How do you basically — unit cohesion is — is critical there. And making sure that leaders have access to those barracks for a whole suite of reasons.
So, we’re examining it very carefully and expect to make some decisions this year.
JEN KIGGANS:
Good. And that should be a priority as well. Thank you for that. I know our Norfolk Naval base, with the ship deployment schedules, they were housing those guys just an empty barrack rooms. So, there was no unit cohesion. It was very difficult for our enlisted leadership to be checking in on those guys. They were scattered amongst — I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Norfolk Naval Base and a lot of acres, so — so being able to house them together, yes, for unit cohesion to be able to you know, provide some positive activities and things for them to do would be so meaningful for quality-of-life, so thank you.
MICHAEL WALTZ:
Thank you. And — and to that end, Mrs. Kiggan’s we’re — we’re going to request the Department come back for a more detailed briefing and really diving in to what — where the services are going, what the commonalities are from OSD’s perspective, where you’re prioritizing., What And hopefully we’ll get out of that is some cross service, lessons learned and — and areas to sustain and — and areas to improve and really what the trajectory is going forward.
You know, a colleague of Mr. Garamendi’s from — a well-known colleague of Mr. Garamendi’s from California once said, you know, show me your budget and you show her your priorities. And it seems year-after-year fight-up-after-fight-up installations management and these quality-of-life issues seem to somehow fall to the bottom of a very competitive budget process.
So, if I’m wrong in that, I look forward to you disabusing me. And if otherwise, then we look forward. I know on this subcommittee, it’s a priority for all of us to figure out how to help you on — on that. Because we can throw millions and millions at retention bonuses and specialty pays and what have you but having — anything else from our ranking member.
JOHN GARAMENDI:
Well, you’ve done well, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. [Laughter]
MICHAEL WALTZ:
You know in the — in the Special Forces, that’s a I owe you a case of beer, so. All right, well, thank you. The hearing is adjourned.
List of Panel Members
PANEL MEMBERS:
REP. MICHAEL WALTZ (R-FLA.), CHAIRMAN
REP. JOE WILSON (R-S.C.)
REP. AUSTIN SCOTT (R-GA.)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA.)
REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FLA.)
REP. BRAD FINSTAD (R-MINN.)
REP. DALE STRONG (R-ALA.)
REP. JEN KIGGANS (R-VA.)
REP. JAMES MOYLAN (R-GUAM)
REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-ALA.), EX-OFFICIO
REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CALIF.), RANKING MEMBER
REP. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-N.J.)
REP. VERONICA ESCOBAR (D-TEXAS)
REP. MARILYN STRICKLAND (D-WASH.)
REP. GABE VASQUEZ (D-N.M.)
REP. JILL TOKUDA (D-HAWAII)
REP. DON DAVIS (D-N.C.)
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WASH.), EX-OFFICIO
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT BRENDEN OWENS
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT MEREDITH BERGER
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT RACHEL JACOBSON
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT EDWIN OSHIBA