[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                     

                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-53]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING

                                   ON

                  FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST FOR

                     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ENERGY,

                       AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             JULY 14, 2021

                                    
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-442                     WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                  JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JACKIE SPEIER, California            JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JASON CROW, Colorado                 AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan, Vice       JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
    Chair                            MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine               MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia            LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii              BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington

               Jeanine Womble, Professional Staff Member
                 Ian Bennitt, Professional Staff Member
                           Sean Falvey, Clerk
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Readiness......................................     1
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Colorado, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Readiness..............................     2

                               WITNESSES

Cramer, Paul D., Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary 
  of Defense for Sustainment, Office of the Secretary of Defense.     4
Miller, Jennifer L., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, 
  Installations, Environment, and Energy, Department of the Air 
  Force..........................................................     7
Schafer, Todd L., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 
  Installations, Environment, and Energy, Department of the Navy.     6
Surash, J.E. ``Jack,'' Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, 
  Installations, Environment and Energy, Department of the Army..     5

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Cramer, Paul D...............................................    41
    Garamendi, Hon. John.........................................    39
    Miller, Jennifer L...........................................    85
    Schafer, Todd L..............................................    75
    Surash, J.E. ``Jack''........................................    60

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. Lamborn..................................................   115
    Ms. Strickland...............................................   115

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Golden...................................................   122
    Mr. Kahele...................................................   122
    Mr. Scott....................................................   119
    Mr. Wilson...................................................   119

                  FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST FOR

       MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Subcommittee on Readiness,
                          Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 14, 2021.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:00 p.m., via 
Webex, Hon. John Garamendi (chairman of the subcommittee) 
presiding.

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

    Mr. Garamendi. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I call 
to order this hearing of the Readiness Subcommittee of the 
House Armed Services Committee.
    Today's witnesses oversee a wide range of programs that are 
of great interest to this committee, including military 
construction, installations, installation resiliency, housing, 
environmental programs, and response to emerging contaminants--
also, energy resiliency and climate change.
    Earlier this year, we held a hearing focused on 
installation resiliency in which we questioned the uniformed 
leadership of the services' installation commands. Today, I 
will pose similar questions to the Department's civilian 
leadership:
    What are you doing to ensure our installations are 
resilient to the specific hazards that they face, be [they] 
increasingly frequent storm events, droughts, wildfire, 
flooding, sea-level rise, pandemics, or cybersecurity? How are 
you incorporating climate-change adaptation measures to ensure 
long-range resiliency of our Nation's installations and to 
ensure taxpayers get their full benefit of the military 
construction investments?
    Are you incorporating new materials that are more resilient 
in your construction? Does your installation master planning 
incorporate microgrids, environmental charging infrastructure--
excuse me, that's EV [electric vehicle] charging 
infrastructure, and the ability to island in the event of 
natural or manmade grid disruptions?
    Getting the answers to these questions correct is not just 
about addressing climate change but about ensuring that our 
installations can continue to perform their critical missions 
without disruption.
    In addition to resiliency, this subcommittee has put 
considerable focus in the past few years on privatized housing 
for military families. I assure you that we will continue until 
all the service members have high-quality places to live, free 
from environmental hazards and chronic maintenance problems.
    However, privatized housing is not the only place where our 
service members live. Most of our junior enlisted service 
members live in barracks or dormitories. Through chronic 
neglect, these buildings have been allowed to fall into 
disrepair and create substandard living spaces for service 
members. We know that these poor-quality living conditions 
contribute to poor retention.
    The Army announced a $10 billion plan to overhaul 
substandard barracks by the end of fiscal year 2030, yet only 
one barrack appeared on the President's budget request for Army 
military construction. In 2020, the Army announced that people 
were its top priority, but it seems the Army actually meant 
that people were their top unfunded priority. Lip service is 
simply not enough.
    With that said, at least the Army has publicly acknowledged 
the deficiencies in their barrack facilities. I have seen no 
similar statements from the other military departments, yet I 
know that similar rates of barracks and dormitories in poor 
conditions and failing conditions exist within the Navy and the 
Air Force.
    I also look forward to hearing about the witnesses' budget 
request in support of their environmental programs. In 
particular, I am surprised to see that the President's budget 
request for environmental restoration funds, the money used to 
conduct environmental cleanup, were down considerably from 
fiscal year 2021 enactment amounts. With thousands of cleanup 
sites across the country, 698 of which are installations with 
known or suspected releases of AFFF [aqueous film forming foam] 
and potential PFASes [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] 
contaminating the surrounding communities, I am surprised by 
the lack of emphasis on environmental programs. However, with 
the 2024 AFFF phase-out looming, the Department must be 
increasing its efforts to address PFASes and not putting them 
on the back burner.
    With that said, I would like to turn to our ranking member, 
Congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado, for any remarks you may 
have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in 
the Appendix on page 39.]

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO, 
           RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Chairman Garamendi.
    I would like to welcome our witnesses here today to discuss 
their fiscal year 2022 budget request for military 
construction, environmental and energy programs, as well as 
base and facility accounts.
    Over the past several months, this subcommittee has held 
focused hearings on many of the core issues within these 
accounts. It remains clear that the services are struggling to 
prioritize important investments in our aging and failing 
infrastructure. That is one of the reasons I am a strong 
advocate for a higher top line. We cannot continue kicking the 
can down the road.
    I look forward to hearing from OSD [Office of the Secretary 
of Defense] and the services about what they are doing to 
address degraded facilities. Years of deferred maintenance have 
made facilities inefficient, have negatively impacted readiness 
and retention, and left us exposed to extreme weather events. 
Deferred maintenance is also bad business and a waste of 
taxpayer dollars. In fact, Federal disaster mitigation efforts 
can save up to $6 for every $1 spent.
    I am particularly concerned with our organic industrial 
base and facilities and utilities that were built, in many 
cases, over 50 years ago. The Navy has a particularly acute 
problem in this area. The GAO [Government Accountability 
Office] has assessed that all four public shipyards are in poor 
or failing condition, with too few functional dry docks. The 
recent Navy disclosure of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard dry-
dock cost growth from $750 million to almost $2 billion does 
not engender faith that the Navy has completely bound the 
overall cost of this essential Navy repair capability.
    As to ranges, we still have a myriad of problems that 
appear to be unfocused. Despite the increased emphasis on our 
Nation's hypersonic shortfalls, for instance, I am concerned 
about the Department's ability to adequately test hypersonic 
weapons. Clearly, range limitations will impede DOD's [U.S. 
Department of Defense's] ability to adequately develop this 
capability, yet not one word on this glaring shortfall in any 
of the witnesses' testimony. And if you look at what China is 
doing, they are definitely investing heavily in testing 
capability for hypersonic glide vehicles.
    Even in my district, at Fort Carson, there is a continuing 
lack of emphasis on providing adequate ranges for the 
garrisoned forces. We have to do better and ensure that our 
ranges are ready.
    There are many other important issues that I am confident 
will be discussed today. All services must remain focused on 
the privatized military housing projects. Given the recent 
troubles and prolonged implementation of the Tenants' Bill of 
Rights, oversight is critical.
    The services' testing, cleanup, and replacement efforts 
related to PFAS and AFFF is another issue with bipartisan 
attention. The services must do a better job preventing 
accidental releases, of which there seem to be too many, as 
well as finding a suitable replacement for AFFF.
    With much competition for dollars in this year's budget, I 
want to emphasize the need for good investments that can 
[stave] off the need for additional resources down the road.
    I again want to thank today's witnesses, and I look forward 
to our discussion.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
    We will now turn to the witnesses, and I would like to 
welcome them to this hearing. They are all gathered together at 
some office building, I suspect at the office at the Department 
of Defense. First time for them to get together, so we got them 
all in one place at one time.
    We have Mr. Paul Cramer, performing the duties of Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installation, and Environment, 
Office of the Secretary of Defense. And then I will introduce 
the others in order, so--well, let's go here: Mr. Jack Surash, 
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy, 
Installations, and Environment, Department of the Army; Mr. 
Todd Schafer, Acting Assistant Secretary of Navy for Energy, 
Installations, and Environment, Department of the Navy; and Ms. 
Jennifer Miller, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
for Energy, Installations, Environment, Department of the Air 
Force.
    So, with that, Mr. Cramer, if you would like to begin.

STATEMENT OF PAUL D. CRAMER, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF ASSISTANT 
 SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR SUSTAINMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
                           OF DEFENSE

    Mr. Cramer. Thank you.
    Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, distinguished 
members of the subcommittee, on behalf of myself and my service 
colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to present the 
President's fiscal year 2020 budget request for the 
Department's energy, installations, and environment programs. I 
will highlight a few key areas.
    Our 2022 budget request supports our efforts to address 
mission requirements, ensure service members have a safe and 
resilient place to live and work, and also begins to address 
resilience challenges.
    We are requesting $26.1 billion for military construction 
and sustainment, restoration, and modernization funding to 
address critical mission requirements and life, health, and 
safety concerns within our current fiscal environment. This 
funding will be used to replace, restore, and modernize 
enduring facilities to enhance their resilience to climate 
events and promotes elimination of excess and obsolete 
facilities.
    We are committed to protecting the quality of life of our 
personnel and their families. Our primary focus here is to 
ensure access to safe, quality, affordable family and 
unaccompanied housing. Our budget includes $1.4 billion to 
support our worldwide nonprivatized family housing inventory, 
which includes more than 34,000 government-owned and 5,800 
leased family housing units. This request also demonstrates our 
continued commitment to modernizing unaccompanied personnel 
housing, with more than $477 million requested for eight 
construction projects.
    With regard to privatized housing, the Department continues 
to prioritize actions that improve the tenant experience and 
rebuild tenant trust. Our initial phase was predominantly 
focused on implementing the MHPI [Military Housing 
Privatization Initiative] Tenant Bill of Rights and the NDAA 
[National Defense Authorization Act] requirements embedded in 
those rights. The Department has issued all policy guidance 
necessary to implement all rights at all MHPI housing projects. 
With few exceptions, all 18 tenant rights are now available.
    Our budget also requests approximately $3.6 billion for 
environmental programs, supporting activities ranging from 
managing critical habitat and avoiding training restrictions to 
addressing drinking water health advisories and making the best 
use of our cleanup dollars.
    Finally, the Department depends on resilient installations. 
To prepare for peer competition where even the homeland is 
contested, the Department is addressing a change of technology, 
operational, and policy initiatives to enhance the use of 
energy in warfighting.
    To that end, we are requesting $4.3 billion in energy 
investments, including both installation energy and operational 
energy. This includes approximately $287 million for the Energy 
Resilience and Conservation Investment Program, or ERCIP, a 
significant increase over last year's request to reflect the 
significance of risk to energy systems.
    We appreciate Congress and this subcommittee's continued 
support as we work together to provide the best possible 
support for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, guardians, 
and their families.
    I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cramer can be found in the 
Appendix on page 41.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Cramer, thank you very much.
    Let's now turn to the Army and Mr. Jack Surash.

 STATEMENT OF J.E. ``JACK'' SURASH, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
    OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

    Mr. Surash. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 
Member Lamborn, members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the 
soldiers, families, and civilians of United States Army, thank 
you for the opportunity to discuss the Army's fiscal year 2022 
budget request.
    The request works to address the challenges the Army faces 
in privatized housing and barracks while at the same time 
working to increase the climate resilience of our 
infrastructure. While we face a challenging task, we are making 
measurable and continuous progress in a challenging budget 
environment.
    We have developed and are executing complementary 
strategies that inform our actions. The Army Installations 
Strategy supports the Army People Strategy and the Army 
Modernization Strategy and together encompass our efforts in 
taking care of people, strengthening readiness and resilience, 
modernizing and innovating, and promoting stewardship.
    As you know, housing has been a key focus area. Our 
soldiers and their families deserve high-quality, safe housing. 
Our focus is on fixing the privatized housing issues brought to 
light in 2018 while at the same time working with the 
privatized companies to strengthen the long-term financial 
health of the housing portfolio.
    We are conducting 100 percent quality assurance inspections 
on change of occupancy and on all life, health, and safety 
maintenance work orders.
    The Army fully implemented all 18 Tenant Bill of Rights at 
the majority of our 44 installations. We will execute the 
remaining three tenant rights at eight installations by the end 
of the summer.
    The privatized housing providers are spending $1.5 billion 
and reinvesting another $1.3 billion on housing improvements 
over the next 5 years.
    In regards to barracks, the Army has invested $2.1 billion 
for construction, operations and maintenance, and restoration 
and modernization over the last 3 years. The Army is focused on 
modernizing barracks standards that incorporate user feedback 
and the latest technology. The Army will continue to work to 
increase the overall quality of housing, both Army-owned and 
privatized housing as well as barracks.
    All of this is occurring while the Army is working to 
maintain and increase the resilience of our installation 
infrastructure. Energy and water resilience, or uninterrupted 
access to energy and water, are essential for Army readiness 
and ensuring the Total Army can deploy, fight, and win.
    Among the threats we face, climate change is a direct 
threat to Army readiness and our ability to accomplish the 
mission. To combat this threat, the Army is proactively taking 
steps to address the impacts and causes of climate change and 
extreme weather at our installations and upon our operational 
forces.
    Army readiness begins on our installations. Through 
adaptation, mitigation, and innovation, the Army will work to 
secure the readiness and resilience of forces, functions, and 
facilities.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and 
for your continued support of our soldiers, civilians, and 
families.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Surash can be found in the 
Appendix on page 60.]
    Mr. Garamendi. I thank you, Mr. Surash.
    We will now turn to Mr. Schafer, Acting Assistant Secretary 
of the Navy.

STATEMENT OF TODD L. SCHAFER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
 NAVY FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF 
                            THE NAVY

    Mr. Schafer. Thank you, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member 
Lamborn, and distinguished members of the committee. I thank 
you for the opportunity to testify on the Department of the 
Navy's fiscal year 2022 budget request for energy, 
installations, and environmental programs.
    The Department of the Navy appreciates the committee's 
continued support of Navy and Marine Corps installations. These 
installations directly enable the lethality and warfighting 
readiness of our maritime forces.
    The Department of the Navy's military construction request 
for 2022 includes $2.3 billion for 29 projects that invest in 
new platforms and technology as well as replace and modernize 
an aging infrastructure. Eight construction projects support 
the relocation of our Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam.
    This request also reflects our commitment to the Shipyard 
Infrastructure Optimization Program and to ensure the Navy's 
public shipyards are ready and able to support the maintenance 
plan for current and future submarines and aircraft carriers.
    To take care of our existing infrastructure, our 2022 
budget request funds the sustainment of Navy and Marine Corps 
facilities at 80 percent of the Department of Defense 
Facilities Sustainment Model.
    The Department of the Navy is also requesting nearly $1 
billion to fund projects that restore and modernize existing 
infrastructure, to include naval shipyards, utility 
infrastructure, runways and taxiways, hangars, training 
facilities, and waterfront structures.
    Our 2022 budget request sustains the funding needed to 
ensure military families receive safe, quality, and well-
maintained housing and fair treatment from the military housing 
companies that own, operate, and maintain privatized housing.
    Over the past 2 years, all levels of leadership across the 
Department of the Navy have been laser-focused on improving the 
privatization housing experience for sailors, Marines, and 
their families. Although work remains, we are beginning to see 
improvement in the operation, maintenance, and customer service 
provided by our privatized housing partners.
    Navy and Marine Corps installations face threats from 
natural disasters and climate change, as well as risk to 
energy, water supplies, and industrial cyber control systems. 
Our 2022 budget request continues the Department of the Navy's 
commitment to installation resiliency and treats it as a 
crosscutting consideration integrated into all of our 
installation planning. We also include it in our environmental 
conservation and restoration, our facility design and 
construction, and in all of our decisionmaking processes.
    Finally, we appreciate this committee's continued attention 
and the urgent need to modernize the Navy's premier aviation 
training range, the Fallon Range Training Complex in Nevada. 
The Department of the Navy remains committed to working closely 
with Tribal governments; environmental organizations; the 
State, county, and local community; and the Department of 
Interior to develop a solution that meets the desires of all 
stakeholders while providing our warfighters a range complex 
that meets their critical training and readiness needs.
    As directed by the fiscal year 2021 National Defense 
Authorization Act, the Department of the Navy has collaborated 
with the Secretary of Interior to establish the Fallon Range 
Training Complex Intergovernmental Executive Committee to 
obtain views of stakeholders on Fallon Range Training Complex 
modernization and information related to management of natural 
and cultural resources on the range.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this opening 
statement. We look forward to the continued support and 
attention of this subcommittee, and I am ready to address your 
questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schafer can be found in the 
Appendix on page 75.]
    Mr. Garamendi. I thank you, Mr. Schafer.
    We now turn to Ms. Miller, Assistant Secretary of the Air 
Force, Energy, Installations, Environment.

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. MILLER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
   THE AIR FORCE FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, 
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

    Ms. Miller. Chairman Garamendi and Ranking Member Lamborn 
and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today.
    I am here with you to review the status of our installation 
and energy priorities to ensure the Department of the Air Force 
continues to provide installations as power-projection 
platforms in support of the National Defense Strategy.
    The fiscal year 2022 President's budget request supports 
the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance and lays out a 
plan to modernize our military capabilities. The military 
construction budget prioritizes nuclear enterprise 
modernization and combatant command infrastructure in Europe 
and the Pacific. The budget also funds high return on 
investment in operational energy initiatives and provides for 
the quality of life of our airmen, guardians, and their 
families through investments in housing, dorms, child 
development centers, and community support facilities.
    Secretary Austin identified tackling climate as one of the 
top efforts in support of the ``defending the Nation'' 
priority. Changing climate and severe weather events are a 
continual threat to our installations.
    Over the past several years, the Department has seen 
firsthand the impacts climate and severe weather can have on 
our installations. As a result, we are smartly moving forward 
with the rebuild efforts at Tyndall Air Force Base following 
Hurricane Michael in 2018 and Offutt Air Force Base following 
the flooding in 2019.
    Additionally, the Department enhanced installation 
resilience, or the ability to continue military operations in 
the face of challenges, to bounce back from adversity across 
numerous fronts.
    Climate and energy resiliency considerations are being 
incorporated into installation development plans. Last year, we 
published a ``Severe Weather and Climate Hazard Screening and 
Risk Assessment Playbook.'' This gives installation-level 
planners a consistent and systematic framework to screen for 
severe weather and climate hazards and assess current and 
future risks.
    We remain firmly committed to a robust environmental 
conservation program, responsible environmental restoration, 
and protecting human health.
    Regarding PFAS, the Department developed a framework to 
identify and remediate impacted areas. While there are no 
national primary drinking water regulations for PFAS, the EPA 
[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] established lifetime 
drinking water health advisories for two--PFOS [perfluorooctane 
sulfonic acid] and PFOA [perfluorooctanoic acid].
    Our strategy focuses first and foremost on ensuring that no 
one, on or off our installations, is drinking water with a 
Department-related PFAS or PFOA above that health advisory. 
And, second, I am using those CERCLA [Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
1980] authorities to investigate, define, remediate groundwater 
and soil impacted by the Department activities.
    The Department also communicates and collaborates with 
local communities, State and Federal agencies, and elected 
officials at all levels.
    Regarding privatized housing, the Department, with the 
support of Congress, took substantive action to address 
concerns and make meaningful changes to our privatized housing 
program. Nearly all the housing companies have agreed to 
implement the additional 18 tenant rights.
    Some privatized housing highlights we have implemented in 
the last year include increasing program and project oversight, 
as well as 60 new resident advocates that directly support 
military families.
    We will keep focus on improved oversight, long-term project 
health, and sustainment of housing inventory to provide 
military families access to safe, quality, and affordable 
housing communities.
    Finally, the Department continues to develop an agile and 
optimized approach to powering our aircraft and providing 
airmen with the fuel when and where they need it. We are 
improving enterprise-wide fuel-use data collection and 
conducting analysis to identify areas where existing missions 
can be performed more effectively with fewer resources.
    Through partnerships with aviation and commercial 
industries, we identify innovative solutions to modernizing 
legacy aircraft and weapon systems while maintaining our 
lethality.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lamborn, that completes my 
remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I 
look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Miller can be found in the 
Appendix on page 85.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Ms. Miller.
    We are now going to questions. We want to try to maintain 
the 5-minute clock as we go through this, although the chairman 
has some leeway, as does the ranking member. The rest of you, 
it is 5 minutes or out. So we will carry on here. I am going to 
do mine very quickly.
    Earlier, I had a discussion, Mr. Cramer, about the 
Department of Defense and what you are doing to carry out the 
President's executive order with regard to climate change.
    Could you speak to us about what the Department, the 
Secretary of Defense office, and then the various departments 
are doing to carry out that instruction at the Department, that 
all Federal agencies aggressively address the climate-change 
challenge?
    Mr. Cramer.
    Mr. Cramer. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, before I start, I want to, you know, take the 
opportunity now to thank the great team of professionals that 
we have assembled within the Department of Defense in very 
short order.
    So the President's executive order came out, one of his 
first ones, in the early part of January. So we rapidly 
organized a team of professionals to address the executive 
order, led at the Department of Defense level by DASD [Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense] Richard Kidd and Dr. Kate 
White, who is an expert in climate. This is kind of their 
pinnacle of success, if you will. They have been, you know, 
training their whole career to get at this.
    And where we are at within the Department is all telling. 
And so I don't need to go into too much details about the 
effects of climate, because I think we all realize that. But 
the Executive Order 14008, ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at 
Home and Abroad,'' in our response to that we put together the 
DOD Climate Adaptation Plan, which is in final draft, going up 
to the Secretary for signature. It is an all-of-the-Department 
plan, and we are all going to sign that.
    In response to the EO, we have been asked not to publish 
that officially until all the rest of the executive branch 
plans get done. And that will be no later than 1 September. Or, 
if we get direction, we will release it early. But I am able to 
go through some of the highlights within our Climate Adaptation 
Plan [CAP].
    And the primary purpose of our CAP is to integrate climate-
change adaptation and climate resilience across our programs, 
management of real property, our public lands and waters, and 
financial services.
    The Department is responding to climate in two ways: 
adaptation to enhance resilience--these are actions and 
adjustments in natural or DOD systems in anticipation of or 
response to a changing environment in a way that effectively 
uses beneficial opportunities to reduce negative effects of 
climate--and our mitigation efforts that are being used to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    The basis of our plan is wrapped around five lines of 
effort, and I will briefly go through each one of those.
    Line of effort number one is climate-informed 
decisionmaking. What that is is climate considerations must 
continue progress towards becoming an integral element of DOD's 
enterprise resource allocations and operational decisionmaking 
process.
    Line of effort number two: train, test, and equip a 
climate-ready workforce. This LOE will help shape the 
Department's efforts across activities related to developing, 
acquiring, fielding, and sustaining equipment and services.
    Line of effort number three: resilient built and natural 
infrastructure. Built and natural infrastructure are both 
necessary for successful mission preparedness and readiness. 
Built infrastructure serves as the staging platform for the 
Department's national defense and humanitarian missions. 
Natural infrastructure supports military combat readiness by 
providing realistic operational testing to combat environments 
and conditions.
    Line of effort number four: supply-chain resilience and 
innovation. A climate-resilient supply chain is one in which 
the Department has ensured that key suppliers and industries 
can still operate while impacted by climate change, with 
uninterrupted access to key supplies, materials, chemicals, and 
services.
    Line of effort number five: enhance adaptation and 
resilience through collaboration. The Department will build 
unity of effort in mission across DOD components to exploit 
lessons learned and economies of scale and integrate that into 
existing DOD missions, not as a subset from that.
    And I will turn it over to my colleagues, if they want to 
amplify anything.
    Mr. Garamendi. Let's stay with this. We will go with the 
amplification from each of the departments, and then we will 
turn to Mr. Lamborn.
    Shall we go in reverse order? Let's go with Air Force one. 
That is not an airplane; that is you, Ms. Miller.
    Ms. Miller. Well, Congressman, thank you.
    So we have started working on our climate goals in support 
of the executive order and the climate action plan. And, as 
part of doing that, as Mr. Cramer briefed, we have two main 
lines.
    The difference particularly with the Air Force, I think, is 
some of the initiatives that we are able to implement in the 
operational energy arena, because that is over 80 percent of 
our consumption comes from operational energy. So we are 
looking at a lot of things there, some of them big items.
    But one of the things that we have been able to get funded 
this year is some of the relatively small items, whether it is 
the angling of our windshield wipers on our aircraft, to little 
winglets, to things that we have been able to modify the 
aircraft, often stealing good ideas from industry. All of these 
things that we have been able to implement for less than $40 
million this year have a return on investment within the FYDP 
and have some real opportunities for big savings, although 
little investments.
    Some of the other areas that we are looking at with 
mitigation for our installations include things like, you know, 
reducing the footprint, increased demolition; trying to look 
at, with new telework policies, is there a way to reduce the 
requirements when we are building new; in our acquisition 
policies, being able to leverage the existing infrastructure 
and consider that as part of our acquisition; and then some of 
the things that we can do with a climate-literate workforce, 
including climate in all of our considerations.
    On the adaptation piece, the installation energy plan, so 
we are well on our way to that. And by the end of next year, we 
will have 75 percent of our major energy-consuming 
installations complete. We will work those into our 
installation development plans.
    And then some real good work that has been done with the 
pull-the-plug exercises. We have actually three more on the 
books. We have had great success so far and support from our 
leadership in doing that to try to determine where we have some 
installation energy vulnerabilities and water vulnerabilities, 
that then lead to where we invest our resources and prioritize 
our resources to get after those vulnerabilities.
    I know I have probably already taken too much time, sir. 
Happy to answer any additional questions on those, or I can 
turn it over to my service counterparts.
    Mr. Garamendi. Let's go to the Navy.
    Mr. Schafer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Climate resiliency, environmental issues, these are very 
important to us. As we are following the lead from the 
Department of Defense, we, too, are working on our climate-
change issues. It is a national security concern for us.
    And, as we are working through this, we think about sea-
level rise for a lot of our installations that are on coastal 
areas. When we are working to build a resilience plan, we work 
with local, county, and State governments to ensure that we are 
good partners with the community.
    We are also looking at the effects of climate change on 
things such as energy, water, and also the cyber piece of this, 
what it can do for our control systems.
    My colleague from the Air Force mentioned that they have 
run some black-start exercises where we actually disconnect the 
base from the electric grid. We have done that out at Marine 
Corps Air Station Miramar. We have actually done that twice, 
where we have turned the commercial power off there. And by the 
use of a microgrid and 11 megawatts on-site energy capability, 
we were able to support the 100-plus critical mission 
facilities for 14-plus days.
    So we are certainly taking advantage of providing energy 
security for things that may happen from a climate environment.
    And another example is that, in August of 2020, during the 
heatwave out in California, we actually used our microgrid to 
prevent rolling brownouts in the California area there at 
Miramar.
    So, clearly, climate is a big deal for us. We are 
prioritizing it into all the actions we do. And we are doing 
that to build climate resiliency into all of our 
infrastructure. So that includes our master planning, our 
development, our design and construction. And it also is in all 
of our decisionmaking processes, just as the Secretary of 
Defense has directed, that we need to consider climate issues 
in all of our processes and decisionmaking.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much.
    And we will end with the Army and then turn to Mr. Lamborn.
    Mr. Surash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So, along the lines of what you just heard, what the Army 
is doing is, of course, working very closely with the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense and our sister services with respect 
to all things climate change.
    What we have chosen to do in the Army is, starting in late 
February, we have put together a Climate Change Working Group. 
This is an across-the-Army effort. Because we really see 
climate change having a big effect on the operating forces of 
the Army, training, deployment, employment of operating forces 
and the need for such, as well as very obvious implications on 
our installation side.
    So the [inaudible] is we will have a climate-change 
strategy that the Secretary of the Army will release probably 
within 60 days or so. And then we will have a very detailed 
climate-change action plan that will lay out a multiyear effort 
that covers everything with respect to the operating forces and 
installations that the Army is going to attempt to do, sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, very good. Thank you very much. You 
can be assured that we will be following up at the 60 days, so 
that will fit into our schedules also.
    In any case, this is extremely important in every way. We 
last year called it conservation, energy conservation, and the 
like. We will follow up with more detail from you and from us.
    Mr. Lamborn, if you would care to proceed.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to ask Mr. Cramer about hypersonic ranges.
    Our Nation is late in developing adequate hypersonic 
weapons but is starting to expand our industrial base to 
support a near-term hypersonic capability. But we do have a 
glaring shortfall in range capabilities, and because of this 
deficit, industrial base partners may have to field more 
antiquated approaches, because range limitations prohibit 
testing the latest technology.
    Do you share this concern, and do you have any solutions 
going forward, Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. Congressman, I do share that concern. We have 
had some conversations within the Department on how we are 
going to achieve the maximum range of the hypersonic systems.
    I do not have any solutions I will talk to here, but I 
would be glad to have folks get on your calendar and come down 
and sit down and kind of go through, you know, what those 
possible solutions would look like.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Let's do that. Because I don't want to 
continue losing ground to China and Russia on this important 
issue.
    Mr. Surash, the Pinon Canyon Range near Fort Carson has a 
multitude of existing limitations, including utility easements 
and airspace limitations. Does the Army have a plan to address 
these limitations? And can you explain any corrections that you 
are anticipating?
    Mr. Surash. Sir, I am aware that we are working on this. I 
don't have the details at my fingertips, but I will be happy to 
follow up with you on that, sir.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Miller, with the transfer of installations from the Air 
Force to the new Space Force, there will be a corresponding 
shift in how these installations support the space mission. For 
example, flying and fighting and winning in the space domain 
obviously requires less focus on airfields and more on critical 
infrastructure for launch and for controlling assets once they 
are operating in space.
    So my question is, to what extent has the Space Force 
developed standards and measures for assessing the readiness of 
its critical infrastructure systems?
    Ms. Miller. So, Congressman, thanks for that question.
    We are actually going to be supporting within the 
Department of the Air Force the space installations from a 
secretariat. And many of the functions that our A4 logistics/
engineering staff performs now will be continued to be 
performed by the secretariat, and many of those functions by 
the Air Staff. So a lot of the prioritization, the support, the 
assessments will be done in the same way. It will be fairly 
transparent.
    Now, the difference will be, as we transfer the FSRM 
[facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization] and 
then in a couple years the MILCON [military construction] 
authority over to the Space Force, then those will be 
prioritized within the service, but then ultimately brought 
together at the secretariat for the assistance on the budget 
prioritization. So the readiness assessment ought to be fairly 
similar, and I haven't see proposals for a transfer on that.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you for that update.
    And are the Space Force missions being reported for 
readiness on the Defense Readiness Reporting System? Maybe I 
didn't catch that, but for the system itself, what is the 
status there?
    Ms. Miller. So, for readiness, I can speak to installation 
investments, sir, but I would have to reach out to our probably 
J3 or our readiness experts, either an S3 or A3, on that. So we 
can take that for the record, on how they are reporting space 
readiness.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 115.]
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, please let us know on 
that one.
    And then, finally, what plans does the Space Force have for 
identifying, prioritizing, and resourcing installation military 
construction requirements that do align with its new mission?
    Ms. Miller. Yes, sir. So, right now, the MILCON process 
still runs through the same, so the Department of the Air Force 
is managing the MILCON for the Space Force and the Air Force 
until 2024.
    At that time, assuming that the capabilities exist within 
the Space Force to prioritize their MILCON, then they would 
transition. I presume that they would use much of the similar 
methodology that we use within the Department of the Air Force, 
but, at that time, in 2024, the Space Force will have entire 
control of both the MILCON and the FSRM accounts.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay.
    Thank----
    Ms. Miller. So we----
    Mr. Lamborn [continuing]. You all for being here.
    Ms. Miller. Oh. Sorry, sir.
    Mr. Lamborn. Oh, I was just--if you have something else to 
say, please finish. Otherwise, I was going to transition back.
    Ms. Miller. Yeah. So we will still consolidate for both the 
Space Force and the Air Force within the Department of the Air 
Force for the policy guidance, the budgetary oversight, et 
cetera. So there still will be the consolidating and review 
function by the secretariat for both departments.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. And thank you all for being 
here.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
    The gavel order is--well, let me find it here--Mr. 
Courtney, Mr. Wilson. And then we will have more beyond that. I 
will make an announcement as soon as I get the order.
    So, Mr. Courtney, you are up.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
    You know, we had a subcommittee hearing not too long ago 
about the chronic, sort of, delays in terms of turning around 
ship repairs and submarine repairs, particularly the attack 
submarines, which the public yards have really struggled in 
terms of finding capacity to get those platforms turned around 
and back out in deployment.
    You know, Mr. Schafer, you mention on page 2 of your 
testimony the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan, the 
SIOP, which was established in 2018. Looking at the actual 
numbers which were in the budget for, you know, real 
construction, the Navy requested $250 million for a dry dock at 
Portsmouth and $156 million for dry-dock improvements at the 
Ford-class aircraft carrier at Norfolk, and that is it.
    And, I mean, looking at the SIOP plan, which was about $21 
billion of work, it seems like we are just really moving at a 
snail's pace. At the same time, you know, many of us in our 
committee has been pushing to expand the size of the Navy's 
fleet. We still have a lot of aging ships out there.
    Is this enough for us to really achieve the goal of SIOP, 
which, you know, even the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] has 
been coming before us and talking about the, you know, critical 
piece of the spectrum in term of the Navy's ability to get 
ships and submarines out there. This seems, really, like a 
meager request for the scale of the need that is out there for 
SIOP.
    Mr. Schafer. Rep. Courtney, you certainly hit on a very 
important program for the Department of the Navy and our 
ability to generate ready forces. Our SIOP plan is a long-term 
plan, as you probably know, that is going to go over multiple 
years and be multiple billions of dollars at the end. We are in 
the process of completing a 5-year plan to share with you all 
on this committee and others on Capitol Hill.
    We certainly have to keep in mind that we have got to--
we've kind of got to--I am going to use an Air Force example--
we've kind of got to build a plane as we fly it, because we 
can't take down all our dry docks at once. We have to continue 
to do maintenance.
    So that is part of what may make our submission look like 
it's a little meager to get going, but this is all a complex 
problem. And our Naval Sea Systems Command, who does our 
maintenance on our ships, has laid all this out and worked with 
our operating forces to ensure that we've got a SIOP program 
that will still allow us to meet the demands of the combatant 
commanders for force employment going forward, sir.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, I mean, the good news is, I 
think you have a lot of support on this subcommittee for SIOP. 
I mean, I think, you know, it took a while for people to sort 
of recognize, you know, how critical this is, but now I think 
the interest is sky-high.
    And, you know, as soon as we can get that multiyear, sort 
of, view of what the plan is, I think, frankly, it will 
increase people's comfort level. So we certainly anxiously 
await that analysis.
    Thank you for your answer.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Courtney.
    I have repeatedly asked for the--not the 20-year plan, but 
what are you going to do in the next 5 years? I am not going to 
badger you further today, but, guaranteed, I will badger you 
again tomorrow and the day after that until I get that 5-year 
plan. What are you going to do in the next 5 years? How much 
money do you need? Where is it going to be spent? What will be 
the effect of it?
    So I will just let it go at that.
    Now, Mr. Wilson, it is your turn.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to assure our witnesses--thank you today--that 
there is not badgering from the chairman; he is just making 
inquiries. Okay? And so----
    Mr. Garamendi. No, no. This is badgering.
    Mr. Wilson. No, no, no, no, no. Hey, hey, hey. This is 
inquiry.
    But, Secretary Miller, the fiscal year 2019 NDAA requires 
the Department of Energy to study the deployment of 
microreactors, small modular reactors, at DOE facilities for 
energy security.
    And, earlier this year, there was issued an executive order 
requiring the Department of Defense to make a report on 
microreactors, small modular reactors, and their implementation 
at domestic military installations.
    What is the status of looking into enhanced energy 
resilience using these small modular reactors?
    Ms. Miller. Congressman, we have a great interest in it. I 
was actually able to go up about a year ago to Eielson and 
physically tour the coal plant there and look at and talk to 
the folks about their excitement with the pilot program out 
there.
    So we are just getting underway on the pilot program, but 
we are excited to see what capabilities that provides us for 
our CONUS [continental United States] installations and then 
the potential to have those be mobile for other locations.
    Mr. Wilson. And, to me, the energy stability and 
dependability would just be fantastic for island installations, 
including an entire island, the territory of Guam. But, over 
and over, I wish you well in looking into that.
    And for any one of you, I would like to receive back--you 
don't have to do it right now. I am keenly interested in having 
from any one of you a prognostication of rising sea levels. 
What level of rise do you anticipate? What years of 
anticipation? Is there a variance by location on east coast, 
west coast?
    Additionally, I am interested in a prognostication of 
rising temperatures. Again, what is the anticipated rise and 
what year?
    And then also the prognostication--since I represent South 
Carolina, we are keenly interested in hurricanes. What is your 
prognostication of Atlantic hurricanes? How many and which 
year?
    And for the three different issues of rising sea level, 
temperature, and hurricanes, I would really appreciate that in 
a narrative but also a graph format. And if you would please 
provide that to me. I would like to see what is being done.
    And then, Secretary Surash, I am grateful to represent Fort 
Jackson, which serves as the public face of our Army for more 
than 45,000 basic trainees and their families every year. 
Despite the efforts to have the reception barracks complex 
completed, it is still not being included in the budget. What 
is the anticipation of what can be done for the reception 
barracks?
    Mr. Surash. Congressman, thank you for that question.
    Sir, I am showing that our request has $34 million for 
phase two of the reception barracks at Fort Jackson, sir.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, hey, I appreciate that very, very much. 
That is going to be very positive.
    Additionally, we have, sadly, effective cuts in the fiscal 
year 2022 budget. And for Secretary Surash, what is the long-
term impact on Army families of delayed investments in the base 
housing and childcare centers?
    Mr. Surash. So, sir, we've got a real focus on housing and 
childcare centers. I think we are moving along fairly smartly.
    With respect to child development centers, we were not able 
to include any child development centers in the military 
construction portion of the bill. Over the next 10 years, we 
are looking to invest in about 21 additional child development 
centers, and I think that is going to provide about 4,500 
spaces; and, through the restoration and modernization program, 
about 10,500, again, over the next 10 years, sir.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, hey, thank you again for your efforts.
    And back again on the different graphs as to rising sea 
level, temperature, hurricanes, if you could get that to Drew 
Kennedy in my office, I would really appreciate it--1436 
Longworth House Office Building. That would be very helpful. I 
would love to see those graphs as soon as possible so that we 
can get prepared.
    Thank you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Your 
inquiries were well put.
    Now, the gavel order going forward--let's see here. We have 
Jason Crow, Mark Green, and Kai Kahele, in that order.
    Jason, you are up.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all to the witnesses for joining us today.
    In the March 26 hearing entitled ``Lessons Learned from 
Winter Storm Uri,'' I asked about the MIRA Act, my Military 
Installation Resiliency Assuredness Act, which was included in 
the fiscal year 2020 NDAA and requires all major military 
installations to integrate into their master plan assessments 
of resiliency, climate effects, and extreme weather.
    To our knowledge, none of those assessments have been 
conducted by any major military installations during their 
planning process updates.
    At the hearing, I asked General Gabram when he expects the 
master plan updates relative to the MIRA Act to be provided to 
Congress. General Gabram told me that he would take it for the 
record and get back to me on that. We have not received any 
information from the Army or any service, so that taking for 
the record did not actually occur as promised.
    So, starting with the Army, when are we going to get that 
information? And can we expect it from every other service as 
well?
    Mr. Surash. Sir, we are very aware of--I believe it was an 
amendment that you personally sponsored, sir, and what it 
requires. I can assure you, we have rolled those requirements 
into the master planning process within the Army. I know we are 
working on this. I will you get you what our plan is looking 
like over the next couple years, sir.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, and I appreciate that. I guess it is 
good to know that you are aware of it and you have rolled it 
into the process. What we were looking for was an update as to 
how many, if any, of those master plan updates have occurred. 
If the answer is zero, that is fine. I think we just want an 
answer. If it is one, if it is three, we just want some sense 
as to where are we in effectuating that requirement.
    Any of the other services have updates in that regard?
    Ms. Miller. Sir, so I can tell you, what we did in the Air 
Force is we did issue, last year, our guidance on that. And so 
it was done through ``Severe Weather and Climate Hazard 
Screening and Risk Assessment Playbook,'' which may sound 
fairly simple to issue the guidance, but it was a 40-page 
analysis that really provided good information for the 
installation planners on how we wanted them to assess. And it 
included the 16 risks, from hurricanes to fires, that we needed 
each installation to assess against and what criteria, mostly 
using our A3 weather office, would be the, kind of, 
authoritative source upon which they could rely.
    We did that initial screening for over 80 of our 
installations. And then what we have done with that now is 
start putting that into our installation development plans. So, 
within the next 5 years, now that everyone has done the initial 
assessment, that will roll into our installation development 
plans.
    As we have that information, though, it allows us to 
modify, as an example, the Tyndall rebuild and the Offutt 
floodplain rise, to modify based on the risk assessment, not 
only of what type of risk it would be, but then we also assess 
each as a yellow, green, red for the 0-25-year and then also 
the 25-50-year look.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you. That is very helpful. I appreciate 
that response.
    Mr. Schafer. And, sir, from the Department of the Navy, we 
have actually completed one of those at Indian Island. We are 
in the process of continuing to train our Navy Facilities 
Command engineers and others on how to do that. And those too 
will roll into our installation master plans over the next 5 
years as they are updated.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you.
    Well, in the remaining minute here, I have a question about 
the DCAT, the Defense Climate Assessment Tool. I wanted views 
from the services, all of you, on how that process is going. I 
understand upwards of 1,300 of those have been used service-
wide.
    I would love any thoughts on how it is working and whether 
any changes need to be made to make it a more effective, more 
efficient tool for all of you. Whoever wants to take that.
    Mr. Cramer. So let me start, and then I will transition 
over to the military departments.
    Yeah, this, actually--I am glad you brought it up, 
Congressman. So the DOD Climate Assessment Tool actually helps 
answer Congressman Wilson's question, too, about sea-level 
rise.
    So the DCAT is just a higher level assessment tool of the 
most vulnerable things for an installation. Obviously, on a 
coast, it could be sea-level rise. If you are in interior, much 
like Colorado, really, your issues are more like drought, 
desertification, those kinds of things.
    And the DCAT looks at it at a higher level, and it could go 
all the way down to a facilities-level look, which then informs 
those master plans, those installation energy plans as you go 
forward.
    So we view, in the DOD, the DCAT model in high regard, 
because it does provide that upper-level assessment based on 
the [inaudible] that we [inaudible]. And then we project out 
two iterations, one 2050 and then one 2085, and then you can 
then plan accordingly as you move into that.
    What comes out of the DCAT, then, would be those 
installation energy plans, those master plans.
    And then I will turn it over to my colleagues.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you. And I would love to hear more, but I 
am out of time.
    So, respectful of my other colleagues, I will yield back, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to all of you.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Crow. We may come back to 
this issue. There may be other folks who want to ask the same 
question.
    Mr. Green, you are nodding your head as though it is your 
turn, and it is. Go wherever you would like to with the 
questions.
    Dr. Green. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am 
confident that that will be brought back up. I am going to 
focus on something different in this first round.
    And, Mr. Chairman, thank you and ranking member for having 
the witnesses here today. And I want to thank our witnesses for 
being here. Thanks, too, for your service to the country.
    As we seek to ensure that our military is prepared to face 
the challenges of the coming decades and this new sort of 
major-competitor paradigm that we are in, one of my primary 
concerns is that we are taking care of those warriors' needs 
when they are back at home station. It is a fundamental 
obligation with very far-reaching effects on retention and, 
thus, readiness.
    Unlike almost all of our competitors, America's military is 
an All-Volunteer Force. No one I served with or Jason served 
with or others on the committee here served with anyone who was 
forced to be there. They were all volunteers. And it imposes a 
challenge on our leadership, both in the military and in 
Congress.
    Our men and women in uniform are disciplined, they are 
hardworking, and that makes them excellent recruits for the 
private sector. If we want to maintain or retain talented, 
experienced service members, we have to take care of them. And 
one key aspect is making sure that base housing meets those 
needs, those individual needs.
    Base housing at my base, Fort Campbell, which is in my 
district, has some significant issues. Many facilities are over 
50 years old. They are in poor condition--mold, mildew. I have 
visited many of them. Other damage has accumulated over the 
years. There are outdated barracks there that no longer suit 
the demands of the units that they house.
    And, in particular, the barracks for the 1st Brigade of the 
101st Airborne Division--a very proud unit with a proud history 
at Fort Campbell. They are living in dilapidated, mold-filled--
they are continuously moving the soldiers out, getting the mold 
out, putting them back in, but the way that those structures 
are built and its age, it just comes back.
    I get pictures of those barracks texted to me every month, 
and it is upsetting. Our troops deserve better. And I will 
actually be at Fort Campbell tomorrow looking at it again. And 
it is in my view that that set of barracks for the 1st Brigade 
has got to be a priority.
    And, Mr. Surash, I would like to ask you, first, in 
general, to address restoration and modernization of the 
barracks and then, specifically, if you are aware of what is 
going on at Fort Campbell and the 1st Brigade and there is any 
plan to fix that.
    Mr. Surash. All right, sir. Thank you very much for that.
    So, as I mentioned in my statement, we are very focused on 
taking care of people and, among those things, our barracks. 
So, in fiscal year 2019 through 2021, overall in the Army, we 
invested $2.1 billion in barracks projects. A portion of that 
was military construction, and the larger portion was actually 
restoration and modernization.
    What is contained in the 2022 budget request, sir, is a 
total of $723 million. And that is broken out between, I think 
it is five barracks projects that are military construction in 
scope, that is $262 million, and then we have a number of 
restoration and modernization projects, over $460 million of 
projects.
    So, in the 4-year period 2019 through 2022, that is a total 
investment of $2.8 billion.
    Now, we know we need more. So the Chief of Staff of the 
Army is required to submit an unfunded list, and he chose to 
include 13 additional barracks, valued at over half a billion 
dollars, in his unfunded request along with the 2022 budget, 
sir.
    Dr. Green. Anything specific to the 1st Brigade of the 
10lst?
    Mr. Surash. Congressman, on that, I do not know the 
details. But I will look into that and get back to you, sir.
    Dr. Green. Yeah. Please.
    You know, one of the things--and, you know, we do our best 
to be bipartisan on this committee, but, you know, I am looking 
at the spending elsewhere in this administration, a 16 percent 
increase in non-DOD spending. My colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle and in the other side of the building are talking 
about now another $3.4 trillion on, you know, infrastructure 
stuff and climate stuff.
    It doesn't seem like there are any barriers to spending 
money. And yet, overall, we've got a $4 billion real-dollar 
decrease in the Defense Department and we have soldiers living 
in barracks that are, you know, mildewed.
    And I want some assurances that this is going to be a 
priority in this administration over the next several years. 
Somebody, please tell me that this is going to be addressed.
    I mean, $460 million in projects and I think you said a 
couple billion over a few years is a drop in the bucket for the 
need. And in light of all of the other money that is being 
spent by this administration, I would like to see these 
soldiers taken care of.
    Mr. Surash. Congressman, I can speak on behalf of the Army. 
We are very focused on this. We would plan to invest 
approximately $10 billion over the next 10 years.
    And we are also at the initial stages of looking at, are 
there any policy changes that we can make that would maybe 
reduce that requirement, that would involve possibly some 
soldiers being able to live off-installation? Our installations 
are very different. You know, that might work in some 
installations. I don't believe it----
    Dr. Green. Sure. And unit missions will probably drive 
that, too. I get that. I like that out-of-the-box thinking.
    I just--I need you guys clamoring to your boss, saying, 
``We got to take care of these guys.'' If we are going to spend 
16 percent increase elsewhere, let's at least take care of 
these warriors who are going to fight to defend us. And that is 
really on your shoulders, to go to your boss and make those 
demands.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Green.
    The recapture of the MILCON money that was sent to the 
border for border walls, that money is back in the Department 
of Defense now, at least a good portion of it. The question of 
how it is going to be used in the Department of Defense I don't 
believe has been answered in the current budget. We are going 
to look at that in detail, since a lot of that or most of that 
money was MILCON money. It may very well be that this----
    Dr. Green. That would be good.
    Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. Issue of housing on base could 
be a use of that money. We will see. We are looking at it in 
detail. Mr. Green, you are interested. We will follow through--
--
    Dr. Green. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. And see where it may be going. 
It seems to me, if MILCON is MILCON and housing is MILCON and 
barracks are MILCON, maybe. Okay? We will work on that.
    Dr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Garamendi. Ah, let's see. Kai Kahele, you are on.
    Mr. Kahele. Aloha, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much, and for 
our testifiers today.
    I am going to jump over to Hawaii's Second Congressional 
District and touch on UXOs [unexploded ordnance] and FUDS, 
formerly used defense sites. In particular, one, the Waikoloa 
Maneuver Area, covers approximately 220,000 acres on the 
northwest side of the island of Hawaii. This was an area used 
for extensive training and artillery practice during World War 
II.
    A portion of these lands fall under the Military Munitions 
Response Program. And, although munitions continue to be 
discovered and cleared today, while those numbers fluctuate, 
about 29,000 acres have still not been cleared to date--or have 
been cleared to date. Excuse me.
    The process from initial review to an actual cleanup award 
takes a very long time. There is additional frustration when a 
surface cleanup results in significant findings of UXO to 
warrant a subsurface cleanup, at least in areas where 
development or projects are planned. Extreme weather, including 
heavy rains and flooding, allows more UXOs to easily rise to 
the surface. After a surface sweep, however, surface and 
subsurface cleanups are currently conducted as a separate 
process. This makes little sense when UXO teams are already on 
site and can easily initiate a subsurface cleanup concurrently.
    So my question is for Mr. Surash and the Army.
    Can you shed some light on why surface and subsurface 
cleanups of UXOs are not allowed to be undertaken concurrently? 
And would it make sense to allow concurrent surface and 
subsurface cleanups as a time-critical removal action, 
especially if it is in the interest of public safety and if the 
lands are being used for redevelopment for a future project?
    Mr. Garamendi. Did we lose the Department of Defense here? 
They have gone blank on my screen.
    Mr. Kahele. Yep. I don't have them, Chair.
    Mr. Garamendi. Okay. I am going to get the gavel order. We 
are going to stop your clock at 3 minutes.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay.
    Mr. Garamendi. And we will see if we can get the Department 
of Defense back on.
    The gavel order going forward--hang on a second--will be 
Blake Moore, Strickland, and Luria. Wait a minute. I got this 
wrong. Moore, Luria, Speier.
    And that is corrected too. I am getting corrections one 
after the other. So hang on, folks. We will get it right.
    Okay. It is Blake Moore, Strickland, Luria, and Speier. 
Okay? Apparently, that is when all of you got on the screen.
    Normally this problem is a problem that is unique to me, 
and that is, I depend upon AT&T fixed wireless. If you have any 
other option, take it. And I will continue to badmouth AT&T 
fixed wireless until something is done about it, bringing us 
back to the infrastructure bill and rural broadband.
    Are you guys listening to my plea?
    Apparently not.
    Okay. We are going to stand by for a few moments. Grab your 
coffee or--Elaine doesn't have any questions? What is that 
about? Come on, Elaine.
    Okay. All right. We will see what is going on here.
    Dr. Green. I have to say, I can't believe Elaine isn't--no 
comments, Elaine? I actually sit with anticipation to hear you 
grill the Navy people. I love it.
    Mrs. Luria. I had an opportunity to speak to them at length 
this morning before the hearing, so I will cede that time to 
others. I got my questions answered.
    Dr. Green. Cheers.
    Mr. Garamendi. Oh, come on, share with us, Elaine. You 
don't get these private audiences without sharing the 
enthusiasm that Mr. Green has for your questions.
    I don't know if you are still recording all of this or not, 
but they can mute the recordings, and we will have a good 
discussion here.
    The Department of Defense has left the meeting. Yes, that 
is true. But my guess is they may be coming back on.
    Kai, I think you were talking about unexploded ordnances?
    Mr. Kahele. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. My personal experience with this goes back 
to the 1990s, when we were trying to clean up another place in 
Hawaii----
    Mr. Kahele. Yep.
    Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. And also at--let's see--and the 
Monterey Bay and a few other places. I was at the Department of 
Interior. And most of that land reverted back to the 
Department, and the military left the Department with a big 
burden. Fortunately, there was a good law that came along and 
said, no, no, you guys get to continue to be responsible.
    So we will see what happens here, Kai.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. No worries.
    Mr. Garamendi. We shall see.
    Dr. Green. We should take this moment--Chairman, we should 
take this moment to let you know that the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, Marine Congressmen have all got a bet, and we all have 
to wear the winner of the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy's tie or 
scarf or brooch at the State of the Union this year.
    Mr. Garamendi. When do we find out what the attire is?
    Ms. Miller. Congressman, are you able to hear us through 
the microphone?
    Mr. Garamendi. Yeah, we got you back. We are just kind of 
talking about things that are important, like the Commander's 
Trophy.
    Kai, you are on. Do you want to finish up on your munitions 
issue?
    Mr. Kahele. Yeah, you bet. So my question--I don't know 
where I cut off----
    Ms. Miller. Wait. We have no audio. I don't know if you can 
hear us. We have no audio here, but we can see your video. So 
they are still trying to connect us.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, then, please stand by. We do have your 
video. We've got your video. You don't have our audio. We've 
got video and audio from the Department.
    Okay.
    Ms. Miller. Ah, there we go. We can hear you, sir.
    Mr. Cramer. Can you hear us?
    Mr. Garamendi. Very good then.
    We were talking--Kai Kahele had the floor, and he was 
talking about unexploded ordnances on the island of Hawaii.
    Kai, would you like to go forward? You've got 3 full 
minutes.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. Great. Yeah, I don't know where I left 
off, but my question was for the Army and Mr. Surash. And I was 
asking a question about shedding light on why surface and 
subsurface cleanup of UXOs are not allowed to be undertaken 
concurrently, and would it make more sense to allow those 
surface and subsurface cleanups to be concurrently as time-
critical removal actions, especially in the interest of public 
safety and if the lands are being utilized for redevelopment.
    Mr. Surash. Congressman, can you hear me okay?
    Mr. Kahele. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Surash. Yes, sir. I totally agree with your statement. 
And I was able to check on this, and, sir, it is my 
understanding that, starting about 2 years ago, we actually 
moved to a process that allows concurrent surface and 
subsurface cleanup, you know, at the Waikoloa, you know, site 
that you mentioned.
    So I just want to assure you that we are prioritizing the 
work with respect to the priorities of the landowners and the 
planned redevelopment plans to our very best, sir.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. Great.
    Let me jump over to the Air Force.
    Ms. Miller, for Bellows Air Force Base over in Waimanalo, 
there's been--the Waimanalo Bay Recreation Area is there. A big 
issue in the community is UXO fencing that have gone up. You 
know, fencing is cheaper than the cleanup, but this, you know, 
cuts off the community from traditional fishing grounds and 
things of that nature.
    And so I don't know how much you know about this. I don't 
expect you to know too much about it. But I would love to get 
your commitment to work together with myself and the community 
members on finding a path for UXO cleanup at Bellows Air Force 
Station and, you know, maybe get some updates from you on the 
issue.
    Ms. Miller. Yes, Congressman. I was actually out there on 
Fourth of July and saw the beautiful area. I spent my family 
vacation out there on Bellows and know exactly the area you are 
talking about.
    So I asked my team to look into this a little bit. I know 
we just, I think 2 months ago, had the Restoration Advisory 
Board that--we have looked at four COAs [courses of action]. 
And the initial COA that we proposed was to fence it off 
because of the cost associated with that. I understand the 
community's concerns, and I know we have received public input 
and are now taking comments, working with the State.
    So we will continue to do that. That is only a couple 
months old, understanding that the Air Force's chosen COA 
doesn't really support the needs of the community. So tracking 
that, and we will continue to work that. And I will follow up 
with your office as soon as we have an update on whether or not 
we can pursue another COA.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. Great. I have 22 seconds left, so let me 
jump to the Navy.
    Mr. Schafer, UXO is starting to be discovered off the 
waters of Lanai. I know there was unexploded ordnance off of 
Molokini. Do you have any status updates on this UXOs risk 
assessment on the island of Lanai and also working together 
with myself and the local community on it?
    Mr. Schafer. Sir, I do not. I will have to take that for 
the record and get back to you.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. All right. And thank you so much.
    And thank you, Chair. Sorry about the technical 
difficulties.
    Mr. Garamendi. Yeah, we are not blaming you on it. It is 
not your problem, Kai.
    Mr. Kahele. All right.
    Mr. Cramer. It was ours.
    Mr. Garamendi. There you go.
    The order going forward: Moore, Strickland, Speier. Luria 
has left.
    So Blake Moore.
    Mr. Moore. It's not my fault either. But if it's going to 
somebody's, it's gonna be Kai's. So, we'll go with that.
    Mr. Garamendi. It's always the chairman's fault.
    Mr. Moore. Yeah. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Chairman. 
Thank you for being here.
    I was pleased to see the robust increase in the fiscal year 
2022 MILCON budget. However, significant backlog of MILCON 
requirements means that many projects may never receive funding 
due to competing needs. It is a reality that I think all of us 
on this hearing can recognize and we will all face it.
    I have seen firsthand the impact of deferred funding in 
facility and infrastructure investments at Hill Air Force Base 
in my district of Utah 1. Hill currently has a grouping of 66 
buildings, known as the 1200-series buildings, that aren't fit 
to house the 4,000 DOD personnel found working in them. They 
were constructed over 80 years ago, initially built as 
ammunition warehouse space during World War II. Over the years, 
these buildings have been modified to house administrative 
functions and are in complete disrepair.
    These buildings not only lead to poor working conditions 
but have contributed to recruiting challenges for programs at 
Hill, like GBSD [Ground Based Strategic Deterrent] and other 
really high-profile, awesome projects that Hill gets to work 
on, but this has been a thorn in their side. This is something 
that was brought up to me during the campaign, even. I was 
aware of this well before I even was in this role.
    This 1200 series is a significant issue. The DOD urgently 
needs to find a way to replace these facilities. A recent 
economic analysis indicated a potential savings of $400 million 
over 20 years if these facilities were demolished and replaced. 
The replacement of these facilities through MILCON would cost 
nearly $750 but realistically cannot compete with limited 
MILCON funding.
    That is where I bring in the reality and where I am 
sincerely hoping--and I will continue to push on this 
particular topic of, there are solutions, and they are based in 
our local economies and our local stakeholders wanting to 
engage.
    I am proposing a provision in this year's NDAA that would 
expand the definition of ``installation support services'' in 
title 10, section 2679, that allows local government to 
construct, manage, and operate a facility on or near a military 
installation for a period of up to 10 years.
    Unfortunately, we have run into a scoring implication that 
has stymied this simple solution. This scoring issue is in the 
Congressional Budget Office. It considers such lease 
agreements--I won't get into the details of it, but it is a 
scoring implication, when there is broader embrace from the 
local governments to help out in this regard.
    So my question for Ms. Miller is, can you commit to 
examining innovative financing options and working with OMB 
[U.S. Office of Management and Budget] to facilitate local 
communities' desire to assist bases with their infrastructure 
and military construction needs?
    Ms. Miller. Congressman, yes, I would love to help tackle 
some of the scoring issues and have argued, where it makes 
financial sense, understanding that we will continue to be 
scored to the extent that we have a long-term responsibility 
for the project funding.
    I know we have implemented some creative solutions at Hill, 
and, in fact, the building--I worked on the Hill EUL [enhanced 
use lease] that has been really successful out there, a huge 
EUL. We continue to take--I think we are on site development 
lease nine now, and working with MIDA [Military Installation 
Development Authority], which you guys have been probably the 
leader, of any of the States, in that organization and the 
support that you have been able to provide.
    I think some other creative financing, besides the enhanced 
use lease and continuing to use the revenue for that for 
demolition, are things like intergovernmental support 
agreements [IGSA], potentially extending the duration of those 
beyond the existing 10-year statutory authority to allow us to 
enter into sole-source, non-FAR [Federal Acquisition 
Regulation] service contracts with the local State and 
community.
    But our MILCON budget is tight. You know, we spend a third 
on COCOM [combatant command] requirements, a third on new-
mission MILCON, and then we have less than 20 percent left for 
the entirety of all of our existing infrastructure. Hill is 
getting one project, though, as part of the B-21 in our fiscal 
year 2022, so that is good news. But, yes, we will commit to 
continuing to work to tackle some of the scoring issues.
    Mr. Moore. And if my opening wasn't convincing enough, 
like, I am willing to dig into the details--our team, full 
disposal of our military legislative aide. We are all in on 
this. The community is amazing in Utah, and we want to embrace 
as much as possible. So I will just reiterate that here. And 
then, as we continue to work together, we would love to find 
solutions. There is a lot of options there.
    And, again, I recognize the reality, so I am never--I am 
not one to come out and ask--you know, just recognizing those 
realities and trying to find solutions.
    The other question that I have--you already started talking 
about it--was just, what other types of, you know, options 
might there be, doing things at a cheaper cost and accelerated 
timeline?
    I will pause there if you don't have anything else in 
response to that. I think my clock actually started a little 
bit late, and so I will gladly yield back some of my time. But 
if there are any other suggestions or financing options, I am 
open to hear it right now.
    Ms. Miller. Sir, from the Air Force perspective, no, I 
think it is leveraging--so the MIDA unique opportunity with the 
tax increment financing that they were able to do and may be 
able to do up at Park City, Deer Valley, that is State-specific 
legislation, which we very much appreciated.
    From a Federal standpoint, other than extending the IGSA 
authority, the scoring would be great to get after, but I don't 
know that that can be addressed by statute, maybe by 
persuasion. So, happy to partner with you on that. But I have 
no other creative solutions, sir.
    Mr. Cramer. You've got scoring on both ends, CBO and OMB 
Circular A-11. So a lot of folks have worked that, and we will 
continue to also work it from the Department.
    Mr. Moore. Yes. And I appreciate your mention of EUL. It is 
a value proposition. It is a solid option that others could 
adopt as well.
    So, if anybody ever wants to learn--she already mentioned 
Deer Valley. So anybody on the committee is welcome to come to 
Deer Valley. I will gladly accept a CODEL to my district and 
would be a gracious host.
    So thank you for those comments.
    Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
    You raised the scoring issue. This is a problem in most 
everything we do. And, frankly, the scoring, as you have 
described your particular problem, is found in everything in 
the government. And we really need to address it. It seems to 
me very foolish and very unwise, prohibiting us to take 
advantage of many of the private partnerships that are out 
there, some of which you mentioned.
    And so I will look forward to working with you on that, and 
I suspect there are others on this who find the same. And, I 
don't know, maybe one or two of the folks at the table have an 
answer on how we can get past that scoring problem.
    Okay. Let's see. We now have Ms. Strickland, followed by 
Ms. Speier.
    Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our 
witnesses today.
    I will have three lines of questioning: first around 
housing, the second one about the unique role of Joint Base 
Lewis-McChord that I represent, and then earthquake resiliency.
    So I have the privilege of representing Joint Base Lewis-
McChord, or JBLM, as we call it, and its 40,000 service members 
call it home. JBLM is the Army's only power [inaudible] 
Department continues to focus on the Indo-Pacific. Our Air 
Force personnel perform strategic vital airlift missions and 
are the only wing tasked with prime nuclear airlift mission.
    One of the issues I hear about consistently, both on post 
and off post, is housing. We have a housing supply crisis here 
in the greater metropolitan region. And the South Sound that I 
represent is about 30 miles south of Seattle. Between 2010 and 
2019, for example, over 180,000 households moved into my 
district, compared to 54,000 the decade prior. So housing 
affordability is a major issue, both on and off post.
    And currently, on post, there are 776 households on a 
waiting list at JBLM, while 70 percent of those who serve live 
off post. And so it is my understanding that even if all the 
houses on JBLM were fully renovated, there would still be a 
significant waiting list. So housing access is a huge readiness 
issue. It affects families, and we know it has to be addressed.
    So, Mr. Surash, what can the Department do to address the 
housing shortage on JBLM, given the high demand for it? And 
what do you think we in Congress can do to help alleviate some 
of those issues?
    Mr. Surash. Congresswoman, thank you very much for that 
question.
    So I am aware of plans by the privatized, you know, housing 
provider there, which I believe is Lincoln at the moment.
    Ms. Strickland. Yep.
    Mr. Surash. So there is a plan to renovate about--over the 
next 5 years, between now and 2025, to renovate just under 600 
homes, you know, major renovations, and another 500 with minor 
renovations.
    I will get back to you to see if there are any other plans 
involving adding new homes, you know, from this point on. There 
have been homes, I believe, added, you know, since the deal was 
put in place. But I will get back to you on any plans to add 
additional housing going forward.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 115.]
    Ms. Strickland. Great. Thank you for that. And please 
include metrics about how you measure what is an acceptable 
time for a family to find housing.
    I will move on to the next question, and this is for Ms. 
Miller.
    Our testing and research and development facilities do 
significant work, but, unfortunately, they are underresourced 
and underfunded. Can you tell me how the Air Force can maintain 
our innovative edge when we chronically underfund testing, 
research, and development facilities, including the Precision 
Measurement Equipment Labs?
    Ms. Miller. Yes, ma'am. So I visited JBLM and met with the 
wing commander and toured, I think, the exact facility that you 
are talking about.
    So, as a joint base, we work prioritization of the military 
construction on that base through the Army and identify the 
prioritization of that through the Army. But I am not trying to 
throw the ball at the Army here, because we are all facing the 
same challenges with the prioritization being on modernization, 
new-mission MILCON, and the combatant command support.
    So I can't speak to where within the Army prioritization 
that particular facility is, but we are tracking in the Air 
Force the importance of it. Even where we have a joint base, I 
think we are effectively implementing our joint base agreements 
and effectively communicating with the local commander.
    When we had the big--I don't even--culvert, the gigantic 
culvert, up on the airfield there, we really appreciated the 
Army's support in getting after and prioritizing the 
improvement of that facility. I think that is a good example of 
the joint base working like it should with the Army 
prioritizing a key Air Force issue.
    Ms. Strickland. And I have a very brief question that you 
can answer offline with my staff. But, in March, General Gabram 
said that 60 percent of the buildings at JBLM are not up to 
code for earthquake, which is a big concern.
    So I will take that answer offline with my staff, but thank 
you very much for being here today.
    And I will yield my time.
    Mr. Garamendi. Ms. Strickland, earlier in this hearing, we 
spoke extensively about risks at every base. And every base has 
a different set of risks, and you certainly have your share of 
them there. If I recall, back in the day, there was talk about, 
what if your little mountain to the east were to have a serious 
mudslide? What would that mean to your community and to the 
base? The answer is not good.
    So there are many, many different risks. Please continue to 
pursue these issues.
    Now we go to Ms. Speier. And then we will start a second 
round. So, if you wanted to have a second round, please let the 
staff know.
    Jackie, your turn.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you. Can you--for some reason, my video 
has gone. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Garamendi. Yes, we can.
    Ms. Speier. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
all for being here.
    I must say that there is great frustration by members on 
both the Republican and Democratic side in this hearing about 
the inability, for whatever reasons, for the military to beef 
up barracks, housing, and childcare.
    Mr. Surash, let me start with you. The Army announced with 
a great deal of fanfare its $10 billion, 10-year plan to bring 
all the barracks up to a good condition. But in the budget for 
this year, you are only requesting $260 million. So, you know, 
there is a lot of talk, but the walk isn't there.
    So, at $260 million a year, you are never going to meet 
that 10-year, $10 billion. And, meanwhile, many of these 
barracks are really unacceptable. When we were at Fort Hood, a 
number of my colleagues on the CODEL who have served in the 
military said they had never been in barracks that were as bad 
as some of those.
    So why didn't you request more funds for barracks?
    Mr. Surash. Congresswoman, thank you for that question.
    So, between 2019 and 2021, ma'am, we invested $2.1 billion 
in barracks for both military construction as well as 
restoration and modernization. You are totally accurate on the 
military construction request in 2022 for $262 [million], but 
there is another $461 [million] in restoration and 
modernization projects for barracks. So that will give us a 
total of about $720 million in 2022. And then, if we were to 
add up 2019 through 2022, that is $2.8 billion.
    We know we need more, and the Chief of Staff of the Army 
chose to include 13 barracks projects on his unfunded 
requirements list. That totals a little bit over a half a 
billion dollars. And I believe there were 2--2 of those 13 
projects on the unfunded list were specifically at Hood, ma'am.
    Ms. Speier. So are you still committed to $10 billion over 
10 years?
    Mr. Surash. We do have that plan, and we will do our best 
to properly resource it. We are also taking a look at other 
things we can do to possibly reduce the overall requirement. 
But we are----
    Ms. Speier. All right.
    Mr. Surash [continuing]. On that plan.
    Ms. Speier. I think what you are hearing from all of us, 
though, is: We want action. The talk is just talk.
    Let me move to Ms. Miller and the Air Force.
    You have identified more than 70 childcare development 
centers in poor or failing condition, yet the Air Force only 
requested funds for one child development center in fiscal year 
2022.
    Why is this not more of a priority? We have 9,000 families 
that have their children on waiting lists throughout the 
military. And if you can identify poor and failing facilities 
but then only fund one, we've got a problem. So why is there 
not a higher priority for this?
    Ms. Miller. Yes, ma'am. So we do have in the Air Force 222 
child development centers [CDCs] and school-age centers. Of 
those, only one on the Building Condition Index was poor or 
red, and that one has a $3.6 million renovation pending. For 
the other ones, we have amber, which is still acceptable, it 
could use improvement, for 144, and then 74 that are green.
    So, of those, I acknowledge that we have not historically 
funded CDCs at the level that we ought to. So we stood up a 
working group in 2020 and had the master plan, much like the 
Army, and then provided a memo where we were looking what is 
the prioritized list and what are those projects.
    You are correct that we only have one MILCON project for a 
CDC on our primary fiscal year 2022 budget, but that we have 
five total that are ready for fiscal year 2022 execution, with 
four of those on our unfunded priority list.
    So, as mentioned, we have very few--you know, less than 20 
percent of our MILCON funds go to existing projects, but, of 
those, we are prioritizing the very next items that weren't 
funded as hopefully getting funded with those CDCs.
    And then we are also addressing this with----
    Ms. Speier. Ms. Miller, excuse me a moment. What is your 
waiting list in the Air Force right now?
    Ms. Miller. We have 5,100 families--5,116 kids that had 
unmet childcare needs.
    Ms. Speier. All right. And what is the wait time?
    Ms. Miller. The average wait time was a 151-day wait.
    Ms. Speier. Okay. We have heard horror stories of over a 
year. But with 5,100 unmet, you can see that we have got to 
make this a higher priority.
    Answer for me, what is meant by a poor- or failing-
condition childcare center?
    Ms. Miller. So we do a Building Condition Index, ma'am, 
that assesses the physical infrastructure requirements. So 
anytime there is a life, health, or safety issue, those are 
identified immediately; none of those go unresolved. This is 
where we anticipate that, without investment--and so a red is a 
facility that requires significant investment over the next 
couple of years or it is going to result in a failed facility. 
So these aren't failed facilities. These are poor, requiring 
investment.
    So that one facility, as mentioned, has the major 
renovation planning, with the funding lined up for that. The 
other ones that are yellow, though, those do deserve our 
attention. Right now, we have 144 of those, so that is where--
--
    Ms. Speier. All right.
    Ms. Miller [continuing]. We are working with the 
prioritization to put----
    Ms. Speier. Excuse me, Ms. Miller. I would like for you to 
provide the committee and me personally with a list of all of 
those that are red or yellow----
    Ms. Miller. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Speier [continuing]. And at what bases they are located 
and, also, the definition for ``poor'' or ``failing'' and what 
comes under that, if you would. All right?
    Ms. Miller. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't know how much time I have left, since 
I can't see the screen. I have one more question on PFAS, if 
that is possible.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, Ms. Speier, as chairman of the 
Personnel Committee, why don't you go ahead and take some of 
your own time here. You are actually 32 seconds over, but we 
are going to cut you a wide swath.
    Ms. Speier. All right. Thank you. I will just ask one 
question.
    My understanding is that NATO [North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization] and some of our civilian European airports are 
phasing out fluorinated firefighting foam. Why hasn't the 
Department taken steps to replace AFFF [aqueous film forming 
foam] with non-fluorinated formulations?
    I guess this would be for the Department.
    Mr. Cramer. So, Congresswoman, this is Paul Cramer, in case 
you can't see me.
    So we are making--we have made some significant strides in 
finding a replacement for the fluorinated AFFF, and so we are 
cautiously optimistic we will meet the timeline. In fact, we 
have done some very robust testing on alternatives that will be 
a drop-in replacement using the existing apparatus, and that 
helps us meet the 2024 timeline.
    With respect to the question about NATO and Europe, the 
formation they use to replace AFFF in their apparatus caused 
them to replace the whole apparatus. The viscosity of the agent 
was much different than they had to do before. So it added 
significant cost, where we have taken the approach where we are 
going to control the use of AFFF, capture that so it no longer 
gets into the groundwater, and then find an alternative that 
will [inaudible] drop into the existing apparatus and then save 
taxpayers a lot of dollars.
    And so we have at least four or five formations that are 
fluorine-free that will drop into existing apparatus, and those 
have now moved from the testing to put out the fire. They have 
all not met our current MILDEP [Military Department] standards, 
but they have achieved an acceptable standard to put out a 
fuel-based fire that our Fire Advisory Board is somewhat 
comfortable with that.
    So we have now moved into the stage where we are testing 
those new formations for ECOTOX [environmental toxicity]. In 
essence, you know, we want to make sure that our replacement 
chemical isn't any more toxic than the current one we use. In 
fact, what we don't want to do is create another environmental 
hazard, you know, decades down the road, so we want to have one 
that is actually better than the formation we are using today. 
And that is the stage we are at now, is to go through that 
testing.
    So we are cautiously optimistic that we will have a 
formation, fluorine-free, drop-in replacement into the existing 
apparatus, by the timeline that we have been asked to meet.
    Over.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi. Jackie, thank you for the question. A very 
good one, and a good answer for all of us.
    I believe it is now my turn for a second round. I am going 
to go very quickly here.
    In the testimony that all of you have provided, you have 
talked about the resiliency and various steps that you are 
taking to understand the threats that exist in your area. In 
response to Mr. Wilson and his request for maps of the sea-
level rise and flooding in South Carolina, similar information 
is available on various bases.
    What I would like to offer to the committee and ask of the 
witnesses here is a briefing sometime during the month of 
September in which those maps and information would be 
available to the committee members, the subcommittee as well as 
the full committee, so that we might all become aware of the 
threat that you need to meet in your resiliency requirements.
    So if you would take a look at that at the Department, 
think about how you might best inform us of these threats that 
exist out there. Ms. Strickland is interested in earthquakes, 
and I think the rest of us have our own backyard to care for.
    We will do that. I offer that to the committee. We will 
make that available, with perhaps a week or two heads-up so 
that you can be there. And we will do that informally as a 
briefing.
    And nice of my staff to know about this ahead of time so 
that they now have 2\1/2\ months to get it done and for the 
Department to prepare the maps and prepare the briefings for 
us.
    So we want to go over resiliency, and thank you----
    Mr. Cramer. Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, along that 
line, so DCAT is a web-based system, so we can actually go 
through the DCAT model for each one of the installations, and 
the members--as opposed to printing maps, we could actually do, 
you know, an interactive discussion with them using the DCAT 
model. And we will take that on and schedule it accordingly.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, bring your big screen.
    Mr. Cramer. Yes.
    Mr. Garamendi. I would like to do this for all of us, so 
that all of us become aware of the extent of the problem. And 
then I am quite certain that Mr. [Moore] and others, Kahele and 
others, want to drill down and talk about meter by meter or 
inch by inch, as they should.
    So let's put that together. Let's look at September to put 
that together.
    Mr. Cramer. Will do.
    Mr. Garamendi. Okay. I am going to let my questions go at 
that point. We will go back through this.
    Mr. Wilson, you would be next.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, indeed, I look 
forward to the hearings in September or whenever, because I 
just have such an interest in working for the benefit of all. 
So, hey, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this, and just 
keep us informed.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
    I think the next would be Mr. Kahele--Mr. Green--excuse me. 
Mr. Kahele and then Mr. Green.
    Unmute, Kai.
    Mr. Kahele. Oh, sorry, sir. I am here. Okay.
    My next question is directed to OSD, and it has to do--you 
mentioned climate change and sea-level rise. And my question is 
specific to the Runit Dome, the lagoon in the center of the 
atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands [RMI].
    As you all know, this is an area where we did extensive 
nuclear testing back in the 1950s and 1960s. There is U.S. 
nuclear bomb waste that is there. The threat of sea-level rise 
due to climate change poses a very real threat to the entire 
country and the surrounding region.
    The potential of leakage of nuclear bomb waste due to 
seepage through the sand base under the dome has generated 
concern from the highest levels. President Biden recognized 
this extraordinary threat of climate change to the RMI in a 
March 25th letter to President Kabua, in which he stated that 
the RMI is especially vulnerable to climate impacts among the 
world's nations.
    So I will jump to my question. Is the Pentagon and 
Secretary Austin similarly committed to addressing the threat 
of climate change at former U.S. nuclear testing sites?
    And can you also comment on the DOD's commitment to 
supporting our Freely Associated States, those allies in the 
Pacific, including the Republic of the Marshall Islands?
    Mr. Cramer. So, Congressman, I am not familiar with the 
specific topic, but I will gladly take it back.
    But to answer your question, is the Secretary of Defense 
committed to climate change, the answer is yes. And he is also 
committed to the President of the United States. So we will 
honor those commitments within the existing laws and agreements 
within the Marshall Islands.
    I have been there myself, and it is a pristine area. So I 
will have my staff look into this and get on your schedule and 
come and meet with you and give you a proper response.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. Great.
    Well, then I will use the balance of my time just to 
educate on the subject.
    So the United States detonated 67 bombs, nuclear bombs, 
over 12 years, with a force equal in radiation to 1.6 of the 
Hiroshima bombs that were detonated in Hiroshima. The dome, the 
Runit Dome, which was built in the 1970s, contains more than 
3.1 million cubic feet of radioactively contaminated soil and 
debris that were dumped into a nuclear bomb test crater on the 
north end of Runit Island, and this is covered by a concrete 
dome.
    And part of the threat is that, with rising sea levels, 
there could potentially be leakage from under the dome, which 
threatens the population area and the Pacific, of course, 
affecting fish stocks and coral reefs.
    It is my understanding in previous NDAAs required the 
Department of Energy to conduct a study, but that report, 
delivered by the Trump administration in June 2020, did not 
adequately respond to Congress' concerns. The report concluded 
that the contents within the dome are not expected to have an 
adverse impact on the environment in the coming years.
    And so, if you would, sir, take a look at this particular 
issue out in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. It is very 
important.
    The compact agreement that we have with the Republic of the 
Marshall Islands expires in 2023. Those negotiations are 
happening now. But, you know, Kwajalein, you know, the 
importance of the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Deterrence 
Initiative, you know, those agreements that we have and the 
compact agreements we have with the Marshallese community is 
going to be really important. You know, China is in the area. 
We know that. And we want to make sure that we maintain our 
competitive edge, especially as it relates to our missile 
defense testing and those types of systems we have out at Kwaj.
    And this Runit Dome is something that, when you get a 
chance, please take a look at it. I would love to work together 
with you on it, and appreciate your attention to it.
    Mr. Cramer. Will do.
    Mr. Kahele. Thank you, sir.
    And I will yield back 18 seconds of my time.
    Mr. Garamendi. We will put that in your list of 
opportunities for the future, Kai. Thank you for bringing the 
Pacific, all the Pacific, to our attention.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay.
    Mr. Garamendi. We now turn to Mr. Green and the 101st 
Division.
    Mr. Green, are you still with us? Mr. Green.
    We will now turn to Mr. Blake--Blake Moore. You are up.
    Mr. Moore. No, thank you. I am doing another markup at the 
moment anyway, so thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi. I am not quite sure I understood that.
    Blake Moore, if you want to come on, I think Mr. Green is 
busy with another piece of work.
    Blake, do you want to come on?
    Mr. Moore. Sorry. Could you repeat that, Chairman?
    Mr. Garamendi. It is your turn, Blake Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Yeah, I will forgo any more questioning. Thank 
you. I am in the middle of another markup meeting at the time.
    Thank you all for being here.
    Mr. Garamendi. Okay. Very good. Thank you for your 
participation.
    I believe we have run through all the members. Is that the 
case?
    I think we have gone through all of this. I want to end 
this with a big thank you to the four witnesses, not only for 
what you have done today in informing us but really for your 
careers. All of you are career civil servants. Through the 
years, you have gathered incredible knowledge, not only about 
your current job but about a variety of tasks that you have 
undertaken.
    And you have served this Nation very well, and I know you 
will continue to do that. As the political appointees are 
eventually put in place, you will provide them with the 
knowledge and information and the history that you carry with 
you.
    And so, for all of you, thank you. I look forward to 
working with you in the days ahead. We have some significant 
challenges, many of which we have talked about today but many 
more that are on the agenda but not yet discussed.
    So, with that, I will call this hearing to adjourn, and 
thank you all.
    [Whereupon, at 5:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
     
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                             July 14, 2021

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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             July 14, 2021

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                             July 14, 2021

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

             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN

    Ms. Miller. The USSF is currently utilizing the Defense Readiness 
Reporting System (DRRS) to report readiness, with adjustments in work 
to make it a better readiness tool for space forces
      The USAF Air Expeditionary Task Force (AETF) model within 
DRRS does not sufficiently portray readiness of Employed-in-Place (EiP) 
USSF forces
      USSF is in the process of defining and implementing a new 
USSF force presentation model that will enable more robust DRRS 
utilization and readiness reporting
      The standup of the USSF required changes to the Unit 
Identification Codes (UIC) for the new Service that current DRRS tools 
do not accept (requires manual workaround)
      USSF is investing in Space Force specific DRRS input 
tools to account for the new UIC nomenclature and to enable timely and 
accurate readiness reporting
[See page 13.]
                                 ______
                                 
            RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. STRICKLAND
    Mr. Surash. In February, almost 700 of the privatized homes at JBLM 
were unavailable for occupancy due to a significant between-occupancy 
maintenance backlog that resulted from labor shortages in the Fort 
Lewis area. The Army approved the Military Housing Privatization 
Initiative (MHPI) housing project at JBLM to use $7M in project 
Reinvestment Account funds to bring on additional, dedicated contractor 
firms to accelerate between occupancy maintenance of vacant quarters 
during the current Permanent Change of Station (PCS) season. The Amy 
Material Command (AMC) and Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM) 
are closely monitoring the MHPI housing project's progress towards the 
goal of reducing the vacant quarters backlog to less than 100 by 
September 2021. In addition, the MHPI hotel at JBLM that is part of 
Army's Privatization of Army Lodging (PAL) program is offering soldiers 
the option to remain in the hotel at a room rate equal to their Basic 
Allowance for Housing (BAH) rate, pending permanent assignment to on or 
off-post housing.   [See page 27.]
      
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             July 14, 2021

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

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON

    Mr. Wilson. Microreactors not greater than 50 MW in size offer the 
opportunity for significant national security benefits to DOD. 
Microreactors could power critical facilities in island mode separate 
from the commercial electric grid, and could operate for several years 
without need to shut down for refueling, with the ability to protect 
against cyber threats and natural phenomena. Some advanced reactor 
designs have demonstrated unlimited coping time in the event of a 
blackout or other emergency, and can provide black start capabilities. 
Please explain how DOD views mobile vs. stationary NRC licensed 
reactors for potential application at DOD facilities.
    Mr. Cramer. The Department seeks to use innovative technology to 
improve energy resilience against all hazards, to include the effects 
of climate change. Stationary Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-
licensed microreactors are an option for permanent DOD installations 
within the United States and its territories, especially those in 
remote locations, to enhance energy security and energy resilience. In 
coordination with DOE, DOD is pursuing the demonstration of a 
stationary NRC-licensed reactor at a permanent installation in the 
continental United States as a pilot program to validate microreactor 
technology and determine the viability of microreactors for future 
energy resilience efforts. If the demonstration is successful, DOD 
could pursue additional projects similar to the pilot initiative at 
suitable locations in the future, incorporating lessons learned from 
the pilot.
    To provide increased operational capabilities and energy resiliency 
in strategic and operational support areas, the Strategic Capabilities 
Office, within the Office of Secretary of Defense, is pursuing the 
design and development of a working prototype under their program, 
Project Pele. Currently there are two vendors in a design competition, 
for which final designs will be due in March 2022, with a potential 
prototype construction and initial operation by Spring, 2024.
    Mr. Wilson. Executive Order 13972, ``Promoting Small Modular 
Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration,'' signed January 
5, 2021, requires that DOD ``implement a plan to demonstrate the energy 
flexibility capability and cost effectiveness of a Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission licensed microreactor at a domestic military installation.'' 
Please provide a status update on this report. If the report is 
complete, please provide a copy of the report.
    Mr. Cramer. DOD has prepared a draft Demonstration Plan to meet the 
requirements of Executive Order 13972 and is currently coordinating 
this plan among various Department stakeholders.
    Mr. Wilson. Executive Order 13972, ``Promoting Small Modular 
Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration,'' signed January 
5, 2021, requires that DOD ``implement a plan to demonstrate the energy 
flexibility capability and cost effectiveness of a Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission licensed microreactor at a domestic military installation.'' 
Please provide a status update on this report. If the report is 
complete, please provide a copy of the report.
    Mr. Schafer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Wilson. Executive Order 13972, ``Promoting Small Modular 
Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration,'' signed January 
5, 2021, requires that DOD ``implement a plan to demonstrate the energy 
flexibility capability and cost effectiveness of a Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission licensed microreactor at a domestic military installation.'' 
Please provide a status update on this report. If the report is 
complete, please provide a copy of the report.
    Ms. Miller. The report in question is under development by the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). While the Department of the 
Air Force did provide inputs, OSD will need to provide the up-to-date 
status of the report.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
    Mr. Scott. Does the National Guard have access to the same 
authorities and funding source for environmental clean up as the rest 
of DOD installations? What are the risks to the cleanup program when 
they don't have access to the same authorities and funding source?
    Mr. Cramer. State-owned or -operated National Guard facilities have 
the same DOD authorities and funding source for environmental cleanup 
to address PFOS and PFOA, as well as what DOD considers the first two 
investigation phases (e.g., preliminary assessment (PA) and site 
investigation (SI)) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, aka Superfund).
    The Defense Environment Restoration Program (DERP) law provides DOD 
the authority to perform and fund its environmental restoration 
responsibilities arising under CERCLA. CERCLA responsibility (i.e., 
liability) extends to, among others, the owner and operator of the 
facility. DOD reemphasized in FY18 that the use of DOD environmental 
restoration funds does not extend to releases that occurred at State-
owned, State-controlled, and State-operated National Guard facilities. 
However, Congress amended DERP in FY20 and FY21 to allow the use of 
DERP funds for PFOS and PFOA cleanups at National Guard facilities.
    Where National Guard facilities are ineligible for these DERP 
funds, they are eligible for other federal funds (i.e., Army and Air 
Force National Guard Operation and Maintenance appropriations) for 
environmental cleanup actions to address contaminants at state-owned or 
operated National Guard facilities. The National Guard works with the 
Army or Air Force, as applicable, to receive federal funds for cleanup 
actions, and have been doing this for over 30 years. Because the 
National Guard must conduct its cleanups in accordance with CERCLA, and 
federal funds are used for these cleanups (regardless of whether they 
are DERP or federal O&M funds), there are no identified risks.
    Mr. Scott. Why were National Guard restoration sites pulled out of 
the Defense Environmental Restoration Program under an OSD policy in 
FY18 when they were successfully cleaning up sites under the Defense 
Environmental Restoration Program for over 30 years?
    Mr. Cramer. State owned or operated National Guard facilities have 
the same DOD authorities and funding source for environmental cleanup 
to address PFOS and PFOA, as well as what DOD considers the f irst two 
investigation phases (e.g., preliminary assessment (PA) and site 
investigation (SI)) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, aka Superfund). The Defense 
Environment Restoration Program (DERP) law provides DOD the authority 
to perform and fund its environmental restoration responsibilities 
arising under CERCLA. CERCLA responsibility (i.e., liability) extends 
to, among others, the owner and operator of the facility.
    DOD reemphasized in FY18 that the use of DOD environmental 
restoration funds does not extend to releases that occurred at State-
owned, State-controlled, and State-operated National Guard facilities. 
However, Congress amended DERP in FY20 and FY21 to allow the use of 
DERP funds for PFOS and PFOA cleanups at National Guard facilities. 
Additionally, federal funds (i.e., Army and Air Force National Guard 
Operation and Maintenance appropriations) have been used for over 30 
years for environmental cleanup actions to address contaminants at 
state-owned or operated National Guard facilities.
    Mr. Scott. When National Guard installations are not eligible for 
the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, what do they have to do 
to be eligible and how long does it take?
    Mr. Cramer. State-owned or -operated National Guard facilities are 
eligible for Defense Environment Restoration Program (DERP) funds to 
address PFOS and PFOA, what DOD considers the first two investigation 
phases (e.g., preliminary assessment (PA) and site investigation (SI)) 
phases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 
Liability Act (CERCLA, aka Superfund). Where National Guard facilities 
are ineligible for these DERP funds, they are eligible for other 
federal funds (i.e., Army and Air Force National Guard Operation and 
Maintenance appropriations) for environmental cleanup actions to 
address contaminants at State-owned or -operated National Guard 
facilities. The National Guard works with the Army or Air Force, as 
applicable, to receive federal funds for cleanup actions, and have been 
doing this for over 30 years.
    Mr. Scott. The FY20 NDAA authorized National Guard PFOS/PFOA sites 
to be moved into DERP. Have all of the sites been transferred? If not, 
why?
    Mr. Cramer. DOD already uses DERA to fund its initial 
investigations under CERCLA (i.e., preliminary assessment/site 
inspection) at Guard sites. The FY20 NDAA allowed DERA to be used to 
address later phases in the CERCLA process for PFOA and PFOA.
    DOD issued guidance on September 29, 2020 for the transfer of 
eligible National Guard PFOS/PFOA sites into DERP. The only requirement 
is for the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army or Air Force, as 
applicable, to provide the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Environment 
and Energy Resilience a list of eligible sites that will be moving to 
DERP. As of the end of July 2021, DOD has only received this 
notification for a small number of sites.
    Mr. Scott. What steps has DOD taken to proactively engage with 
technical experts and industry to address any concerns about the use of 
variable refrigerant flow (VRF) equipment before modifications to 
Unified Facilities Criteria's (UFC) VRF requirements are issued?
    Mr. Cramer. DOD first published HVAC design criteria on the 
installation of new VRF systems in January 2017. Prior to that, DOD had 
significant direct involvement with the HVAC industry in general, 
including several industry reviews of various proposed updates to HVAC 
controls specifications, and several industry forums that included 
soliciting industry comments.
    These engagements were not focused on VRF systems in particular, 
but were open to industry representatives of all HVAC systems, to 
include VRF systems. During this process, neither industry associations 
nor VRF manufacturers raised any issues or concerns with DOD's proposed 
HVAC control system requirements that later surfaced as the VRF-
specific problem.
    The January 2017 restrictions in HVAC design criteria were based 
upon analysis of VRF manufacturer's technical literature, experience 
with previously-installed VRF systems, and review of Department of 
Energy studies on VRF systems which were available for DOD technical 
personnel to review. This analysis was supported by the broader 
industry engagement on HVAC control systems already mentioned.
    As a result of the design criteria restrictions, DOD arranged an 
in-person meeting of its entire technical team and UFC program managers 
with VRF industry representatives at the offices of AHRI in Arlington, 
VA in May 2017, focused on understanding respective concerns and 
sharing of technical papers and presentations. This engagement 
ultimately led to several subsequent updates to DOD criteria that were 
informed by, and resulted from, DOD-industry engagement during this 
three-year period. The first such update replaced the general 
``blanket'' restrictions on new VRF installations with specific design 
criteria equivalent to other HVAC systems, effectively placing VRF 
systems on a level playing field with other types of HVAC systems. DOD 
afforded AHRI the opportunity to review and comment upon this proposed 
update prior to its approval and publication. A later update for key 
HVAC control system specifications was preceded by DOD seeking 
industry-wide input via FedBizOps as described above to both refine 
DOD's specification and inform DOD of industry capability to satisfy 
it. Based upon its accumulated industry input, DOD subsequently updated 
its design criteria yet again to provide VRF system installations under 
particular circumstances an exception from meeting DOD's open protocol 
control system specification.
    Mr. Scott. Given that the Critical Change Request (CCR) process is 
largely retroactive, requires industry to submit individual requests 
for each proposed UFC revision, and lacks a public platform to track 
the resolution status of CCRs submitted, do you believe this process is 
sufficient in creating opportunities for DOD and industry to work 
together to mitigate technical concerns, optimize equipment 
performance, minimize energy consumption, and maximize energy savings?
    Mr. Cramer. The Criteria Change Request (CCR) process is but one 
tool that DOD can use to engage with stakeholders both internal and 
external to the Department; all of these tools are necessary to fully 
engage with industry to address issues and develop opportunities in 
technical criteria and specifications. A CCR initiates a formal process 
that is logged and tracked within the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 
program management structure and visible by the affected technical 
experts in the Army, Navy, and Air Force for collective action to 
adjudicate the submission. The tool enables a direct response back to 
CCR submitter as to its disposition once it has been fully reviewed by 
DOD technical personnel. A such, it serves as an efficient means of 
communication, albeit of a very focused nature and dependent upon the 
scope of the CCR itself as it relates to already-published documents. 
Other tools offer broader and more open-ended dialog between DOD and 
industry, such as ``Industry days'' where DOD invites the public and 
specific industries of interest to attend public DOD presentations and 
provide live feedback and discussion, typically in advance of adopting 
new criteria or specifications. Additionally, the Solicitations and 
Awards Management (SAM) process includes formal ``Sources Sought'' 
actions to solicit industry information on capabilities to meet DOD 
requirements, as well as complimentary ``Requests for Industry'' 
process to solicit input to specific draft criteria and specifications. 
The combination of all these tools provides the necessary opportunities 
for DOD and industry to resolve technical concerns and develop new 
opportunities.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GOLDEN
    Mr. Golden. As we work to advance DOD's readiness capabilities 
regarding increased extreme weather events, it will be important that 
the Department approaches this issue by investing in innovative and new 
building technologies. What are some barriers that the DOD faces in 
acquisition of innovative building products that can mitigate the 
damage caused by extreme weather events?
    Mr. Cramer. DOD generally seeks to adopt new technologies only 
after they been tested and certified for the commercial market, as long 
as the technology is not military-specific. Once new technologies have 
been demonstrated as viable, the greatest barrier is typically the 
effort required to adopt or establish a suitable specification (or 
multiple specifications) for DOD use that ensures DOD receives what it 
expects. Even with a suitable specification, the remaining potential 
barrier is that of cost-risk-benefit analysis, where cost is weighted 
against benefits (such as risk reduction). DOD may avoid a new 
technology that mitigates damage from extreme weather if its cost 
outweighs the expected cost avoidance from its use.
    Mr. Golden. The DOD follows the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), which is a Federal 
clean-up law. Where the DOD is the known source of contamination, 
CERCLA allows the DOD to provide bottled water, filter systems, and 
other removal actions to quickly assure no one is drinking water above 
the EPA PFOS/PFOA lifetime Health Advisories level. When a State 
establishes their own drinking water standard, the Department evaluates 
this as part of an overall site remediation strategy during the 
feasibility study (FY) phase of CERCLA. Can you explain what happens 
during the DOD's feasibility study phase and what remedial steps the 
DOD takes when a State's PFOS/PFOA acceptability standards are less 
than the EPA standards?
    When a State changes its own PFOS/PFOA drinking water standard and 
the DOD is the contaminating source, how is the DOD notified about the 
State's change and how does that affect the DOD's remediation strategy 
for that State?
    Mr. Cramer. During a CERCLA Feasibility Study (FS), site-specific 
options for remedial action are developed, screened, and evaluated. 
This FS process includes evaluating promulgated federal and state 
standards as identified in section 121(d) of CERCLA. This is referred 
to as the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) 
process. If a more stringent state drinking water standard qualifies as 
an ARAR, it is incorporated into the cleanup levels that must be 
attained at the site upon completion of the remedial action. As part of 
the ARARs process, consistent with the NCP, at the Remedial 
Investigation (RI) scoping phase, DOD, as the lead agency, initiates 
the identification of potential state ARARs. During the FS phase, 
States should identify their potential ARARs for evaluation which would 
include any new potential state ARARs so they could be incorporated 
into the ARARs evaluation process.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. KAHELE
    Mr. Kahele. Earlier this year in March, a UXO's was discovered in 
the waters off Lanai.
    Mr. Schafer, do you have any status updates on this UXO's risk 
assessment? Can you commit to working with me and the local community 
to explore alternatives to blowing up the UXO? There was a similar case 
near Molokini and there was strong public outcry against exploding the 
UXO near the fragile coral reefs.
    Mr. Schafer. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]

                                  [all]