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


.                                    
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-59]

                    MINDING THE GAP: HOW OPERATIONAL

            ENERGY CAN HELP US ADDRESS LOGISTICS CHALLENGES

                               __________

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                            DECEMBER 2, 2021

                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-444                       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

          Wendell Frank White, Jr., Professional Staff Member
                 Ian Bennitt, Professional Staff Member
                          Naajidah Khan, 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..............................     3

                               WITNESSES

Banta, LtGen Edward D., USMC, Deputy Commandant, Installations 
  and Logistics, U.S. Marine Corps...............................     9
Barrett, Lt Gen Sam C., USAF, Joint Staff Director for Logistics, 
  J-4, The Pentagon..............................................     5
Berry, Lt Gen Warren D., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for 
  Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection, A-4, U.S. Air 
  Force..........................................................    10
Gamble, LTG Duane A., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, U.S. Army.     6
Williamson, VADM Rick L., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations 
  for Fleet Readiness and Logistics, N-4, Office of the Chief of 
  Naval Operations...............................................     8

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Banta, LtGen Edward D........................................    72
    Barrett, Lt Gen Sam C........................................    40
    Berry, Lt Gen Warren D.......................................    79
    Gamble, LTG Duane A..........................................    50
    Garamendi, Hon. John.........................................    37
    Williamson, VADM Rick L......................................    57

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    [The information was not available at the time of printing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Scott....................................................    89
 
 MINDING THE GAP: HOW OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAN HELP US ADDRESS LOGISTICS 
                               CHALLENGES

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Subcommittee on Readiness,
                        Washington, DC, Thursday, December 2, 2021.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:03 a.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Garamendi 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

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

    Mr. Garamendi. I call this meeting, this hearing to order, 
the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services 
Committee.
    First, some administrative and technical notes.
    Members are reminded that they must be visible on the 
screen within the software platform for the purposes of 
identity verification. Members must continue to use the 
software platform's video function while attending the hearing, 
unless they experience connectivity issues or other technical 
problems that render the member unable to fully participate on 
camera.
    If you experience technical difficulties, please contact 
the committee staff for assistance. If I experience technical 
difficulties during this hearing, Mr. Crow has agreed to take 
over the gavel until I can reconnect.
    Who wrote that sentence?
    So, when you are recognized, video will be broadcast via 
the television and internet feeds. You will be recognized as 
normal for questions, but if you want to speak at any other 
time you must seek recognition verbally. Please do so politely.
    Please mute your microphone when you are not speaking, and 
remember to unmute prior to speaking. Please be aware that 
there will be a slight lag between when you start speaking and 
when the camera shot switches to you.
    Please remember to keep the software platform's video 
function on for the entirety of the time you are attending this 
hearing. If you have to leave for a short period of time, 
don't, this is an important hearing. However, if you do, please 
leave your video function on. If you are leaving to join a 
different proceeding you can only do one at a time. Be advised 
that you have designated--that I have designated a committee 
staff member to mute unrecognized members' microphones. If they 
are acting out, if their dog is climbing or barking, if the 
cat, other problems are occurring in your home, we will mute 
you.
    Please use the platform's chat feature to communicate with 
staff regarding technical or logistical support issues.
    Finally, you will see a 5-minute countdown, countdown clock 
on the software platform. And I have the mute button here. If 
you go beyond 5 minutes, I will certainly remind you.
    With that, we are here to--Oh, now the real part. Don't run 
on my sentences.
    Thank you for joining us today, gentlemen. We are here 
today to discuss the challenges of sustaining the joint force 
against a near-peer competitor. The problem of how to get our 
forces what they need to meet the wartime demand is not new. 
History provides countless examples of how the Department of 
Defense was able to ramp up supply to meet surging wartime 
demand, but it also shows what happens when those demands fail 
to be met.
    These lessons from the past will help us address how we 
approach some of our current challenges: namely, how will we 
ensure that the joint force has the energy, the energy 
resources required to accomplish their current and future 
mission. Supplying forces with their energy requirements 
requires both fuel and the capacity to move it across vast 
distances. This has always been a challenging prospect because 
it is--because it is resource-intensive. It requires both fuel 
and the transportation needed to move it. But it becomes even 
more challenging during the instances of near-peer conflict.
    Both the European and Pacific theaters in World War II 
offer countless examples of how logistics and supply lines 
impact operations. One is to remember General Patton who, when 
on the offense and short of fuel, said, give me 400,000 gallons 
of gasoline and I will put you inside Germany in 2 days. But, 
because he could not be resupplied, the United States lost the 
initiative and the war dragged on.
    German U-boats prioritized sinking oil tankers because they 
understood it was easier to sink a tanker than a warship, with 
a similar deleterious result on the war effort.
    Likewise, commanders in the Pacific were continually 
concerned about keeping their best warships fueled and ready to 
engage the enemy. We could talk about Guadalcanal and the 
removal of the aircraft carriers in that regard.
    As it has been in the past conflicts and the future fight, 
a near-peer adversary will certainly try to constrain our 
ability to provide fuel to the forces. And the Department of 
Defense uses a lot of fuel. It is, in fact, the largest single 
consumer of petroleum products in the world.
    In fiscal year 2017, the Department of Defense consumed 
over 85 million barrels of fuel to power ships, aircraft, 
combat vehicles, and contingency bases at a cost of nearly $8.2 
billion. Such expansive requirements invite risk, both to the 
service members on the front line who need the fuel, and those 
who are charged with providing it.
    Because of this risk and the certainty that an adversary 
will seek to constrain supply, we must look to the other side 
of the equation: demand. Reducing the energy demands of our 
Armed Forces must be as much a part of our strategy for meeting 
contested logistics challenges as ensuring that we have fuel 
and the transport for the supply side of the equation. We must 
learn the lessons of history and couple them with modern 
innovation to reduce the demand of our weapon systems.
    While peacetime demand reduction is often dismissed as 
unnecessary environmentally motivated greening of the military, 
but a reduction of demand is mission critical in a contested 
fight, because decreasing demand increases joint forces 
lethality.
    If we become more fuel [efficient], then we can increase 
range and maneuverability, and decrease cost which can then be 
invested elsewhere to increase overall readiness.
    Today we have the technologies, including electrification, 
hydrogen fuel cell technologies, and fuel efficiency measures 
that were unimaginable in the conflicts of the past. But to 
integrate the right technologies into our strategy, we must 
overcome the Pentagon's stovepiping that may make this 
difficult, if not impossible.
    The military departments must take a holistic approach: 
research, acquisition, requirement development, and war plan 
creation. Today's witnesses are our military's logistics 
leaders, as well as the Department's operational energy 
personnel. They must be engaged and included in this 
discussion. This collaboration, while often missing in the 
past, is necessary to lower demand so that the Department of 
Defense is lethal in a contested environment.
    While today's witnesses do not have all the answers, they 
have many. They are uniquely positioned to understand both the 
operational warfighting requirements, the wargaming results, 
and the challenge to supplying the force in a contested 
environment.
    I remind the members of the subcommittee that, as this is 
an open forum, there may be many times in our discussion when 
we can only talk in generalities. We will, however, have 
follow-up meetings, and we will go into detail on these issues. 
So, we will look for those opportunities. And I invite all the 
members to participate in them. You will not be able to do so 
remotely, so plan ahead. We will give you at least 24 hours 
notice.
    With that, Mr. Lamborn, please.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in 
the Appendix on page 37.]

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

    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the 
witnesses for being here today.
    The future fight will present logistics challenges not 
experienced in the recent past. Adversaries like Russia and 
China are seeking to deny access in all domains, and to ensure 
that our supply lines are contested. It is under this all-
domain threat that we must be able to rapidly assemble and 
deploy forces worldwide and, importantly, to support those 
forces over large distances for lengthy periods of time. That 
is a tall order.
    Simply put, we must be planning and solving for the 
operational energy challenges presented by the future fight. 
This will require a strategy that considers both supply and 
demand. A balanced approach will better position our forces for 
the future. So, we have asked the Department here today to tell 
us what is being done to assure energy needs and better plan 
for scenarios where supply lines are disrupted. We must get 
this right.
    When the ability to provide and deliver energy is placed at 
risk, so, too, is the Department's ability to deploy and 
sustain forces around the globe. I know that the Department and 
the services take this challenge seriously, and have been 
working hard to find solutions. I look forward to hearing about 
new systems and concepts, and what investments are being 
planned and made for innovation tailored to an enhanced ability 
to operate in contested environments. And, importantly, how we 
are assuring that those new concepts are being considered and 
integrated at program levels.
    I am a strong supporter of innovative solutions like 
Project Pele. Safe and reliable mobile or microreactors present 
a promising solution to providing abundant energy to our 
warfighters in remote and austere environments. It is 
imperative we move quickly to develop new capabilities able to 
maintain our lines of communication and supply.
    I know that much of this conversation can get classified 
quickly, but I am also interested in what we are learning from 
the planning and execution of war games. It is my hope that 
these efforts are improving Department decision making in 
concept and capability development, and in program investments.
    And while supply challenges can dominate near-term focus, I 
am also interested in demand side efforts and opportunities. 
Efforts to increase the range and capability of the legacy 
tactical ground vehicle fleet, transform the operational energy 
performance of manned and unmanned systems, among many others, 
are vital to long-term solutions.
    So, again, I appreciate the witnesses being here today. And 
I look forward to their comments.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
    A couple of introductions before we introduce our witnesses 
today. In the back of the room are two people that are integral 
in my work. Rebecca Wolf, who will leave my office in the next 
week, has been my Military Fellow from the U.S. Navy. She will 
have a ship to command, or at least be number two in the 
command of a ship in the very near future. We thank the Navy 
for sending her my way.
    Also, my new hire, my military legislative person, fresh 
out of the Marine Corps, former major, now staff, Elle Ekman. 
Elle, in the back of the room.
    And next to me is Mr. White, my new member of our 
professional staff.
    So, with those introductions, we will now move on. And to 
them, a big thank you,.
    So, let me do our introductions here.
    We have from the Joint Staff, Lieutenant General Sam 
Barrett, Joint Staff Director for Logistics, J-4.
    Lieutenant General Duane Gamble, United States Army, Deputy 
Chief of Staff, G-4.
    Vice Admiral Rick Williamson, United States Navy, Deputy 
Chief of Naval Operations for Fleet Readiness and Logistics, N-
4.
    Lieutenant General Edward ``Ted'' Banta, United States 
Marine Corps, Deputy Commandant, Installations and Logistics.
    And Lieutenant General Warren D. Berry, United States Air 
Force, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Engineering and 
Force Protection, A-4.
    So, let's start, General Barrett, if you would.

STATEMENT OF LT GEN SAM C. BARRETT, USAF, JOINT STAFF DIRECTOR 
                FOR LOGISTICS, J-4, THE PENTAGON

    General Barrett. Good morning.
    Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, distinguished 
members of this committee, thanks for the opportunity to appear 
today to discuss how operational energy can help address 
logistics challenges. I am honored to be here with my service 
four counterparts who will provide context from their service 
perspectives.
    First and foremost, I want to take a minute to express my 
pride in the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, 
particularly those in the joint logistics enterprise. Whether 
conducting the largest airlift evacuation in history, supplying 
and sustaining operations around the world, our logistics 
professionals are simply the best. But as good as they are, 
they remain and will remain dependent on the right operational 
energy architecture to train, move, and sustain military forces 
across the globe.
    Operational energy is an important enabler for our 
warfighting power, and one that requires complex integration. 
In today's contested environment and in future fights, ensuring 
the availability of operational energy by reducing consumption, 
increasing resiliency, and leveraging alternative sources is 
crucial to our Nation's success.
    As the joint force prepares for the full range of military 
operations, we are continually reviewing operational plans to 
ensure energy considerations are properly integrated. Through 
exercises and war games the Joint Staff evaluates risk to force 
and risk to mission.
    For example, the Joint Force Energy Wargames series and our 
J-4-sponsored Advancing Globally Integrated Logistics [Effort] 
war game, which is known as AGILE, bring together warfighters 
from the services, combatant commands, and our allies and 
partners to explore the potential seams between organizations. 
These games also evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and 
consequences of alternative approaches to operational energy.
    Without question, our future success depends on robust and 
accurate assessments of logistics capabilities. These 
assessments then inform logistics investments.
    For example, this past year the Department's Logistics 
Functional Capability Board outlined requirements to deliver 
petroleum to the joint force over the shore.
    Similarly, our Joint Logistics Board established a 
department-wide working group focused on improving the 
management, visibility, and delivery of bulk fuel in contested 
environments. These boards, and others like them, provide 
operational energy guidance for the fight today, while driving 
reduction in energy requirements for the future.
    Advances in modern material science, computing, and 
engineering offer new opportunities to mitigate risk and reduce 
energy demand. The ability to operate for extended periods, 
over long distances, with great speed and payload directly 
increase our flexibility, our capability, and it reduces the 
adversary's opportunity to disrupt operations.
    Alternative energy sources like electricity, low carbon 
fuels, nuclear power, provide opportunities to reduce petroleum 
footprints while increasing military capability. Reducing 
demand for energy is a critical component of our military's 
ability to sustain distributed operations against our potential 
adversaries.
    As a nation, we have faced operational energy challenges 
before, especially in World War II. Most recently, our 
adversaries watched us build iron mountains of supplies to 
achieve our Nation's goals. In response, adversaries have 
developed capabilities to counter our global logistics 
advantage. As our competitors vie for increased influence, they 
will actively exploit seams in our logistics and our 
operational energy networks.
    We know that modernizing the joint force operational energy 
construct and capabilities will play a critical role in 
overcoming those shared challenges.
    Finally, we will continue to prioritize our most vital 
asset: our people. Our logistics professionals are the linchpin 
to America's ability to pursue global objectives. Developing 
and training these logistics professionals is absolutely 
essential.
    Thanks again for the opportunity to speak today. I look 
forward to the statements of my peers and friends. And I will 
look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of General Barrett can be found in 
the Appendix on page 40.]
    Mr. Garamendi. General Barrett, thank you very much. You 
set the stage.
    General Gamble, please.

 STATEMENT OF LTG DUANE A. GAMBLE, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, 
                         G-4, U.S. ARMY

    General Gamble. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, 
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of 
Secretary Wormuth, General McConville, and the soldiers, 
families, and civilians of the United States Army, thanks for 
the opportunity today to discuss operational energy's 
contributions to both logistics capabilities and to Army 
readiness.
    We in the Army define operational energy as the energy-
associated systems, information, and processes required to 
train, move, and sustain forces and systems in support of 
military operations. Energy is the key enabler that drives 
operational capabilities, and the primary objective of our 
operational energy plan is to improve warfighter capacity, 
capability, and to win the Nation's wars.
    The contested operating environments described by both you, 
Mr. Chairman, and you, Ranking Member Lamborn, these are the 
environments in which we expect to fight, and in which the U.S. 
could be engaged, and that is all the more necessary to make 
operational energy capabilities important and decisive to our 
success.
    Potential adversaries continue to improve their ability to 
contest the lines of communication, deny us access, and target 
our forces. One way our Army is seeking to mitigate the risks 
within these contested environments is to reduce the demand for 
supplies and services, including fuel, which will extend range, 
operational endurance, maintain battlefield momentum, and 
increase freedom of action, all the while minimizing soldier 
exposure to enemy action.
    We are also looking at ways to field new and emerging 
operational energy capabilities that will give us an edge on 
the battlefield. To accomplish these goals, we are developing 
the Army's first Operational Energy Strategy; it is currently 
on track to be signed in spring of 2022.
    The Army Operational Energy Strategy identifies challenges 
in the future operating environment; it presents these 
challenges and is focused on two desired goals.
    The first goal is to increase warfighter capability by 
increasing operational endurance, duration, and reach. To 
accomplish this, we believe we must enable maneuver units to 
operate autonomously from their lines of communication by 
decreasing sustainment requirements at the point of need. This 
has an added benefit of decreasing logistics signatures and 
footprints of soldiers, equipment, and infrastructure.
    The second goal of our Operational Energy Strategy is to 
increase energy security and increase energy resilience so that 
we can accomplish our mission despite disruptions from the 
enemy, from the weather, and the terrain. This will be 
accomplished through capability development of systems at scale 
that can be utilized, multiple sources of energy, including 
alternative energies, and have the capability to store, manage, 
and control required energy, and to distribute that energy to 
soldiers, systems, ground and aerial platforms, as well as to 
mission commandos tied to microgrids.
    In addition to our Operational Energy Strategy, our Army is 
finalizing our Army Climate Strategy, which will provide a 
roadmap for the Army to mitigate and adapt to climate change. I 
personally participated in incorporating logistics and energy 
resilience into that climate strategy. So, I know firsthand how 
well logistics capabilities are embedded in our efforts to 
combat climate change.
    In closing, I would like to emphasize that the Army 
absolutely recognizes the tie between operational energy and 
our logistics capabilities required in a contested environment. 
It is part of our responsibility to provide foundational 
logistics capabilities to the joint force. The Army is working 
diligently to make sure our strategies produce tangible, 
actionable improvements in the operational energy, and to yield 
decisive capabilities in contested environments worldwide.
    Thank you once more for the opportunity to present this 
testimony and for your continued support of the soldiers, 
civilians, and families of the United States Army.
    [The prepared statement of General Gamble can be found in 
the Appendix on page 50.]
    Mr. Garamendi. I thank you very much, General.
    We now turn to Admiral Williamson.

  STATEMENT OF VADM RICK L. WILLIAMSON, USN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF 
NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS, N-4, OFFICE 
                OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

    Admiral Williamson. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member 
Lamborn, and distinguished members of the House Armed Services 
Committee on Readiness, thank you for the opportunity to 
provide the subcommittee a Navy perspective on how Navy's 
operational energy efforts are addressing logistic challenges.
    The naval logistics enterprise reached its peak in World 
War II, and sustained that stance through the Cold War. In 
subsequent decades, our logistics posture changed to peacetime 
efficiency. The logistics enterprise has performed well over 
the years sustaining our warfighters.
    For the first time in over three decades, both the 2018 
National Defense and the Tri-Service Maritime Strategies 
clearly and firmly orient the national security environment 
toward strategic competition. This environment comprises long-
term global competition across multiple domains; spans the 
global industrial base and operational battle space; and 
requires technological, operational, and strategic solutions 
within a significant unpredictably--unpredictable and 
uncertainty. However, these achievements took place in the 
context of a permissive maritime environment against non-peer 
adversaries.
    Cost-efficient hub-and-spoke model works well. Just-in-time 
delivery is sufficient for a fleet that is not widely dispersed 
or dynamically maneuvering under persistent multi-domain 
attack. Hub-and-spoke is effective in peacetime operations, but 
once we shift to Phase 2 operations, it is not sustainable.
    In 2019, the Secretary of the Navy [SECNAV] set operational 
energy priorities for the Department to address gaps in 
alignment of energy supply and demand in strategic competition. 
Those include extending operational reach of current and future 
weapon systems through more effective use of energy, reducing 
energy consumption and external energy logistics requirements 
to forward-deployed strike groups, and increasing the effective 
use, conversion, storage, and distribution of operational 
energy.
    The CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] followed SECNAV's 
operational energy goals with Navy-specific objectives that 
target energy and acquisition, optimizing energy use, energy 
supply chain, and supply and demand management. The Navy is 
answering those goals and objectives. We are increasing 
operational energy modeling capabilities to appropriately 
assess energy supportability and acquisition, incorporating 
efficiency measures in ships and aircraft, increased investment 
in batteries and electrification of warfighting systems, and 
integrating energy command and control tools into the Navy's 
log LOG IT [logistics information technology] systems.
    The Navy is actively shifting the logistics paradigm from a 
pull to a push system, moving away from the just-in-time 
logistics of hub-and-spoke design to a concept with distributed 
nodes. The Navy uses the five vector model of maritime 
sustainment: refuel, revive, rearm, repair, and resupply.
    Aligning to these vectors, our national--our naval 
logistics enterprise will develop new, divest of legacy, and 
improve existing capabilities to include those that deliver 
operational energy to the warfighter.
    We will continue to apply analytic rigor to our logistics 
problems, including condition-based maintenance, supply chain, 
and industrial base, to enable expeditionary operations per 
distributed maritime operations and expeditionary advanced base 
operations. We will continue to work to provide the operational 
energy and logistics capabilities our naval forces need.
    I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, sir.
    [The prepared statement of Admiral Williamson can be found 
in the Appendix on page 57.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Admiral, thank you very much.
    We now turn to General Banta, United States Marine Corps.

 STATEMENT OF LTGEN EDWARD D. BANTA, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, 
         INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS, U.S. MARINE CORPS

    General Banta. Good morning.
    Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this 
opportunity to discuss how the Marine Corps' approach to 
operational energy can help address logistics challenges, 
especially in contested environments.
    To meet the Commandant's vision for Force Design 2030, the 
Marine Corps has spent the last 2 years making significant 
changes to how it is organized, trained, equipped, and postured 
to meet the demands of the future operating environment. The 
joint force requires a capability that operates persistently 
and with maximum organic mobility and dispersion to compete and 
deter in the contact and blunt layers.
    As a result, the Marine Corps has taken steps to modernize, 
including deliberate efforts to invest, divest, and reset. 
Logistics is the Marine Corps' current pacing function in this 
effort. As we pivot from two decades of extensive land 
operations to a focus on executing expeditionary advanced base 
operations, the Marine Corps is developing its approach to 
sustaining stand-in forces in a contested and dynamic 
environment.
    Advancements in operational energy technologies present an 
opportunity for the Marine Corps to increase lethality, extend 
operational reach, and self-sustain units, while simultaneously 
providing positive contributions towards climate imperatives.
    Our approach to operational energy includes reducing 
demand, investing in more fuel-efficient systems, and exploring 
alternative energy sources. We have partnered with academia, 
the Navy, and our joint force counterparts to examine our 
operational energy architecture in the expeditionary 
environment. The results have informed the Marine Corps' focus 
on developing and adopting viable solutions to address our 
logistics challenges.
    The Marine Corps 2030 Strategic Logistics Plan outlines our 
approach to meeting future logistics challenges across four 
lines of effort: enabling global logistics awareness, 
diversifying distribution, improving sustainment, and 
operationalizing installations to support sustained operations.
    Within these lines of effort, the Marine Corps requires 
critical capabilities to ensure our forces can operate in this 
environment. We support the Navy's effort to develop light 
combatant surface vessels and ancillary logistics connectors, 
such as the light amphibious warship, or LAW, to support 
littoral sustainment and maneuver.
    Leasing commercial vessels can also provide flexibility and 
redundancy, and allows us to experiment with our sustainment 
concepts in the near term. A modernized prepositioning network 
with the right mix of afloat and ashore capabilities, as well 
as uncrewed logistics systems will reduce risk in future 
sustainment missions.
    The challenges we face in the future operating environment 
will blur the distinction between operations at home and 
overseas. Many of the same threats faced by our installations 
at home will also be faced by our advanced naval bases, all of 
which are critical to the Marine Corps' support for naval and 
joint operations. Resiliency efforts require hardened critical 
and energy infrastructure to support the force before, during, 
and after deployment. Increasing our installations' capability 
and capacity underpins our forward presence.
    The Marine Corps is committed to a future force unleashed 
from the tether of fossil fuels on the battlefield. The service 
actively continues to invest in developing expeditionary and 
alternative operational energy sources and systems to achieve 
energy resilience and enable the persistence and mobility that 
a naval expeditionary force demands. Increased lethality, 
range, and endurance of Marine Corps formations remain 
warfighting imperatives that drive our force modernization 
efforts.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, 
and for your oversight, input, and support as we develop the 
capabilities to sustain our stand-in forces. I look forward to 
working with you to further our warfighting capability and the 
readiness of our power projection platforms.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of General Banta can be found in 
the Appendix on page 72.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, General.
    We now turn to the United States Air Force, General Berry.

  STATEMENT OF LT GEN WARREN D. BERRY, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF 
  STAFF FOR LOGISTICS, ENGINEERING AND FORCE PROTECTION, A-4, 
                         U.S. AIR FORCE

    General Berry. Thank you.
    Good morning, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, 
and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you as 
well for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 
operational energy and its nexus to logistics opportunities and 
challenges in a contested environment.
    Air power is critical to the success of modern military 
operations in the joint force, and our basing and logistics 
enterprise is the foundation that generates Air Force combat 
power, from air superiority to long-range strike.
    Our pacing adversaries have watched our operations over the 
last few decades, and have developed ways to attempt to blunt 
or take away America's air power advantage. In the event of 
conflict, we expect our air bases and logistics supply chains 
will be subject to determined multi-domain attack. Our 
adversaries' kinetic air and missile capabilities drive us to 
be prepared to rapidly disperse and maneuver our air forces, 
commonly referred to as agile combat employment, or ACE.
    In the face of kinetic threats, ACE allows us to generate 
combat power from potentially vulnerable forward bases. Of 
course, we also know that such maneuver greatly complicates the 
logistical challenges, particularly in the realm of operational 
energy. And while we are still experimenting with concepts that 
allow us to deliver and sustain persistent logistics and 
persistent mission generation while under attack, we also know 
that this is inherently a solvable problem.
    Operational energy remains a key ingredient to achieving 
that persistent mission generation. Operational energy is a 
critical enabler to our global mission, as aviation fuel and 
energy to power aircraft comprised over 82 percent of the $4.6 
billion Air Force energy bill in 2020.
    While the Air Force relies on the joint force and the 
Defense Logistics Agency to sustain our energy and fuel supply 
lines, we are constantly seeking solutions to improve 
operational energy efficiency, especially given these 
logistical challenges. We are committed to improving fuel 
efficiency and reducing costs through leveraging alternative 
energy sources when it provides a competitive advantage, and 
where practical.
    We focused our efforts to reduce operational energy demand 
in three broad areas: reducing the footprint required for 
mission generation forward; reducing aviation and ground fuels 
demand; and reducing installation energy demands from our bases 
forward and at home.
    In that vein, I'd like to highlight just two of the many 
promising initiatives the Air Force is pursuing. The first is 
actually an example of a bottom-up innovation from an 
outstanding senior noncommissioned officer in the Air Force. 
It's called the VIPER [Versatile Integrating Partner Equipment 
Refueling] kit.
    And the VIPER kit takes existing petroleum, oil, and 
lubricant, or POL, components from an R-11 refueling truck and 
configures them into a small custom sled that eliminates the 
need for those R-11 refueling trucks during hot refuel 
operations in a forward deployed environment. It has an 
immediate impact on our energy footprint, it decreases our 
deployment processing times by 96 percent and distribution 
costs by 90 percent, and obviously is much easier to take into 
combat.
    Second, the Air Force Civil Engineering Center is 
developing a new system for expeditionary-based power called 
the Base Powerload and Installation Management System. And it 
allows for the seamless integration of alternative and 
renewable energy sources from any type of energy source.
    This type of innovative work is ongoing throughout the 
force, and in concert with the joint working groups that ensure 
standard interfaces and help avoid duplicative effort. 
Ultimately, our focus must be squarely on preparing to fight 
through determined multi-domain attacks against our basing and 
logistics forces, while generating decisive airpower effects on 
the adversary now and in the future. Operational energy is 
critical to doing so.
    We have some of the answers today. And through our 
continued experimentation, tough training, and an innovative 
culture of empowered airmen, we will further enhance our 
capabilities to achieve and retain relative advantage in the 
future.
    Thanks again to the members of the subcommittee for your 
support of the Air Force and my DOD [U.S. Department of 
Defense] partners here with me today. And I look forward to our 
discussion on this very important topic.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of General Berry can be found in 
the Appendix on page 79.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your 
testimony. I would bring to the attention of the committee the 
written testimony which will, without objection, be made part 
of the record of this hearing.
    And I want to thank you and your staffs for an 
exceptionally good written testimony that covers many of these 
issues, and focused clearly on the issue at hand, operational 
energy and how we might reduce those, the need for it.
    The witnesses received a copy of this a few moments ago. I 
hand this to the members that are here.
    For those of you that are out there in virtual land, I am 
going to hold this up. This is an 1869 chart of Napoleon's 
march to Moscow from eastern Germany, or what was then--what is 
now Lithuania. And if you look at it, you will notice that he 
started off with an enormous number of troops and supplies. And 
the brown line here is what he wound up with in Moscow. And the 
black line is what he wound up in his return.
    He didn't use petroleum products as energy, but he used 
horses. And horses need to be fed. And the Russians figured out 
that if there was nothing for the horses to eat they might get 
hungry. And eventually Napoleon wound up using the horses as 
food, not supply.
    Also, this chart demonstrates another issue which is not 
the subject of this committee, but will be at some point, and 
that is the health of the troops. Most of the troops died as a 
result of typhus that was spread throughout the force by lice. 
And along the way, this is a demonstration of one of the 
world's great generals and what he failed to deal with.
    And, yes, I would like to put that in the record also, and 
for the edification of all of us that we need to pay attention.
    [The chart referred to was not available at the time of 
printing.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Even the world's great generals missed a 
couple of things along the way. He thought he could supply his 
troops on the way to Moscow. The Russians had a different idea. 
They burned the fields, burned the houses, and the troops were 
hungry.
    So, I bring this to our attention to drive home the point 
that this is exceedingly important that we pay attention, in 
this case to the energy. The other logistical issues will be, 
have been, and will continue to be subject matter of this 
committee in future hearings.
    So, I could ask a lot of questions. I really want to turn 
very quickly to my colleagues on the committee, both Democrats 
and Republicans; we'll have the gavel order in a few moments.
    But my fundamental question to the five of you is, you 
understand this issue. Your written testimony as well as your 
oral testimony today speaks to your clear understanding and the 
priority that, in this case, operational energy presents to 
you, to your operations and, frankly, to the tasks that you're 
responsible for.
    My question is different. What do you need from us to be 
successful in reducing your energy requirements, and in 
achieving a distribution of an appropriate availability of that 
energy where it is needed?
    So, the question is really back to us, or the issue is back 
to us. We need to know by the end of this hearing and by the 
work that will be following on it, and that will involve 
classified briefings, what do we need to do?
    We may or may not be able to do anything in this year's 
NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act]. And the rumors are 
that there might actually be a conclusion to it. That was a 
happy thought, and let's hold that for a while. But in the next 
NDAA I want this committee to address this issue squarely. And 
in order for us to do that we need you to tell us what you 
need.
    We will, of course, review it and we will make sure that it 
is, at least in our view, sensible and appropriate.
    So, I am going to let my question go there unanswered. But 
during the course of the hearing if the opportunity presents 
itself in the questions put forth by my colleagues, please come 
back and challenge us along the way.
    Mr. Lamborn, I turn to you.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. And thank you for having this 
hearing. Thank you again to you gentlemen for being here today.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am a supporter of 
innovative solutions to the operational energy challenge, like 
Project Pele. Mobile microreactors have the potential to be 
employed in austere and remote areas. Who has any thoughts on 
this capability?
    Could microreactors be part of the solution?
    General Gamble. Ranking Member Lamborn, Duane Gamble, U.S. 
Army. I will jump on that.
    The Army clearly sees a utility for that type of 
technology. We have received briefings from the Strategic 
Capabilities Office. Our Army Corps of Engineers and the Army 
G-4, my teams, have spoken with the Strategic Capabilities 
Office who is currently developing that, that technology.
    It is my understanding the technology is not quite mature 
yet, but we expect it, of course, to become mature in the 
future. And we even had a Army Requirements Oversight Council 
meeting on it this last year. So, it has also received the 
attention of our Army senior leaders.
    Really that is all I have to report on it at this point. 
But there is clearly opportunity there once the technology 
comes to fruition.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Does the Navy or anyone else have a 
comment on microreactors?
    General Banta. Ranking Member Lamborn, General Banta, 
Marine Corps.
    So, while not intimately familiar with the concept of 
microreactors, the Marine Corps clearly appreciates the value 
and potential future benefits of alternative energy sources. 
Through our Marine Corps Warfighting Lab we have been involved 
in looking at hydrogen fuel as a potential future source. And I 
would think that combining that with both microgrids as well as 
potentially microreactors would provide great benefit to us in 
the future, particularly operating in an expeditionary 
environment.
    So, we will remain engaged with, through our Joint Staff 
partners, as well as services and Congress on those efforts. 
Thank you.
    General Berry. Congressman Lamborn, I would just say, as 
you may have read in the press, the Air Force announced a 
microreactor project, a pilot project, that we are going to put 
into Alaska. We expect that to be in the fiscal year 2027 realm 
that we would do it as a power purchasing agreement where we 
would basically buy that power. But it's a way to get us some 
redundancy and resiliency in the power demand at that 
installation. We look forward to what that pilot project might 
tell us.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Echo a lot of what my fellow 
members spoke to. Anything that allows us the freedom of 
maneuver we are obviously very interested in. Enable to divorce 
the operational fleet from the logistics tether gives us 
maneuverability. Maneuverability equals survivability.
    As you know, we have very big reactors. But we have to look 
at the problem of sustaining the fleet as a whole. And so that 
is going to be done both ashore and afloat. And so if there is 
potential there, obviously it provides a tremendous operational 
advantage for us.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay.
    General Barrett. And, finally, I would just say I don't 
think we can afford to not explore it within the realm of 
demand reduction. And it has been well stated by my colleagues 
the ongoing efforts. But there is certainly a place for this to 
take a look at both our resiliency, energy independence, and 
certainly in an expeditionary location it would be helpful.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay, very good. Thank you all.
    And my next question I would like to ask you about is the 
electrification of vehicles. Now, I know for the Navy vessels 
or for the Air Force for airborne planes, you know, we are 
probably a ways off.
    But for the Army, the electrification of ground vehicles is 
something that is a present day option. And I know in your 
written statement, General Gamble, you did talk about the 
progress being made and the advantages of electric vehicles. I 
know that there are also disadvantages. You have to have a 
reliable electric source. And in theater that may or may not be 
available.
    And also there are some people who say that you are just 
transferring the energy problem from your neighborhood gas 
station to a remote electric plant out in the desert, but it is 
the same demand in either case when you look at the big 
picture.
    But you did have some interesting things that you said in 
your written testimony. And so, could you elaborate in this 
open setting, of course, nothing classified, but what 
advantages and disadvantages you see for more use of electric 
vehicles on the ground?
    General Gamble. Representative Lamborn, thanks for your 
question.
    Indeed, I believe, the Army believes we are at an 
inflection point on the electrification of the tactical wheeled 
vehicle fleet as well as the combat vehicle fleet. And while, 
and because--it is because of the commercial industry and the 
technologies that have emerged, as well as to the Department of 
Defense and some work done there as well.
    But really it is about the inflection point really stems 
from our commercial industry and available technology.
    We believe the technology is scalable as well to our, at 
least our tactical wheeled vehicle fleet.
    We see the challenges you described, you know, full 
electrification for our complex weapon systems at the forward 
edge of the battlefield is a goal that we don't believe 
currently our technology will support that.
    Having said that, in fiscal year 2022 we will continue to 
prototype one of our Bradley Fighting Vehicles to be full--
fully electric. For our JLTV, Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, 
and our, you know, Humvee fleet, our High Mobility Multipurpose 
Wheeled Vehicles, in fiscal year 2022 we will test hybrid 
electric Humvees and JLTVs as well.
    So, while we are doing testing and prototyping of hybrid 
electric, full electric remains our stretch goal. Our strategy, 
and I believe I touched on it in my written testimony, is 
really kind of a three-part strategy: it is hybrid electric, 
anti-idle, hybrid electric, and full electric. And it meets 
what we think the goal on full electric is in the 2030-2035 
timeframe for complex weapon systems because we believe then 
the technology will be matured.
    We do think, though, in the short term, anti-idle 
technology, we are incorporating that in some of our vehicles 
today and working, working to do that. We believe that reduces 
thermal signature, it increases operational range and 
endurance, it reduces, you know, fuel consumption as well. So, 
this demand reduction that both you and the chairman talked 
about, it's dead in our sights.
    So, I hope I answered your question, sir.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you so much.
    Does anyone have anything to add, or does that pretty much 
cover where we are at right now.
    General Berry. Sir, I would just say from an Air Force 
perspective, right, a large part of our support equipment that 
we use to generate air power: diesel. And so we, we echo what 
General Gamble said, right.
    There is a great capability as we look at leveraging what 
commercial industry is doing with electrification to use 
perhaps photovoltaic cells to provide lighting on the airfields 
as we do aircraft operations or munitions loading operations; 
to electrify loaders, right, that put munitions on aircraft, so 
that we do have some resiliency and redundancy and we aren't 
just beholden to the POL farm that is there, but we have other 
means and other sources of generating combat capability without 
relying on diesel.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you all so much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
    The gavel order that we presently have would be Mr. Kahele, 
followed by Mr. Wilson. And I think on the remote side of this, 
Ms. Slotkin has joined us and perhaps--ah, here we go.
    So, heads up, team, here we are: Kahele, Wilson, 
Strickland, Bergman. You are on this twice, Wilson. What is 
going on here? And Slotkin.
    Mr. Kahele, you are up.
    Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Mr. Chairman.
    Vice Admiral Williamson, my comments and questions this 
morning are related to the Red Hill Bulk Storage Facility and 
the Navy's entire pipeline infrastructure and fuel operations 
on the island of Oahu in my home State of Hawaii.
    Many of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, right now might not 
know about Red Hill. So, I am going to take just a few minutes 
to share some background on this facility.
    The Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility contains 20 steel tanks 
encased by up to 4 feet of concrete, and surrounded by basalt 
bedrock. Construction on the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage 
Facility began in secret a year before the attack on Pearl 
Harbor and was constructed underground to provide maximum 
protection of the fuel supply. The facility remained classified 
until 1995.
    This is the largest single Department of Defense fuel 
storage facility in the Pacific theater, and it has the 
capability to accommodate 250 million gallons of fuel, and 
currently contains approximately 110 million gallons of fuel. 
There is no question that Red Hill is a strategic and 
operationally important asset for the U.S. military in Indo-
Pacific.
    However, it is equally or more important for this committee 
to know that the Red Hill Facility, located approximately 100 
feet above one of the island's main groundwater aquifers, is 
safe. The aquifers are sources of potable water and are 
vulnerable to contamination from an unscheduled discharge of 
fuel from the facility.
    Dating back to 1947, there have been dozens of fuel leaks. 
The worst leak in recent years was in January of 2014 when the 
U.S. Navy discovered a fuel leak of approximately 27,000 
gallons of fuel.
    I am bringing up Red Hill today because the Navy is 
currently experiencing a crisis of astronomical proportions in 
Hawaii. The Navy's water system is contaminated with petroleum. 
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam's water systems are entirely 
shut down. Almost 100,000 people are without water. Our 
military families, people are getting sick, animals are getting 
sick, and our military families need answers, and the island of 
Oahu needs answers.
    Earlier this week I personally visited, Mr. Chairman, some 
of the impacted Navy personnel and their families. One mother I 
met, Amanda, invited me into her home to test the water from 
her kitchen, water that she and her family had been consuming 
for a week after the most recent leak on November 20th, as a 
result of operator error.
    At her invitation, I collected water samples from her 
kitchen--this water right here. Amanda had her daughter at home 
in Zoom classes because her school was closed due to the 
contamination. Her family had been drinking the water for days. 
Her dog got sick, was vomiting. Her daughter went to the ER 
[emergency room]. Her son experienced an unusual sore on his 
mouth.
    Today, Amanda just texted me--and this was about 6 o'clock 
in the morning Hawaii time, Mr. Chairman--that she went to the 
Tripler Emergency Room last night because of a headache and 
irritation in her mouth and throat. And her doctor diagnosed 
her with chemical burns in her mouth. She is worried, 
rightfully so, about her health and the health of her family.
    Another military mother, Kelly, emailed me at 9 o'clock 
last night. She is 6 months pregnant. She had been drinking the 
water for a week, and she is, rightfully so, in a panicked 
state.
    As you can see here, there is a sheen on this drinking 
water. This is taken out of somebody's kitchen, Navy family 
housing at Pearl Harbor. And I can tell you myself that if you 
smell this water you would know that there is something wrong 
with this water. There is a petroleum product in this water.
    Right now the Navy is relying on community donations and 
using water tankers to distribute clean water to residents. You 
can smell some type of petroleum chemical in the water. The 
Department of Health and the University of Hawaii has confirmed 
the petroleum in the water. And there have been concerns on the 
community for years on the possibility of leaks from Red Hill 
into the drinking water supply.
    This is a mother walking up to a water distribution site 
with a 5-gallon jug so that she can take a shower last night.
    And yet the Navy seems totally unprepared for this 
situation that has now impacted the military's own service 
members and families. And what is happening on the ground in 
Hawaii right now is absolutely unacceptable.
    And I understand the operational importance of Red Hill 
Facility to our military today and our military's readiness in 
the future. However, there have been three reported fuel leaks 
on Oahu in the last 20 months, and we need answers.
    So, I have two questions for you.
    Although the Navy has said there are no indications that 
the tanks are leaking, many Hawaii residents are calling for 
the immediate drainage of all the Red Hill fuel tanks. As I 
stated in my opening remarks, there are over a dozen tanks that 
contain more than 110 million gallons of fuel.
    So, first question: Is it possible to make Red Hill safe 
for our water supply and our community? If yes, how? What are 
the steps that need to be taken immediately? And how quickly 
can they be taken? We know the status quo is not working.
    My second question is, logistically, how would draining the 
facility work if we called for the shutdown of the Red Hill 
Bulk Fuel Storage Facility? How long would it take? Where would 
you store the fuel? And what draining the Red Hill fuel tanks 
would mean for the United States military?
    And I know I have run out of time, so I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Kahele, you have whatever time is 
necessary. Well, we think we know where this question is going 
to go.
    Admiral Williamson.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
    First, sir, I want to say that this has, obviously, my 
leadership's full attention. And we are taking it very 
seriously.
    The health and safety of our sailors, their families, the 
surrounding community is of the utmost importance. You know, we 
share your concerns. We are committed to find the facts, get 
the root causes, and make the appropriate corrections to 
anything that we discover.
    You have our commitment to be completely transparent with 
the local government, the local people, our sailors, our 
families, and with this committee.
    As far as your questions go, sir, I would love to take that 
for the record and come back to you with an answer.
    Mr. Kahele. It is a question that the people of Hawaii are 
asking for of this congressional delegation. And we don't know 
how that would be possible to drain 110 million gallons of 
fuel. Where would you put it? How would you do it? How long 
would it take? But these are questions that the people of 
Hawaii are asking. And it is questions that we need to provide 
to the Governor, and State legislators, and elected officials, 
and the community in Hawaii.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Kahele. My understanding is that we should be, based on 
a conversation that the delegation had with the Secretary of 
the Navy, who is on his way or will be on his way to Hawaii to 
be boots on the ground and taking charge of this situation 
directly, that we will be receiving one of the water samples 
that was sent to a mainland distribution or a mainland testing 
facility by this afternoon.
    If those tests come back with some type of petroleum 
substance chemical in the water, affirming what the University 
of Hawaii and the State Department of Health released yesterday 
in that their preliminary samples have some type of petroleum 
in the water--and I can guarantee you, Vice Admiral Williamson, 
if you smell this water that I allowed the chairman to smell 
before this hearing started, you would know that something is 
wrong with this water--but if the Navy's test comes back this 
afternoon with a petroleum product in the water, what is the 
Navy going to do?
    Admiral Williamson. [Speaking off-mic.]
    Mr. Kahele. Well, I hope the Navy is taking the next 5 to 6 
hours to prepare for that if those tests come back. And I can't 
emphasize it enough. You know, this is a crisis that we have 
not seen in Hawaii. You know, Hawaii has a strong military 
community. But this is something that is affecting the lives of 
our service members, their families, the public, the community.
    Red Hill provides about 25 percent, or the Halawa Shaft and 
the aquifer underneath the Red Hill fuel tanks, Halawa, 
Wahiawa, and Red Hill provide about 25 percent of the entire 
groundwater aquifer source for the island of Oahu, which has 
about a million residents. It is--we cannot have this water 
source contaminated by petroleum fuel from the Red Hill tanks. 
And it is something that we really, really need to take 
seriously.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Kahele, thank you for bringing this to 
the attention of the committee. This issue is this committee's 
issue. It is one of the infrastructure pieces that we are 
responsible for. And we will be following up.
    Admiral Williamson, if you would respond by early afternoon 
to the questions that Mr. Kahele has put forth, there appears 
to be a serious ongoing public health issue. And the 
probability is that the U.S. military, Navy, Red Hill Facility 
is responsible.
    So, if you will have your people get back to this committee 
and we will disseminate the information to all the committee 
members. And certainly, Mr. Kahele, you will be the first to 
hear whatever information there is available.
    The issue also--and that is your follow-up question which 
is directly to the point of this hearing--we are talking about 
operational energy issues. These storage facilities are 
specifically for operational energy, both on the base or bases 
in the Pacific, as well as the equipment that would be using 
the petroleum products.
    So, your second question is, goes to the heart of our 
concerns specifically today. And that is, how can we reduce the 
need for operational energy, and thereby reduce the potential 
problems such as you brought to this committee, as well as the 
operational problems that would occur?
    So, we will continue on that. I think the point of this 
hearing will bring more clarity to your second point. And as we 
go through the second round of questions you may want to come 
back, if you have not had--not been satisfied.
    Modification in the order here. Mr. Wilson, I understand 
you are going to stand aside and Mr. Scott is going to take the 
next question.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to 
thank Mr. Wilson. I have a 12:00 o'clock as well that is also 
important.
    Gentlemen, General [Berry], you mentioned diesel. And 
diesel is not refined to the same standard in every sense. And 
my question for you is, virtually every operation that we have 
requires diesel, whether it be for a generator or whether it be 
for an engine. How are you taking into account the different 
standards of refining diesel throughout the various areas of 
operation?
    General Berry. Thanks, Congressman.
    One of the things that we do as we scan the horizon of the 
locations that we would be most likely using for contingency 
operations, we send teams out to do site surveys. And they look 
at everything from operational locations in terms of, you know, 
ramp space, in terms of facilities. But we also look at fuel.
    And we will go out and test pavements for the strength of 
the pavement to handle the aircraft that we will bring in, and 
we also look at fuel and we test fuel.
    So, everywhere we go we are looking at what those standards 
are and do they match what we require to run our equipment. And 
if they don't, then we will go back and get an engineering 
analysis to see if there is a way that we can still use the 
diesel that is there. And if not, then we make plans and 
contingencies to do something different. But we do take that 
into consideration in our operational planning.
    Mr. Scott. So, to be clear, the newer tier of diesel 
engines in the United States simply can't function on the 
diesel that is refined in certain parts of Africa and other 
parts of the world. And I just want to make sure that as we 
push forward that we, that we take that into account. I know we 
are concerned about emissions and other things, and we should 
be. We can and should do a better job of taking care of the 
environment. But, ultimately, when we are in a fight, we have 
to win that fight.
    And I am concerned, I can tell you, and I am--you know, 
this is happening with farmers right now. I mean, the majority 
of the shutdowns on the tractors are coming from DEF [diesel 
exhaust fluid] fluid problems, and sensor problems, and other 
things. And I just, I want to make sure we're being very, very 
careful in your operations that, that we don't end up with 
engines that aren't able to function in areas where the fuel is 
readily available.
    So, one last question, General Barrett.
    In your testimony you state that the days of hand waving, 
is your terminology, logistics risks and limitations in war 
gaming exercises are over and our future success in contested 
environment depends on robust logistics capabilities.
    What are the most important insights and lessons learned 
from the energy--the Joint Force Energy War Games, and what 
concerns you the most?
    General Barrett. First of all, Congressman Scott, thanks 
for that question. Very much appreciated and a good question.
    Let me start by saying that I do believe we've had a very 
strong focus on fuel distribution in the war games that we've 
executed over the last year, I think a significant increase in 
visibility to look at that. And you're right; there are no easy 
solutions. That's one thing that we've taken away.
    But let me just summarize three hard-hitting strategic 
observations that we've pulled from the war games and exercises 
that we've seen. First and foremost, we have to get better with 
decisively being able to see ourselves globally. I will tell 
you that any operational energy problem that we face today, 
tomorrow, or in the future, is a global problem. It's a global 
ecosystem that we have to look at. So we have to be able to see 
ourselves going forward.
    One of the action items that we're taking out of recent war 
games and exercises to advance that proposition is we have 
tasked the development of an end-to-end energy operating 
picture. Common operating picture was called a COP. We're going 
to take a first look at that in December, and we're encouraged. 
It's something that we're going to have to do across many, many 
things, fuel and munitions, but that is strategic observation 
and lesson-learned number one and one action point to get after 
it.
    Number two, from our war games and exercises, it is 
apparent that we have a persistent shortage of intratheater 
distribution assets. So if we look at the Pacific theater, and 
I would dare say it's not limited to the Pacific but that is a 
significant focus, we are getting after that problem set. I can 
talk more about how we're doing it, given more time later on. 
But I will tell you that we define that problem set in terms of 
the last tactical thousand miles because the theater is so big, 
but we have got to look at solution sets for intratheater 
distribution going forward.
    One tangible example that we're getting after is you are 
likely familiar with the Vice Chairman's emphasis on the Joint 
Requirements and Oversight Committee, and we have worked very 
hard within that to charter a look at multiple capable 
distribution platforms. So we can take all of the services and 
what they bring to the fight and look across that and find 
joint solutions so that we can close that gap.
    And then finally, I would tell you that it is obvious from 
our war games that the importance of allies and partners and 
industry, it jumps off the page at us on what we need to do 
forward. So we've conducted numerous engagements with our 
allies and partners. They possess unique capabilities to help 
us diversify our energy needs in the Pacific theater and other 
places around the globe.
    Thank you for the question.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, General. Gentlemen, thank you all.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Scott. You've raised an 
important issue here; we're going to follow up on the diesel 
issue that you raised and the quality of the fuel, and we'll 
want to write that into some of our report here and get 
feedback.
    Thank you for the question.
    A little bit of housekeeping here. Mr. Kahele presented 
photography and also some information. I'm not sure that we can 
take your water and put it into the record, but all of the rest 
of it will be put into the record without unanimous consent. 
We'll do that. Very good.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mr. Garamendi. We now have Mr. Bergman. You're up.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. We always do a comm [communication] 
check. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Garamendi. Yes, we can.
    Mr. Bergman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member. Thank you to the panel.
    Number one, I was very excited to hear you just explain how 
the war-gaming and the joint environment is to establish where 
the vulnerabilities are with our, whether it's electric, 
whether it's diesel, whether it's hydrogen. No matter what the 
capability that we're going to bring to the fight, it's going 
to enable you to win in the fight.
    And it was good to hear of all the joint exercises that 
you're doing. I would suggest to you it would be helpful for 
us, as members of especially of this committee, to understand 
more of that. So if there's a way to do, for lack of a better 
term, whether it's a simple tabletop exercise, you know, with 
flat screens and, you know, in an operation center, however you 
want to do it, that would be helpful for this committee to 
understand some of the things that you're going through because 
I'm going to make an assumption that all of you sitting at the 
table are warfighters. That's why you wear the uniform. And 
there's only one outcome in a warfight, and that's to win. And 
you win by, number one, never quitting; but, number two, by 
preparing in advance. So in the Sun Tzu fashion, if you do it 
right, you don't have to fight because the adversary decides 
that you will destroy them in the fight. So I applaud all of 
you for that.
    There is no one-size-fits-all solution to what we're 
talking about. And the ability to innovate is going to come 
from industry, not from the United States military, not from 
the Department of Defense. Will you have a hand in it? Yes, by 
evaluating and making suggestions for requirements that allow 
contracts to be let that allow new capabilities to be 
introduced into the system at a rate so that we are ahead.
    I really don't have any questions, other than--and I'm 
going to close with one comment, because time is valuable with 
any time you can yield back, is that I would suggest to you 
that as warfighters and all of you are commanders coming up 
through your O-5 ranks and O-6 and above, but I would suggest 
to you the biggest climate issue that you could be working on 
within your services is your command climate.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Bergman, we thank you for your comments 
and for your experience. And this committee will lean on all of 
the members as we drive the policy or assist in achieving the 
goal here of reducing the energy consumption and the resiliency 
of the military in that regard. So thank you, and you made a 
very good statement but I want to get deeper into your own 
personal knowledge. So we'll come at you.
    Mr. Wilson, you're next. I don't know where my Democratic 
colleagues are, but we'll run through the Republicans here.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And in 
the tradition of Congressman Lamborn being so visionary, I 
appreciate that he raised the issue of the microreactors. And 
I'm very grateful to represent the Savannah River Site 
laboratory in South Carolina and the microreactors, small 
modular reactors [SMRs]. What a potential we have. And, 
particularly, Admiral, with the potential of, say, on a base 
which is an island, i.e., Parris Island or Guam, and I think 
how helpful it would be to have small modular reactors. And 
then, Admiral, too, with the experience of nuclear submarines, 
nuclear aircraft carriers, gosh, we should be on the cusp of 
truly achieving what Congressman Lamborn has described. And 
however that can be facilitated, I know I would be interested 
and I look forward to working with you on that.
    And then, General Gamble, the Army has been pursuing the 
Advanced Combat Engine, ACE, since 2015 at a substantial cost 
to taxpayers while trying to fund over 30 critical 
modernization priorities. Meanwhile, there are fully developed 
combat vehicle proven engines from industry that offer similar 
fuel efficiency at a potentially lower cost. Do you believe 
that the ACE substantially exceeds the performance capabilities 
of existing engines, particularly with respect to fuel 
efficiency and reliability? Can you describe what metrics the 
Army is using to make this comparison and the status of the ACE 
in achieving them? And finally, can you commit to publicly 
releasing performance data and status, as industry competitors 
would, so that we can ensure that taxpayer dollars are being 
spent on the most capable, efficient, and reliable solution?
    General Gamble. Congressman, thanks very much for your 
question. I regret to inform you I'm unprepared to answer. If I 
may take it for the record, I assure you we'll have a thorough 
answer, including your last point, sir. Over.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And I look forward to 
receiving your response.
    General Gamble. Yes, sir.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mr. Wilson. The next question for General Barrett. As a 
part of the joint task force, the operational energy 
requirements of the land component will directly affect the 
size of air and maritime logistics requirements, which, in 
turn, need security forces and further increase operational 
energy demands. Can you share on how the Joint Staff analyzed 
its future operational energy needs and how this analysis 
drives recommendations for force array across combatant 
commands?
    General Barrett. Congressman, thanks for the question. And, 
yes, I can share some thoughts on that. First, I would say--I'd 
like to make the point that we don't fight as services, we 
fight as a joint force. And so all of us here are committed to 
understanding what are the joint requirements to win our 
Nation's wars and to contribute to integrated deterrence going 
forward.
    With that specific question on operational energy, what I'd 
like to pose to you is that we certainly rely on our combatant 
commanders, in particular their theater posture plans, as we 
look to the future with exercises of the joint force and what 
the energy requirement is. We rely on them and their posture 
plans to forecast for the future.
    And then a very important organization that I know you know 
well is the Defense Logistics Agency. And so the Defense 
Logistics Agency has an important responsibility to take those 
theater posture plans and develop global petroleum distribution 
plans that help us define what those requirements would be, not 
only today but as we look to the future. That next plan we're 
anticipating out in the spring of 2022, which will help us look 
forward to the next year.
    But I would go further in to tell you that, as we look to 
changing operational constructs in the future, you're familiar 
with the joint warfighting construct and where we perhaps go 
with that, it's important for us to continue to use exercises 
and analysis so that we can stay ahead of what DLA develops as 
a global demand because, where the warfighter changes their 
scheme of maneuver, logistics must follow. And so we are 
committed to continue to look at service support constructs and 
where that meets joint requirements.
    Thank you for the question.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. I want to thank each of 
you for your service, as a very grateful Army dad, three sons 
serving in the Army; and Navy dad, one in the Navy; and also 
grateful son-in-law of a Marine who served with distinction in 
World War II; and my dad served with the Army Air Corps, Flying 
Tigers, in India and China. So thank you all for your service.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. What about the Space 
Force? What member of your family is in Space Force?
    Mr. Wilson. Well, hey, hey, hey, I was with the Commander 
General Raymond last week at the Clemson victory over UCONN 
[University of Connecticut], so, hey, but that's my association 
with Space Force. But I want to give credit, actually, to 
Congressman Mike Rogers for his persistence and President 
Trump's vision to have a Space Force. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi. Very good segue. Moving on here, Mrs. 
McClain, you're up.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to 
applaud all of you on the monumental task of the refugee 
airlift out of Afghanistan. The logistical challenge that you 
all faced and actually conquered was nothing short of 
miraculous, so thank you for your efforts on that.
    I want to discuss the Army's plans to transition both the 
tactical and the non-tactical wheeled vehicles, the wheeled 
vehicle fleet to hybrid of all-electric vehicles. While I 
completely agree with the Department's conclusion that the 
logistics of providing fuel to our vehicles in areas of 
operation is daunting, clearly, I'm concerned that the 
technology to provide the power, whether it be battery or 
recharging capabilities, may be too far in the future to 
consider a major transition in our vehicle fleet on the short 
term.
    Lieutenant General Gamble, what is the Army's approach and 
really timeline for that transition?
    General Gamble. Congresswoman, thanks for your question. I 
do agree with your assertion that maybe some of the 
technologies are out of reach in the near term and our 
electrification strategy reflects that. The tactical and combat 
vehicle electrification initial capabilities document was 
developed; it was a pathway to aim for full electrification, 
first into our light and medium tactical vehicles by 2035 and 
the heavy tactical wheeled vehicle fleet after 2036. And some 
of that, that's full electrification. The timelines that are in 
our strategy or in our initial capabilities document reflect 
what you said, that full electrification at the forward edge of 
the battlefield may not be technologically achievable, given 
the requirements for combat operations, at this point.
    But left of that, as I stated, tried to articulate earlier, 
left of that, infusion of start-stop technology, anti-idle 
technology, which is mature, and hybridization which we think 
is near maturity, both in combat vehicles and our light 
tactical wheeled vehicles, we think that is achievable between 
now and 2030.
    And then, ma'am, you hit on something that we also, I 
think, well, I know the Army sees it the same way. The 
electrification of our non-tactical vehicles in our garrisons 
and our installations provides us opportunities to look at ways 
we can inform the force and to innovate, quite frankly, as 
highlighted by other members of this distinguished committee, 
the innovation that comes from our national industrial base, 
not our organic industrial base but our broader national 
industrial base which includes our commercial partners.
    So using non-tactical wheeled vehicles and understanding 
the use of them, understanding the technology, building trust 
in our soldiers, our civilians, and our leaders in our non-
tactical wheeled vehicle fleet and the infrastructure that goes 
along with that non-tactical wheeled vehicle fleet in garrisons 
will help us transition and fully understand not only the 
technology but the challenges associated with incorporating it 
into our combat vehicles.
    And so, in a nutshell, we do have a three-phased approach 
that reflects your assertion, that some of the technology is 
slightly out of reach at this point in time. So we're starting 
with anti-idle, moving to hybrid electric, with an aim to full 
electric----
    Mrs. McClain. I appreciate that. I have one more question, 
and just in the interest of time; I don't mean to cut you off. 
But how does the Army plan on providing the electricity to 
vehicles in the combat zones? I think that's what I'm trying to 
grasp. I mean, we're going into a combat zone, and we're trying 
to provide electricity. How do you see that happening?
    General Gamble. So, ma'am, you've described a daunting 
challenge. We don't--I don't mean to be glib, so please forgive 
me. But we don't envision mobile charging stations like, you 
know, our Army installations have. But hybrid electric is 
within our reach. Other fuel technologies, as highlighted by 
the other distinguished members of the committee; hydrogen fuel 
cells may provide us an opportunity to electrify vehicles on 
the move. But the first, we're thinking big and starting small.
    We do think, though, that our first purpose-built all-
electric vehicle we'll prototype in fiscal year 2022, an 
electric light reconnaissance vehicle. So while it's very 
small, there is room, we believe, in current technology for 
very small full electrification today, and we are working 
through those challenges as you described.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, sir. We have to start somewhere, 
right?
    General Gamble. Yes, ma'am. Think big, start small.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mrs. McClain. A good series of 
questions, and good answers, directed at the Army. I'm going to 
take to each one of you, the services, to answer the same 
question. Start small. What's your next step, and what is your 
vision beyond that next step?
    Let's start with, I'm going to start with the Navy and the 
Marine Corps. And I specifically want to bring to light your 
Navy contested logistics war room as a way of answering the 
issue that Mrs. McClain brought forward. So I'll leave it to 
the admiral and the general to fight out who goes first. It 
looks like the admiral.
    Admiral Williamson. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to 
talk about my war room. Basically, this effort started about 
2\1/2\ years ago and, as I mentioned, our five-vector model, 
looking at refuel, rearm, revive, and resupply our fleet.
    We talk a lot about operational energy. The one thing I 
think we have learned is it's all commodity. We have to 
understand what the fleet needs to be lethal.
    The intent of our war room is to do data analysis to be 
able to see, as General Barrett talked, ourselves is incredibly 
valuable to us, particularly in this space. We put a lot of 
effort into digital transformation, looking at modernizing our 
LOG IT systems. Being able to start small, is it capable of 
seeing what a ship or squadron is actually consuming at the 
tactical end?
    In our world, in my world, the idea of endurance is not a 
new one. We understand fuel, we understand food. You have to 
have those two things. But we are finding through our learning 
that that's also very applicable to weapon systems. It's very 
applicable to every commodity that a ship consumes.
    We look at that, not through just the continuum of inter/
intra last tactical mile, but we work very closely with DASN 
[Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for] Sustainment. In 
this learning, as we are gaining this information, we are 
feeding it back to our industrial base to ensure that they 
understand what endurance means to us. Are the parts that we 
are procuring lasting as long as they should be? Are there 
single points of failure within our supply chain? Another part 
of the analysis that we partner with DASN Sustainment.
    And then the other part that comes out of LOG [logistics] 
war room through this analysis is marrying the supply chain 
with the distribution network and understanding that all the 
way from CONUS [continental United States] to the last tactical 
mile, to the sailor, the Marine, out there on an island or in 
the high north or wherever those individuals are, and being 
able to do the analysis to inform our acquisition process, the 
platforms in which we purchase. Can we come up with innovative 
solutions on how to solve those issues.
    We work very closely with the other services. We work very 
closely with the Joint Staff. We solidify that through our war-
gaming process. The CNO and the SECNAV, obviously, they 
understand the significance of logistics. It is now part of our 
narrative in our NAV [Navigation] Plan signed up by the CNO and 
his guidance to me, so much so that he has directed us to run a 
series of three war games. We have completed our first, which 
baselined us. Our next one, based on our learning, is to take 
the fuel, the commodities, all the things necessary to make our 
fleet lethal, and play that game, validate our assumptions, and 
then go into the acquisition process as we start generating 
those assets.
    And then the other part of it that General Barrett 
mentioned is also the allies and partners and having robust 
conversations with them and what are their supply chain 
capabilities and what is their logistics system and how do we 
fit into theirs and how they fit into ours.
    And I'd offer General Banta his comments.
    General Banta. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the 
opportunity to comment and Admiral Williamson for those leading 
comments.
    So the Marine Corps, first off, has been very fortunate to 
benefit and work hand in glove with the Navy through their war 
room. We have liaison officers on the Navy staff in our Marine 
Corps Warfighting Lab, as well as our folks down in our 
Expeditionary Energy Office, are closely tied in with those 
efforts.
    So I agree with everything that has been said thus far, 
particularly if we're talking about electrification of future 
vehicle fleets, especially in a tactical environment. That 
would be very much of a long-term goal. I think hybrid electric 
is much more of a near-term goal and, before that, it's how do 
we reduce the demand on fuel through being more efficient with 
our existing platforms. And we've made some successes there 
with software upgrades to our MTVR fleet, our medium tactical 
vehicle fleet, that yield 10-15 percent efficiency in current 
fuel sources. And as we think about future vehicles, we will 
clearly be very interested in being able to look at hybrid 
electric technology as it becomes more available.
    I think this also underscores the importance of improving 
our distribution, which we talk about in our Marine Corps 2030 
strategic logistics plan and strategy. Critical to that as we 
think in terms of sustaining our stand-in forces in a 
distributed environment are the ability to get fuel where it 
needs to be. So as we work with the Navy and with the joint 
force on littoral connectors, particularly the light amphibious 
warship which I mentioned earlier, and the opportunity, 
potentially, through leased or contract vessels that we would 
be able to experiment on improving the distribution of fuel 
into our endpoint of use, obviously with the goal of reducing 
consumption in the long term but, in the near term, we will 
still probably have a degree of reliance there.
    And we're happy to talk with the committee members more on 
an in-depth level of our efforts with respect to demand 
reduction, should there be an interest to do so. So thank you 
for the opportunity to comment, Mr. Chairman.
    General Berry. Mr. Chairman, I would just echo. I think our 
strategy is along the lines of what the Army is, right, think 
big and start small. I mentioned some of those already. You 
know, we do exercises and war games that help inform 
operational concepts that will work. That leads to some 
capability gap analysis and identification. We then do 
experimentation and do some pilots, perhaps launch some R&D 
[research and development] programs. So that's where we get 
into some of the expeditionary energy solutions that we're 
testing out now, like photovoltaic cells and battery and 
hybrid, much like what General Gamble said.
    We also do operational energy enhancements on, you know, 
weapon systems, microvanes on C-17s that are looking very 
promising in terms of allowing those aircraft to fly much more 
fuel efficiently and having a great return on investment for 
what we would have to do to put the modification on the 
aircraft versus the fuel savings that we would get once that 
modification is in place.
    But what I might offer to you, Mr. Chairman, is the 
question you posed at the very beginning: Where do we need 
Congress' help? I think all of us are in the realm of doing the 
war-gaming, the exercising, experimentation. The challenge, I 
think, that we will have moving forward is, once we find things 
that work, how do we scale it? That's the challenge. How do you 
scale it? And that has long been what I would, you know, what 
we, in the Air Force, sometimes call the valley of death where 
the R&D project launches, you have success, you think it's a 
viable way forward, but then scaling it becomes very 
challenging.
    Certainly, in the Air Force, you know, our Nation asks us 
to do more than the resources that the Air Force has to do it, 
and so it's a very keen competition with all the things that we 
need to bring to bear from an Air Force to support the joint 
fight to get these things in the program. The onus is on us as 
the logisticians, the professional logisticians, to make that 
case in our service to get it into our budget. But when they 
are in the budget, I think Congress' help here is to help us 
keep those in the budget so that we can scale some of these 
ideas at a rapid pace.
    Mr. Garamendi. General Gamble, do you want to add--you 
started the conversation. It's moved on. Do you want to add 
about your own war-gaming and how that's fitting into this?
    General Gamble. Yes, sir. So I mentioned earlier our 
operational energy strategy that's under development. It's--I 
think it's important for me to state that it's under 
development by Army Futures Command. That's where all our 
experimentation, war-gaming that informs our modernization 
program occurs. So it is inextricably linked. The modernization 
efforts, the tactical wheeled vehicle electrification strategy, 
it's all fully nested with the Army modernization programs.
    And so the Project Convergence 21, I was just there this 
last month at White Sands Missile Range where operational 
energy was front and center in their Army modernization 
efforts. On display were microgrids, leader-follower technology 
on some of our cargo vehicles that, while it doesn't reduce 
energy consumption, it reduces the overall number of vehicles 
required to deliver the same goods. So while it's not platform-
centric, it's formation-centric with more distribution with 
less vehicles, which, overall, is a reduction of demand.
    So that's the only thing I'd like to close at least this 
last question with is that in the Army we're inextricably 
linked. Our modernization programs, the visions associated with 
that, all the experimentation that feeds that, operational 
energy is inherently a part of that.
    Mr. Garamendi. I'm going to come back after our--Mr. 
Kahele, you're next, if you'd like to follow up questions.
    Mr. Kahele. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to go 
back to Red Hill. And, Vice Admiral Williamson, I know that you 
don't have all the answers concerning Red Hill and the SECNAV 
and Admiral Nott and others in Hawaii, and commander of PAC 
[Pacific] Fleet, is directly addressing this situation.
    But maybe you can talk to the bulk fuel storage in the 
Pacific. You know, we talked about the subterranean tanks at 
Red Hill, and right now there's about 110 million gallons 
there. It has the capability if all 20 tanks were filled at 
12.5 million gallons each, you could have about 250 million 
gallons of fuel in Hawaii. We know that there's smaller but 
bulk fuel storage facilities in the Pacific, but what does 
the--has the Navy looked at or the Pentagon looked at how much 
fuel we would need in the Pacific to execute the Pacific 
Deterrence Initiative or to posture our forces in the Pacific, 
because that's something that I think the people of Hawaii 
don't understand or would like answers to, and maybe that's 
something that is in your wheelhouse to address.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. As I mentioned----
    Mr. Garamendi. If I might just interrupt a moment, please 
take this in a general point, and we'll come back in a 
classified hearing. We're getting into some serious stuff here. 
Admiral, if you'll, in a general way, answer the question.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. And thank you. Sir, in very 
general terms, obviously, the Navy is responsible for the joint 
force fuel requirements to the high water mark. The analysis 
that I spoke about earlier through our games and our learning, 
understanding the impacts of operational energy, having the 
data and being able to see ourselves allows us to do better 
nodal analysis. And from a theater posture perspective, we're 
best to position those stores.
    Sir, I'll absolutely come back with you. We get classified 
very quickly talking about this, but I'd be more than happy to 
get on your calendar and come back and give you a much more 
detailed answer than that.
    Mr. Kahele. When we're referring to the subject of energy 
on this committee, you know, there are other military bases 
throughout the Nation that have bulk fuel storage, whether 
they're above ground or subterranean, that have had leaks and 
issues. The Pacific Northwest is one example, and we have 
addressed that issue in that particular case.
    You know, has the Navy looked at or will the Navy look at, 
if you needed a certain amount of fuel in the Pacific in 
Hawaii, you know what we have now in terms of the underground 
tanks. How could we do something differently that would 
preserve the fuel that we need for our national defense and 
readiness but also protect the environment, protect the 
community, and the aquifer that right now doesn't seem to be 
happening.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Obviously, like I said 
before, the safety of the community, the people, is paramount 
to us. Without getting into the classified level, sir, I would 
love to be able to come back to you and talk and discuss that 
with you. We do look at that on a very regular basis, and I'd 
be more than happy to come back and provide you with that 
detail.
    Mr. Kahele. Two things that the delegation conveyed to the 
SECNAV is that, you know, there is considerable resources spent 
at Red Hill, but, often, it's because the delegation is 
bringing those resources through the budget. We would really 
like to see in the next budget the Navy, the Pentagon, 
prioritize Red Hill, whether it's secondary containment, moving 
the facility, addressing the issue in its budget when it 
submits it to the Congress, that shows how serious the Navy is 
in taking this issue seriously.
    And just on a final note, you talk about how the Navy is 
serious about addressing this. In just recent community 
meetings over the last few days when families and military 
families have spoken about their concerns, about what they've 
had to endure and deal with in terms of their health and 
sickness, responses by senior Navy leaders in Hawaii have 
really brushed off their concerns and said that they're 
continuing to drink the water and that they don't feel that 
there may be an issue, they're still continuing to use or 
shower with the water. And that just doesn't convey a sense of 
seriousness in the situation. And I would highly suggest that 
our senior Navy leaders in Hawaii and military representatives 
show that empathy and compassion to the people of Hawaii and 
the military residents in Hawaii when these concerns are being 
brought to them.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Kahele. A couple of things. I 
know you're going to be leaving in a moment, and we're going to 
be terminating the committee in just a few moments also. A 
couple of things. There are technologies available that are 
able to cleanse water, and it may very well be that there's 
evidence of an ongoing contamination, either small consistent 
or episodic but contamination. It may very well be in the next 
budget, or the next NDAA we may want to put in place for the 
water systems themselves a technique to cleanse the water. They 
do exist.
    The other piece of this is, as we've gone through this 
hearing, I keep coming back to the recent work of Congress, 
two-thirds of which is done. The remaining--well, half is done. 
The remaining issues are the NDAA, pertinent to what we're 
talking about here today, and the Build Back Better 
legislation, together with the infrastructure legislation. 
Those two pieces of legislation have a very, very significant 
amount of money to deal with water systems and contaminated.
    On the NDAA side of it, there is language in the current 
version, at least the House version, of the NDAA dealing with 
the clean-up of past contamination, and that's an ongoing 
issue. And so we'll circle back not only in the conference 
committee on those issues. The passage of the infrastructure 
bill does have money for communities to put in advanced water 
systems. And so all of these things may come together.
    Also, a couple of thoughts from the chairman here is that 
the military is moving out on these issues of reducing 
dependency on petroleum products. None of you, although in your 
written testimony did, but none of our oral testimony spoke to 
what you're actually doing: electrification of aircraft, small 
albeit; but, nonetheless, it's happening.
    Also in your written testimony, you spoke to--all of you 
spoke to using your research to improve the efficiency of the 
systems that currently consume petroleum products. And I want 
to compliment you on that. It has been noticed.
    Also, in the current--in the House version of the NDAA and 
in setting up in past versions of the NDAA is moving to the 
non-tactical vehicle fleet. Running around on all of your bases 
are a whole bunch of internal combustion engine vehicles. It is 
the intent, at least this chairman of this committee, if I can 
persuade others to go along, is that the second largest fleet 
of electric vehicles will be the U.S. military fleet of the 
non-tactical vehicles that are operating on all of your bases. 
You will be second behind the Post Office.
    The other piece of this is that you don't need to invent 
this. It's happening.
    Also, in the infrastructure bill is a vast amount of money 
for the electrification grid. I draw your attention to that. I 
see all of you nodding; you're familiar with it. There will be 
new techniques, new technologies, and new ways of providing a 
grid that can sustain a charging system. All of that is 
happening, and the adaption of that by the military, perhaps in 
lead or in following, either way, it will be part of your 
future life.
    So our goal here today was to find ways and to illuminate 
the need to reduce the consumption of petroleum-based energy 
for the purposes of climate change, for the purposes of cost, 
and to, where and when possible, to have a more effective 
military, whether that's the ability to conduct operations or 
to be able to reduce your cost factors so that you can spend 
money on other things that are high priority. So we're going to 
drive that issue. There will be a series of questions that we 
will deliver to all of you in the days ahead, more specificity 
following up on this.
    Also, and this goes to General Barrett, you've got a very, 
very important task here. We don't have Space Force here yet, 
but we'll figure out. We do know that rockets consume a vast 
amount of energy and develop a very significant addition to the 
climate issue. Leaving that aside for a moment, General 
Barrett, it is, I would hope, and we've already talked about 
this, you know it is your responsibility to make sure all of us 
are working together, that the stovepipe doesn't exist and that 
you work across all of the joint force. And so we'll be coming 
back to you on that. We want to go into this in a classified 
setting to answer many of the questions that Mr. Kahele has 
raised and others have raised, and we will do so.
    We did not cover today, and I want to compliment myself for 
not bringing up the logistics issue. I have been warned and 
double-warned that I could get off on a tangent. Control 
yourself, Chairman. I do want to come back to the logistics. We 
will do a specific hearing in the coming year, early in the 
coming year, on logistics so that we can inform ourselves on 
what is needed in the next NDAA. So be prepared for that. I 
know that all of you are working on that issue, and it involves 
techniques, technology, and new equipment along the way. And 
we'll want to get into that in depth so that we fully inform 
the next NDAA that you have what you need to address not only 
in the question of how you're going to reduce your consumption 
of fuel but also how you will deliver that reduced amount of 
fuel.
    With that, Mr. Lamborn, anything to add?
    Gentlemen, thank you, thank your staff. And by the way, 
comment, the alliteration that went into the Navy's document 
was noted. The five Rs and the five Cs. Thank you very, very 
much.
    [Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
     
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                            December 2, 2021
     
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                            December 2, 2021

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

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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                            December 2, 2021

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

                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT

    Mr. Scott. What are the Army's power generation requirements to 
support the modernization efforts of the Army Futures Command?
    General Gamble. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. What is the Army's current fielding plans for Advanced 
Medium Mobile Power Sources (AMMPS) and how does the Army plan to 
fulfill future contract needs?
    General Gamble. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. How does the Army plan to insert new technology into the 
existing architecture to enable advanced control features that will 
provide secure protocols and communications, enable telematic 
capability and provide easy integration of renewables and energy 
storage that is compatible with the current fleet of AMMPS generators?
    General Gamble. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. What is the U.S. Army's plan to leverage Mobile Electric 
Hybrid Power Sources (MEHPS) with the U.S. Marine Corps?
    General Gamble. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]

                                  [all]