[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 115-81]
________________________________
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
meeting jointly with
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMAND POSTURE
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 8, 2018
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
29-459 WASHINGTON : 2019
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona, Vice Chair ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi RO KHANNA, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
Thomas Hawley, Professional Staff Member
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff Member
Megan Handal, Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama, Vice Chair JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
PAUL COOK, California SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
David Sienicki, Professional Staff Member
Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
Megan Handal, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces....... 2
WITNESSES
Buzby, RADM Mark H., USN (Ret.), Administrator, Maritime
Administration................................................. 6
McDew, Gen Darren W., USAF, Commander, United States
Transportation Command......................................... 4
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Buzby, RADM Mark H........................................... 62
McDew, Gen Darren W.......................................... 36
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 33
Wittman, Hon. Robert J....................................... 34
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Ms. Hanabusa................................................. 71
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Byrne.................................................... 76
Mr. Conaway.................................................. 75
Mr. Cook..................................................... 75
Mr. Gallagher................................................ 76
MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMAND POSTURE
----------
House of Representatives, Committee on Armed
Services, Subcommittee on Readiness, Meeting
Jointly with the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces, Washington, DC, Thursday,
March 8, 2018.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in
Room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Wilson. Good morning. The subcommittees of the House
Armed Services Committee will come to order. I welcome each of
you to this joint hearing of the Readiness Subcommittee and the
Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee on the posture of
U.S. Transportation Command.
Today, the subcommittee will hear from the commander of
Transportation Command [TRANSCOM] and the administrator of the
Maritime Administration [MARAD] on how well the Department of
Defense is postured to meet the heavy and sustained logistical
demands of a major conflict.
While TRANSCOM has operational control of some Air Force-
and Navy-owned aircraft and ships for this mission, a major
contingency will require the substantial assistance of the U.S.
commercial air and shipping fleet.
Further, TRANSCOM must rely on the military departments to
budget for critical organic assets, such as ships, planes, and
ports, and the commercial air and shipping industry to
willingly participate in defense logistical programs. TRANSCOM
can influence but cannot direct Army, Navy, and Air Force
budget decisions nor commercial industry business decisions.
We understand that there are some deficiencies in the
complex system that must be addressed. Among these are the Air
Force's aging tanker fleet and some near-obsolete vessels that
are part of our surge sealift fleet.
Today we welcome the witnesses' perspectives on these
issues and any recommendations they may have.
Before I introduce the witnesses, I turn to the
distinguished ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, the
gentlelady from Guam, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, for her
opening statements.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 33.]
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE FROM GUAM,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
General McDew, Mr. Buzby, thank you for being here today.
Gentlemen, as a resident of Guam, I am very familiar with
the importance of a resilient logistics chain, and I do thank
you for your efforts to bolster support to our military forces
around the globe.
These committees remain advocates to ensure that TRANSCOM
and MARAD are provided the resources they need to deliver full-
spectrum global mobility solutions to geographic combatant
commanders in both peace and war.
While both agencies have been supporting ongoing military
operations for decades, the conflicts have generally been
permissive to air and sea sustainment.
I understand that CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command]
requirements have burdened the services, but I am concerned
that we may be slow to react to potential high-end threats, or
inadequately planning for and programming the capabilities
needed to sustain the joint force in a contested environment.
So that said, I look forward to hearing from you today
about your priorities, areas of concern, and how the fiscal
year 2019 budget request will address these issues and balance
current force sustainment, while bridging future capability
gaps.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo.
We now proceed to the distinguished chairman of the
Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, a great friend of
the military of the United States, Congressman Rob Wittman of
Virginia.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND
PROJECTION FORCES
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Chairman Wilson.
And I want to welcome General McDew and Admiral Buzby, and
thank them for your time and effort that they have made on this
extraordinarily important issue.
And I also want to thank Chairman Wilson for offering to
have this joint subcommittee hearing today. I believe there are
a number of overlapping issues between our two subcommittees,
and I look forward to working with the gentleman from South
Carolina to move these issues through the NDAA [National
Defense Authorization Act] process.
Gentlemen, I think the Department of Defense [DOD] needs to
reassess its commitment to a core military competency:
logistics. At the heart of any successful campaign is a
logistics train that provides the bullets and butter to the
combatant forces in a timely manner.
While high-profile acquisition programs are prioritized,
little-known capabilities are left to continue their operations
with little funding. It is obvious to me that we need to turn
our attention to airlift and sealift elements of our military
strategy and take immediate steps to improve our logistics
capabilities.
Today, we have a surge sealift force that averages 42 years
old. Certain officials have referred to this sealift force as
the last bastion of steam-powered technology in the world. In
fact, by 2020, TRANSCOM will own almost all of the steam-plant
ships in the world. This is not a moniker that I relish, but it
is a good example of the plight of our sealift forces.
While MARAD has done an extraordinary job of maintaining
and activating select Ready Reserve Force ships, the reality of
a full activation of this aged fleet is, at best, circumspect.
I am equally perplexed that this military has not to date
presumed attrition in their auxiliary force requirements. It is
pretty obvious that we have overly optimized our forces for
peace. As envisioned by the National Defense Strategy, it is
time that we shift our focus to get ready for a future of a
potential conflict.
I look forward to General McDew's assessment as to the
impacts of the National Defense Strategy on the mobility
forces. After meeting with General McDew last week, it is my
understanding that an updated report on auxiliary forces, to
include attrition, will be completed by the fall.
As to our strategic airlift capabilities, today we depend
on a much smaller fleet to move cargo, personnel, to medevac
the wounded, and to support disaster relief around the globe.
For example, the last hurricane efforts with Hurricane
Maria and Irma left us with an insufficient strategic airlift
capability available to move troops and cargo to Afghanistan in
a timely manner, threatening the Department of Defense's
ability to blunt Taliban territorial gains. So when we get
spread thin, the ability for us to do all the jobs gets
stretched to the breaking point.
I am concerned that outdated planning assumptions need to
be reviewed. I believe that assumptions made for an ongoing
mobility capability and requirements must take into account the
logistical needs of a future dispersed battlefield.
Furthermore, the administration has made it clear that it
wants to increase Army and Marine Corps force structure that
will drive even greater mobility requirements. Additionally,
areas are becoming less permissive for civilian aviation's
operations to deliver these additional soldiers and Marines to
their areas of operation, increasing demands on an already
insufficient fleet of strategic lift aircraft.
Consequently, I believe it is critical for TRANSCOM to
thoroughly consider how to best increase strategic airlift
capacity and its ability to operate in contested environments
around the globe.
At the conclusion of World War II, Fleet Admiral Ernest
King reflected on our success and our shortcomings. He
indicated, ``The war has been variously termed a war of
production and a war of machines. Whatever else it is, so far
as the United States is concerned, it is a war of logistics.''
It is time that we reflect on Admiral King's assessment, an
assessment that was paid for with the blood and sweat of the
Greatest Generation. Today, we need to ensure that our
logistics capability will provide the lift required in a timely
manner to support our military objectives.
I thank Chairman Wilson for working with the Seapower and
Projection Forces Subcommittee on this important issue. And I
yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the
Appendix on page 34.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Rob Wittman.
I am grateful today to recognize our dedicated witnesses.
We have extraordinary people who are with us today and we
appreciate you taking time to be here.
We have General Darren McDew, Commander, U.S.
Transportation Command; and Rear Admiral (retired) Mark Buzby,
the administrator of the Maritime Administration.
As we begin, we want to remind the witnesses that your full
written statements will be submitted to the record and that you
summarize your comments to 5 minutes or less.
And, General McDew, we are grateful to begin with you, and
look forward to your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GEN DARREN W. McDEW, USAF, COMMANDER, U.S.
TRANSPORTATION COMMAND
General McDew. [Turns on microphone.] I forget that every
time.
Thank you. And good morning, Chairmen Wilson and Wittman,
Ranking Members Bordallo and Courtney, and distinguished
members of the subcommittees. Thank you for this opportunity.
As I have told some of you during office calls, I don't
look forward to testimonies. I am an introvert. It is not one
of my favorite things to do. But it is also what I have told my
staff is one of the most important things I do every year. So
thank you very much for the opportunity.
It is also an honor to be sitting here next to a great
shipmate and a talented leader, Admiral Buzby. I rely on his
sage advice to ensure that the U.S. maritime industry remains
postured and prepared to support our national defense.
So thank you for the opportunity to represent the men and
women of the United States Transportation Command, who are
actually watching this morning, because they want to make sure
that I don't get this wrong.
Those men and women who make up this command underwrite--
and I say it again--underwrite the joint force's lethality and
with an unparalleled expeditionary capability. And just to say
it shortly, I am very, very proud of them.
USTRANSCOM's total force team works together every day to
provide our Nation with a broad range of strategic capabilities
and options, options that many nations don't have. But they
don't do it alone.
I wish every American understood how much we rely on the
Nation's truck drivers, conductors, commercial pilots,
mariners, stevedores, and much more to meet national defense
requirements.
USTRANSCOM is a global warfighting command with functional
responsibilities and expertise, and we take it proudly. We move
and sustain the joint force, but we are also responsible for
the expansive joint deployment and distribution enterprise.
I can say with full confidence that today, USTRANSCOM
stands ready to deliver on behalf of the Nation's objectives
anywhere, at any time.
However, as I said last year, I remain concerned about the
future. As we refocus our efforts on great power competition,
we are faced with adversaries who want to challenge our
democratic values and undermine our security and the existing
balance of power.
In this environment, the logistics enterprise must always
be ready. We must restore readiness and increase lethality
across the joint force. The resources necessary to transport
and sustain America's military must keep pace.
Our ability to deploy decisive force is foundational to the
National Defense Strategy. The size and lethality of the force
is of little consequence if we can't get it where it needs to
go when we want it there.
The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act directed a
mobility requirements study, and in fact, the current inventory
of mobility assets is sufficient enough to support combatant
commander requirements.
This study will consider the current strategic context and
use updated assumptions, assumptions such as multi-domain
contested environments, attrition of mobility assets, and the
outcomes of the study will provide valuable insight to ensure
we are able to respond to tomorrow's needs as well.
But USTRANSCOM can't get there alone. We need the weight of
the Nation with us and behind us to ensure that our diplomats,
when they go to the negotiating table, they are negotiating
from a position of strength.
However, one of the greatest threats to that strength is a
result of illicit activities in the cyber domain. Today, our
adversaries don't have to stop us with bombs and bullets. All
they have to do is slow us down with ones and zeroes.
That is the challenge I would say of our time. We have got
to get smarter as an industry and as a nation, not only about
how we protect ourselves, but how we protect each other.
Cyber defense is more than just security, it is about, for
me, mission assurance. It is not just a DOD issue, it is a
national issue. From safeguarding our intellectual property to
guaranteeing the integrity of our elections, we have all got to
be together.
We also face challenges in the physical domain. The current
mix of Active to Reserve Component resources in USTRANSCOM
means that the command relies on the Reserves and National
Guards to fulfill our wartime requirements. For the past three
decades, Reserve Component assets have been used to sustain
day-to-day operational requirements, a function for which they
weren't properly resourced or structured.
Meeting the challenges of the future may require
adjustments to mobilization authorities or force mix to ensure
we have access to vital capacity currently resident in our
Reserve and Guard.
Our patient movement system also presents challenges.
Although USTRANSCOM operates the most robust patient movement
system in the world, we lack sufficient capacities to surge for
large-scale conflict with mass casualties.
The combination of insufficient personnel, equipment,
infrastructure, and capacity for patient movement significantly
decreases the likelihood we will see the same high-level
survival rates that we have all come accustomed. We continue to
work with the services, the Joint Staff and the national health
enterprise to address these challenges.
Finally, we are able to maintain our go-to-war capacity, we
must ask ourselves as a nation who are we and who do we want to
be? The U.S.-flagged fleet has steadily declined since World
War II, from a little over 1,200 ships to 81 remaining today.
That degradation correlates to a decline in qualified
merchant mariners. They are the backbone of our industry. If we
continue to lose this capacity, I am concerned what it will
mean for how we project our force in the future.
Again, thank you very much for this wonderful opportunity
to present the case. And, as you said, the rest of my remarks
will be for the record. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General McDew can be found in
the Appendix on page 36.]
Mr. Wilson. And, General McDew, thank you very much for
your statement. And we appreciate your service so much for our
country.
We now proceed to Rear Admiral Buzby. Please proceed with
your opening statement. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF RADM MARK H. BUZBY, USN (RET.), ADMINISTRATOR,
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Admiral Buzby. Morning, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Wittman,
Ranking Members Courtney and Bordallo, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to this hearing to
discuss MARAD's role in meeting DOD's strategic sealift
requirements.
Our Nation relies on maritime sealift capabilities to
deploy and sustain military forces, respond to national
emergencies, and provide humanitarian assistance at home and
around the world. These assets include a core of government-
owned vessels and a larger fleet of privately owned,
commercially operated U.S.-flagged vessels, intermodal systems,
and mariners who operate them.
During a crisis, these vessels and mariners would transport
90 percent of the equipment and supplies used by our military
around the world.
The government-owned fleet of 61 strategic sealift vessels
includes 15 ships operated by Military Sealift Command and 46
in the Maritime Administration's Ready Reserve Force, the RRF.
These ships constitute the core of our surge sealift fleet and
deliver military equipment and supplies on short notice during
major contingencies. The average age of this fleet is 43 years,
well beyond the designed service life of these ships.
Given the age of the fleet, the readiness of the RRF is a
constant challenge. MARAD is collaborating with our DOD
partners to address maintenance, repair, and modernization of
the existing fleet, while we finalize a long-term
recapitalization strategy.
The RRF is a component of the National Defense Reserve
Fleet, or the NDRF. The NDRF includes vessels used to train
merchant mariners and to provide response to natural disasters.
These ships supported relief activities following Hurricanes
Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and as they have in past crises,
supplying citizens and first responders with housing, meals,
logistical support, and relief supplies.
In their training role, these six NDRF vessels serve as
school ships for more than three-fourths of the entry-level
merchant marine officers who graduate annually from the six
State maritime academies.
Like RRF vessels, several of these school ships are at the
end of their service lives. To ensure the availability of safe
and efficient vessels to meet mariner training needs, the
administration is amending the President's budget request to
include $300 million to replace two of these oldest training
vessels.
The U.S.-flagged commercial fleet is absolutely critical to
the U.S. military's sealift objectives, providing long-term
sustainment during military deployments.
Access to this fleet comes primarily through the Maritime
Security Program, the MSP, which supports a privately owned
U.S.-flagged and U.S.-crewed fleet of 60 militarily useful
commercial ships operating in international trade that are
available to transport government supplies when called upon.
Critically, the MSP helps to ensure the availability of an
adequate pool of highly trained mariners to crew our
government-owned RRF fleet.
Unfortunately, the U.S.-flagged commercial oceangoing fleet
is in serious decline, with just 81 vessels in deep-sea
international trade. Qualified U.S. mariners are needed to
operate the surge fleet of 61 government-owned cargo ships in a
crisis.
Yet, because of the drastic reduction in the size of the
U.S.-flagged oceangoing fleet, the number of qualified mariners
now available to crew a prolonged sealift mobilization is at a
historic low.
MARAD recently assessed the size of this pool needed to
support the U.S.-flagged fleet in a major contingency and
estimated a shortfall of 1,800 mariners for a long-term sealift
effort.
As Maritime Administrator, I take seriously my charge to
ensure that we have enough U.S.-flagged ships and mariners to
serve our Nation's commercial and military sealift
requirements. I am working closely with USTRANSCOM, the
Military Sealift Command, and the U.S. Coast Guard and the
commercial maritime [industry] to address these issues.
Access to cargo is critical for shipowners to compete
globally while operating under the U.S. flag and employing U.S.
mariners. Cargo preference laws keep U.S.-flagged operators
competitive by requiring U.S.-flagged vessels to transport
significant portions of cargoes purchased with Federal funds.
In addition, the Jones Act U.S. build, ownership, and crew
requirements support mariner jobs and give us access to
domestic maritime assets needed in times of war or national
emergency. It also serves national security priorities by
supporting U.S. shipyards and repair facilities that produce
and repair American-built ships. U.S. mariners on Jones Act
vessels serve as another layer of national defense.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss these critical
programs and the contribution of the U.S. merchant marine to
augment DOD's sealift capabilities. I look forward to working
with you to advance the maritime transportation interests of
the United States, and I am happy to take any questions you may
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Buzby can be found in
the Appendix on page 62.]
Mr. Wilson. And, Admiral Buzby, thank you very much for
your testimony.
We will now proceed for each subcommittee member to adhere
to the 5-minute rule. And Tom Hawley is going to be keeping--
beginning with me--the 5-minute so that--we may be having votes
as early as 10 o'clock. So we want to be respectful of this for
each member of the subcommittee.
And, General McDew, your testimony notes a legal
restriction that hampers your ability to manage the air tanker
fleet, namely a provision in the Defense Appropriations Act
that prohibits TRANSCOM from controlling tanker assets now
assigned to PACOM [U.S. Pacific Command] and EUCOM [U.S.
European Command], even if their operational priority is lower.
Given the state of our tanker fleet, this restriction is a
serious matter. If you could highlight this consequence for the
subcommittees?
General McDew. Gladly, Mr. Chairman.
In my responsibilities as a global combatant commander, one
of the things that I relish is the fact that I have authority
to move assets around the globe. My responsibility to the
Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and the Secretary [of
Defense] is to set the globe for logistics and ensure that we
are in balance, and when we are out of balance be able to shift
those assets to the place and point of need. We can do that
with every other asset, except those that are restricted right
now by law.
And with those other assets, we can move from one theater
to another, because if we could keep all the enemy combatants
in one geographic commander's region and put a fence around it,
and they were able to fight just inside that geofencing, that
would be nice. But today's world doesn't allow that.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And for each of you, your testimony highlights the alarming
decline of the U.S.-flagged commercial shipping fleet. And it
is incredible, and I hope you go over that specifically. What
can be done to maintain a healthy U.S. Merchant Marine and the
commercial fleet?
Admiral Buzby. Mr. Chairman, it comes down to cargo. We
have heard it been said many times, cargo is king. Without
cargo, there is no need to have the ships, and without the
ships, there are not the mariners.
So to have cargo available for U.S.-flagged vessels to
carry, that is the root of the problem. And whether we do that
through cargo preference or through bilateral trade agreements
or freeing up cargo that is available, that is the root of the
problem.
Mr. Wilson. And specifically how many U.S.-flagged ships
are there?
Admiral Buzby. Right now in international deep-sea trade,
we have 81 U.S.-flagged ships.
Mr. Wilson. And this has declined from----
Admiral Buzby. Well, just as recently as 2012 we had 106.
Mr. Wilson. So it is a very precipitous decline.
Admiral Buzby. We had a 27 percent decline just in 5 years.
Mr. Wilson. That is stunning, and the American people need
to know that. Thank you.
Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir.
And General McDew, what is your assessment of the Air
Force's progress in modernizing the air tanker fleet? Is the
current plan reachable or can they move faster?
General McDew. I would like to have a reasonable answer to
this, Chairman, and that is, what I look at is the overall
capacity. Modernizing is important because the backbone of that
fleet is 61-plus years old. When I flew them as a young
lieutenant they were old. They are considerably older today,
because I am no longer a young lieutenant.
So modernizing faster would be an answer, but the budget
realities and the realities of bringing on a new weapons system
are what they are. So we have got to continue to look at how we
maintain them, how we fund that maintenance, because that is
also a part of attrition as I see it.
People talk about attrition as being kinetic and blowing
things up or things falling out of the sky; not adequate
maintenance can cause us to have attrition in that fleet.
So what I applaud the Air Force of doing is putting a
program together that gets us to recapitalization. We have got
to press that harder to maintain the capacity that we have
right now.
Mr. Wilson. And I appreciate you raising that 51 years of
age, some of the aircraft. The health and safety of our crews
are a great concern, so however we can be working with you.
And, General McDew, we understand that you are concerned
about cyber vulnerabilities and your ability to communicate
effectively with commercial partners in a time of conflict.
What are you doing to address this risk?
General McDew. Chairman, I want to applaud most of our
industry partners for coming to the table with us regularly to
involve themselves in our war games. I applaud the fact that
they have accepted some of the--well, they have accepted all
the things we have put in our contracting language to bring up
the level of cybersecurity standards. What we have got to get
to is a better standard for them.
But I like the fact that they are working with us to
improve all of our ability to protect ourselves. I would ask
that the Nation take a deep look at itself and decide what we
are going to do as a Nation about cybersecurity awareness and
standards.
Mr. Wilson. Well, it is ever-changing and your input will
be so important as we proceed to address these crucial issues.
Thank you.
And thank both of you for being here.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General McDew, when you visited my office last week, you
mentioned that TRANSCOM is starting to prepare for logistics in
a contested environment. Now, can you speak briefly to how
TRANSCOM models for attrition in varying threat environments?
And then please expand on how TRANSCOM is adjusting their
priorities with funding and training to be prepared to support
a conflict with peer adversaries in the Pacific region?
General McDew. Congresswoman Bordallo, I would love to,
because I will tell you, I am very proud of what the men and
women of USTRANSCOM have done over the last couple years in
raising this level of attention to the idea of contested
environment.
Contested environment, we believe now, is woven into
everything we think about. Unfortunately we are still in our
nascent place with this realization. And so our modeling is
new.
This mobility capability study that we have been directed
to do in the last NDAA will now include attrition, contested
environment concerns for the very first time after multiple
capability studies. And we have got an analysis center that is
a crown jewel of this country, actually, to be able to do that
kind of modeling for any place on the world, to include the
Pacific region.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
General, another question. The administration has discussed
proposing a large increase in national infrastructure spending.
Now, what would be your top priorities for infrastructure
improvements, as the TRANSCOM commander, in order to benefit
our national defense needs?
General McDew. Well, I like the fact that if I say out
loud, infrastructure is part of national security. The National
Security Strategy is a really good step and it starts to get
the American public to look at one thing. It is a national
security strategy and not a Department of Defense security
strategy.
Our rail and roads infrastructure, our bridges, help us get
from fort to port. That port then helps us get from port to
port and then the onward movement into the place of need.
So all of that infrastructure is part of national security:
trucking, rail, and our seagoing infrastructure. So it is very,
very important to us.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Please remember the Pacific.
And my next question is for both of you.
I understand that a large portion of our logistics rely on
commercial partners, most of which operate on unclassified IT
[information technology] networks. So what steps are you each
taking to, first, bolster your network security internally and
with corporate partners; and, secondly, ensure that your
logistic chains remain resilient during network degradation?
General McDew. Well, I will speak quickly to the Department
of Defense has a very strong program through U.S. Cyber Command
to bolster and fortify the defense network, the DODIN
[Department of Defense Information Network]. And so I am
relatively confident that we are doing a good job there, but we
are learning every single day.
My concern, because so much of it is outside and we rely
heavily on our commercial partners, the lack of a national
standard, the lack of national enforcement means that I need
the Nation's help to ensure that not just the defense
industrial base, the people that make our widgets or the people
that we count on to move our goods and services around, are as
secure.
Admiral Buzby. Ma'am, thank you for that. It is a very
challenging program, as General McDew pointed out, because we
deal primarily with commercial operators outside of the DOD
network security, if you will. It is a huge challenge.
Many of the companies who operate with us, as the general
mentioned, are under contract. Part of their contract to
operate with the government is to meet a certain security
standard, and they have been very diligent about doing that.
We have set up forums. The National Defense Transportation
Association has a forum on the air side and on the sealift side
to talk about how we share information. So that if we see an
attack on one particular carrier that we can share that
information and also figure out how to fight through and
maintain the capacity to provide the service to the government.
It is going to be an ongoing effort. But I think awareness
is number one and communication amongst ourselves is, kind of,
key to kind of get where we have to go, but we have a long way
to go.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
And one last point, General. Can you describe some of the
challenges you have that the geographic commanders aren't faced
with? And how do you balance mobility assets between theaters
to ensure the DOD's readiness to respond to contingencies? And
are there any barriers to this responsibility?
I only have about 5 seconds left, so----
General McDew. The geographic combatant commanders are
awesome people and they have a responsibility to fight a fight
in their regions. My responsibility is across the entire globe.
We are not a balanced force. We have more force structure
towards the east than we do in the west, in the Pacific. That
means that we have to be able to take resources from one area
and apply them where they are needed most based on the
priorities set by the President and the Secretary of Defense.
So that is a bigger responsibility there.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Ranking Member Madeleine
Bordallo, who we always appreciate, points out that the
strategic location of the patriotic territory of Guam.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wilson. It is in the Pacific.
Mr. Wittman. That is right.
Mr. Wilson. So thank you.
And we are grateful now for the chairman of the Seapower
and Projection Forces Subcommittee, Rob Wittman of Virginia.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And before I begin, General McDew, I would just get you, if
you would, to place the microphone a little more directly in
front of you. That will be a help, so, fantastic.
Listen, I wanted to get, General McDew, your perspective,
and also Admiral Buzby, as far as how we think in a more
current framework about sealift. And I want to turn to some
direct things in your testimony that you point to.
And you said, the dwindling size of the domestic U.S.
intercontinental--or, excuse me--intercoastal shipping fleet
demands that we reassess our approach to ensure that the U.S.
retains critical national security surge sealift capabilities.
We also may need to rethink policies of the past in order to
face an increasingly competitive future.
I wanted to get you to drill down a little bit on that.
Those are interesting concepts about what we do to reassess our
approach, to rethink our policies.
I wanted to get your perspective and, Admiral Buzby, your
perspective on what would that rethinking and reassessing be?
And what would you suggest to us where the redirection needs to
take place in order to get the right policy for you to pursue
this modernizing approach?
General McDew. Well, I like the fact that I am going to
have Admiral Buzby here to really call a friend on this one,
because he is a much smarter human.
I will take it from the perspective of a warfighting
combatant command in the fact that we have a power projection
responsibility. But if I step back even greater and I say the
Nation, I still believe, is a maritime Nation. But finding the
evidence in our laws and policies in what we do, to convict us
in a court of law might become difficult if you start to look.
And some of the programs we have out there that had well
intentions in the beginning ought to be reviewed to see if we
are applying all the things that we can apply, using all the
rheostats that we can to actually make the implementation work.
We have got rules that say you must use the Defense
Transportation System. Applying it and making sure that it is
actually being enforced is important as well. Some of that will
get to some of the cargo problems that we are facing.
Admiral Buzby. Yes, great question, sir. Thank you.
I think some of the things that really kind of have to fall
in place probably going forth is, again, cargo. That is key. I
keep harping back on that because it is so fundamental.
Mr. Wittman. Sure.
Admiral Buzby. We have to be able to carry more of it. But
the capacity of our Nation to produce vessels, to repair
vessels, to maintain vessels is also really, kind of
fundamental to that security piece of it as well. Absent that,
you know, we are not going to get very far should we get into a
dust-up and we have to start producing large oceangoing vessels
again. Our capacity is kind of limited to that.
You know, there are ways that we can carry more of our
domestic cargo right now, get it off the roads. Our Marine
Highway Program is a great way to do that. You know, our
waterways, we are blessed with wonderful inland waterways and
coastal waterways that are, by and large, underutilized and
could carry a lot more freight with a program that, you know,
has more vessels on there and that could be militarily useful.
So I think all those are things that we need to think
harder about.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. I appreciate that. Those are
policies we need to be emphasizing, I believe.
General McDew, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about
airlift. As we know, the C-17 line is terminated. We have 25 C-
5s that are now being sent out to the Aerospace Maintenance
Regeneration Group out of Tucson, Arizona, better known as the
boneyard.
We know where the demand is for airlift. We know that we
could reconfigure those aircraft to modernize them. And the Air
Force has put a price tag on that of about $5.6 billion.
I wanted to get your thought about where we are with
airlift risk and should TRANSCOM consider increasing its
airlift capacity by returning these aircraft to service?
You talked about the need for military airlift, different
from the CRAF [Civil Reserve Air Fleet] program and operating
in a contested environment. Give me your perspective about what
we can do, because this seems like a faster way, rather than
building new aircraft, especially since we don't have a hot
production line for lift aircraft, to look at these C-5s.
General McDew. Well, one of the things I am very careful
about in my role, is not getting into too much of the lane of
the service chiefs and service secretaries. Their
responsibility, obviously, is to organize, train and equip and
provide those assets. And there are a lot of ways to skin this
cat.
And they have got top-line concerns, in the fact that a
lack of a long-term regular budget on time is probably the
biggest threat to any of that that we face. You can't do much
of the things that you suggest that might be answered, without
a budget on time year after year. So what I would say is we
need to be able to look at all those things.
But what we are doing, and the things we can control, is
increasing the use of commercial where we can, making sure that
we are more effective and efficient with the use of the gray
tails and making sure that we are not overusing them when we
could use other assets.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Chairman Wittman.
We now proceed to the Seapower and Projection Forces
Subcommittee ranking member, Congressman Joe Courtney of
Connecticut.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I apologize to you and the witnesses. I was at an
Education Committee matter this morning and got here a little
late.
So I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if I could have my opening
statement just entered for the record?
Mr. Wilson. And it shall be accepted.
[The statement referred to was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Courtney. And I want to yield my time to Ms. Hanabusa
or Mr. Brown, whoever was here before me on our side because
they were more punctual than I was.
Mr. Wilson. Hey, you had important duties with the
Education Committee, okay?
Mr. Courtney. Okay.
Mr. Wilson. And Congresswoman Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Admiral Buzby, I was kind of taken by the statements that
you made. You said early on in your testimony that cargo is
very important and that is why we are seeing a reduction in
basically what we have available. Then you also said that you
need vessels that are militarily useful.
So let me try and understand this. Cargo, for most part
now, commercially, are transported like in container ships. I
mean, the containers are stacked really high.
Military useful, I suppose, because of your testimony as
well, the two used ships that you plan to purchase are really
roll-on/roll-offs.
Admiral Buzby. Correct.
Ms. Hanabusa. So the question I have is that when you talk
about cargo and you talk about military useful, are we talking
about the same types of commercial vessels that you need?
Admiral Buzby. Primarily what we need, or what General
McDew needs to move his force, are roll-on/roll-off ships
primarily.
You know, the force, our Armed Forces are primarily rolling
stock, you know, tanks, trucks, vehicles, that sort of thing
that move much more easily by having them roll up a ramp and
into the belly of a ship as opposed to being lifted onto the
deck of a cargo ship, something like that.
We still have need for container ships to move ammunition
and other, you know, bulk sort of supplies, but roll-on/roll-
off ships are really the vessels of choice these days.
Ms. Hanabusa. So as I watched the different kinds of ships
that are being built within the United States--I am talking
about Jones Act ships that qualify on all three criteria--they
tend to look more like container ships than they do roll-on/
roll-offs. Would you agree with me on that?
Admiral Buzby. I would. Container ships and tankers,
primarily----
Ms. Hanabusa. Right.
Admiral Buzby. Have been the larger ships that have been.
Ms. Hanabusa. Have been the ships.
Admiral Buzby. Right.
Ms. Hanabusa. So almost by the needs of the general, you
are basically saying that it is the MSP-type vessel, which is
one that doesn't have to be built in America, it just has to
be, arguably, flagged, which may mean 50 percent-plus of the
board of directors plus maritime. But mariners are what we all
want----
Admiral Buzby. Right.
Ms. Hanabusa [continuing]. Working anyway. That those ships
tend to meet your criteria for General McDew. Am I correct?
Admiral Buzby. As it stands today, yes, ma'am, that is
correct.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, let me also ask you. We do know that you
have a MSP stipend that you give ships for basically being
available. And I think it is about--you said it is now $3.6
million. I think we are authorized up to $5 million or
something like that.
Admiral Buzby. Authorized up to $5 million, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanabusa. So how many ships are receiving stipends who
may not be used? Do you have a number?
Admiral Buzby. Well----
Ms. Hanabusa. In other words, not called up but they do
receive stipend.
Admiral Buzby. There are 60 ships enrolled in the MSP
program today, which is----
Ms. Hanabusa. Right.
Mr. Buzby [continuing]. The authorized number.
Ms. Hanabusa. Right.
Admiral Buzby. And all 60 of those ships are receiving
their stipend.
Ms. Hanabusa. I understand that. I am saying how many are
actually called into service?
Admiral Buzby. Well, right now, we have not called any into
service. I mean, there are none currently called into service
to do a sealift mission. They are also in liner service----
Ms. Hanabusa. Right.
Mr. Buzby [continuing]. In their normal service, and they
are carrying government cargoes.
Ms. Hanabusa. So if I could ask that you provide for me,
through the committee chair, a list, in a year, the number of
ships--or you can go 1 to 60, how many receive the stipend and
how many were actually called into service. Because that is
what we are paying them for.
Admiral Buzby. Yes. I think call into service may be the
thing. They are all carrying government cargo. They are all
carrying government cargo.
Ms. Hanabusa. Military cargo. Military cargo and for what
length of time? In other words, what I want to know is whether
we have a bunch of these ships that may receive a stipend, may
be called up maybe once in 1 month, or 1 week, or something
like that. That is what I would like to know. I want to
understand the scope of the demand that we have and how we are
meeting that demand.
And I would also like to have, with the chairman's
position, a breakdown as to where they are, because General
McDew said something very interesting. He said, the demand is
in the east more than the west, and he defined Asia as the
west. And for some reason, as our theater seems to focus to
Asia, I am very curious about that.
And I am out of time, so with the chairman's permission, if
you can put it in writing and return it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Admiral Buzby. I will get that back to you, ma'am.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 71.]
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congresswoman
Hanabusa.
We now proceed to Congressman Duncan Hunter of California.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here.
Let us stay on the MSP, if you don't mind? We authorized
$300 million. The administration only asked for $214 million.
Let us start with that. Why is that? If it is so important, why
would they underfund what we authorized and funded?
Admiral Buzby. Mr. Hunter, I would start by saying the
Department and MARAD greatly value and understand the
importance of the Maritime Security Program. Absolutely. It is
critical to our national security. It is critical to our
sealift mission.
It came down to a very difficult budget season, and we had
to make some very, very difficult choices, and that is where it
ended up.
Mr. Hunter. So the reason that it went to $5 million per
ship is because they couldn't do it anymore at $3.5 million or
$3 million a ship. Is that correct?
Admiral Buzby. That is----
Mr. Hunter. You had ships and mariners dropping out of the
program.
Admiral Buzby. I don't know that is the case.
Mr. Hunter. That is the case. You had multiple ships drop
out. You had some space there. We added the money and then they
were able to do it again.
Do you have any estimates, either of you, any estimates of
what it would cost if we didn't basically lease those ships, to
build that out organically and to maintain 60 ships that were
able to do what the MSP ships do? Roughly, what do you think
that would cost?
Admiral Buzby. Between the ships and the networks, I don't
know that I have ever seen a number. It would be a very, very,
very high number.
Mr. Hunter. And the mariners, just guess, what do you think
it would cost? To build 60 ships, to have them on call for----
Admiral Buzby. About 2,400 mariners that, you know, would
not be available.
Mr. Hunter. So billions and billions and billions?
Admiral Buzby. It would be a lot, yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. A lot. And this is $300 million a year. I think
that is a good lease on our security to have those ships
available.
Let us talk about Jones Act really quick. I would just like
you to talk about it. Let me quote you, General McDew, what you
said last year. Quote, Without the Jones Act, without the
Maritime Security Program, without cargo preference, our
ability to project the force is in jeopardy. Is that still the
case or has that changed?
General McDew. Without the rheostats that you provided in
Congress, those rheostats, we would be in jeopardy, because we
would lose mariners, and we would lose ships in international
trade. It is still the case.
Mr. Hunter. Can you talk about the Jones Act and what it
means----
General McDew. The Jones Act----
Mr. Hunter [continuing]. For the industrial base, for the
mariners?
General McDew. Yes. For me, the Jones Act, from a
warfighting perspective, is all about the mariners and the
ability to keep mariners trained and ready to go to war.
The ships that are in the Jones Act are also useful, but
the primary thing we get from the Jones Act are the mariners.
And those mariners have been with us in every conflict that I
can imagine, and suffered great loss, and still stay with us.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you.
Admiral Buzby.
Admiral Buzby. Absolutely, sir. The Jones Act really is the
linchpin. It is foundational to our merchant marine as it is
today. It is not just the--it is the ships.
It is the mariners, which are critical. And it is the
infrastructure that supports the shipbuilding and ship repair
part of the industry and all of the supply chain that impacts
that, because that all has impact on our government
shipbuilding programs as well. The costs of all of those and
the availability of shipbuilders are greatly impacted by that
as well. So it has far-ranging impact.
Mr. Hunter. So two things. I think it would be interesting
to see a study, even a down-and-dirty one, on what it would
cost to basically have a Ready Reserve Fleet of MSP ships. What
would that cost to have those 60 ships sitting around, waiting
to be used, if they weren't doing commercial stuff or carrying
government cargo?
Two, I think it would be interesting to look at how many
shipyards you would lose and how many mariners you would lose
in CONUS [continental United States] if you got rid of the
Jones Act. The Jones Act is under constant fire, wrongly. But
it would be interesting to see how many small shipyards and
medium shipyards--they might make intermodal ships and barges,
but they still bend steel.
They still have people that know how to build ships and
power plants and that kind of thing. It would be interesting to
see what we would lose there, what that deficit would be if we
said fine, we are going to buy all South Korean ships or French
ships or whatever. That would be interesting.
And even if you did it down-and-dirty, I think it would be
great, not just for this committee, but I also chair the
Maritime and Transportation Subcommittee on the Transportation
Committee, right, Maritime and Coast Guard.
So those would be two interesting things where we could see
the massive gap, the massive hole that would be left if you got
rid of the Jones Act, if you underfunded the MSP, and you had
ships start falling out of that, what that would cost to make
that up organically.
But thank you both for your service, and thank you for
being here.
I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congressman Hunter.
With your background, this is very helpful.
And we proceed now to Congressman Anthony Brown of
Maryland.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, General McDew and Admiral Buzby, for your
appearance here today.
Let me start, General McDew, by informing you that we are
doing just well at Joint Base Andrews, although we miss your
leadership.
I want to turn your attention to the Pacific Command, and
more specifically, to the Korean Peninsula. I have had an
opportunity to speak with a number of your peers, your
colleagues, General Brooks last week, Admiral Harris, who is
testifying before the committee. This afternoon, I will be
speaking with General Brown.
And my focus has been on NEO, noncombatant evacuation
operations. It is my understanding that General Brown has, sort
of, the lead on coordinating, planning that effort. But no
doubt TRANSCOM is going to play an important role, as you are,
you know, bringing forces and materiel to the fight, I am
assuming. And I would like to hear more about what role you
will play in supporting NEO.
I have concerns about our level of planning and
coordination, tabletop exercises, rehearsing.
Can you tell me, specifically, what TRANSCOM's role will be
in NEO operations? What the level of readiness is? What our
posture is? What challenges you are seeing right now in
supporting PACOM's NEO operations?
General McDew. The NEO operation on the Korean Peninsula
would be a challenging undertaking, particularly if you get to
several issues. One is how much indications and warnings there
might be for a fight of that magnitude; the number of people
that could be evacuated prior to hostilities starting. And you
have different avenues off the island before that happens. Once
a conflict erupts, those avenues start to diminish.
If we were starting to project a force from the continental
United States to help fight a fight on the Korean Peninsula,
that might have to be interrupted to use those same assets to
remove people from the peninsula, if that were to come to pass.
Step back even further. Our network of hospitals and things
that we would use here in the continental United States to
regenerate a force or to care for sick, ill and injured is no
longer what it was. So that network of hospitals we would use
to come back through the CONUS has been impacted. We are
working with national health organizations and others to see
what we can do to challenge that current reality.
If we had had this happen during flu season, many of the
beds that were taken up in our hospitals in the continental
United States were flu victims, and we would start to max out
our ability to care for those people.
So our network of hospitals, our ability to get warning and
get people off the island without using our assets, to not
disrupt the flow of military goods and people to the island,
all of that will be part of it.
We are working with PACOM, who has the lead, and we are in
support of them, and we are in part of their planning. And it
continually changes every day, depending on what assumptions
you make based on what is going on.
Mr. Brown. In the last year, and with the rollout of the
National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy,
has TRANSCOM heightened its attention, its focus on the Korean
Peninsula and the support to the peninsula? Or would you say it
is the same today as it was 4 years ago?
General McDew. I don't like to use for my command,
``heightened.'' So what I like to try to tell everybody is we
look at the entire globe every single day. We don't shift. We
don't change, necessarily. We may refine our focus a little bit
on an area that is more volatile than another one, but we have
to keep a broader look.
If I get sucked in to only one place on the globe, and we
think that we have everything we need there, then I am not able
to be as flexible and agile bringing things from other parts of
the globe for that effect.
We have paid more attention because we go to more PACOM
exercises. We go to more planning sessions with them. But I am
also thinking about the Middle East, I am thinking about South
America, I am thinking about homeland defense and all of it at
the same time. But we have finitely focused.
Mr. Brown. Just one final follow-up. I mean, you know,
today, what is your single biggest concern or shortfall in
terms of supporting a NEO operation in Korea, if you were asked
to do that today? Or tonight, like we say we are ready to fight
tonight. Let us go to war tonight. What is your biggest concern
or shortcoming?
General McDew. How many people may be killed before we can
get there. But I have a bigger concern than that. Before we
start any fight, anywhere in the world, we have got to deal
with the cyber contested environment and the fact that we will
have to fight our way to get to the fight.
And we have not come to grips with that necessarily, as a
Nation, that we don't own every domain anymore. Seventy years
of going without a fight has put us in a different place as a
Nation.
That is as big a concern as any, even then when you start
about NEO and whether the American public is ready for the fact
that we don't control everything that we once did.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congressman Brown.
We now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a couple of issues I would like to hit on, first and
foremost, the men and women.
Admiral Buzby, you are a graduate of the Merchant Marine
Academy.
Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. I, as a parent, looked at the various academies.
And midshipmen at Kings Point are treated very differently than
the men and women at any of our other Federal service
academies.
At any of the others they receive pay. Although I think
that our cadets would tell you the pay is not maybe exactly
what--it is not exactly $900 by the time things are taken out
of it. And they are covered under health insurance, where at
Kings Point, they are not.
And I just wonder if maybe we could do more for the
midshipmen at Kings Point, elevate the Merchant Marine Academy,
quite honestly, to the status that I think it deserves. And any
thoughts you might have on that?
Admiral Buzby. Yes, I thank you for that, sir.
And, yes, I am a very proud graduate of Kings Point. And we
are a bit different. We are not DOD. We are not DHS [Department
of Homeland Security]. Our students are civilians. They are not
part of the military or government employees like they are at
the other places. So that is why they don't get paid and why
they don't fall under those other bits of coverage.
We would have to, basically, fundamentally change the way
that the school is organized in order to, you know, bring them
under some sort of more government umbrella to make them
employees, if you will, which would be an option but, you know,
there would be a big cost associated with that.
Mr. Scott. Sure. Fair enough. You are just a graduate that
has a done a tremendous amount for the country and interested
in your thoughts on that. And hope that maybe as we look at how
we get more merchant mariners in the service, that might be an
opportunity there with helping the midshipmen and others.
One of my biggest disappointments in the things that I have
seen in the budget has been the proposal to retire either the
Comfort or Mercy, one of our hospital ships. I was recently in
Djibouti and noticed that the Chinese actually had a hospital
ship in port over there and are delivering services.
I think that soft power is extremely important. And as
respectfully as I know how to, I want to criticize the decision
to draw down that soft power. I would actually hope that we
would be building more ships where we could deliver services to
the citizens as they need it.
So what do you propose doing to account for the loss of one
of, I believe, our most powerful assets, although it is soft
power. How would TRANSCOM provide services in the case of mass
casualties? What are you going to do in contested environments,
in the case of hurricanes, where we have traditionally used one
of these ships to provide services?
General McDew. Congressman, as I try to be more thoughtful
about my answers and it, sir, is a very valid question, I have
to go back to the budget. If we don't pass a budget on time and
give the services a reasonable expectation to know when they
are going to get a budget, to be able to plan for a budget, we
were going to have more tough decisions that the services will
have to make.
The United States Navy, the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations]
is a really good friend of mine, John Richardson. He makes the
best decisions he can with the resources he is given to deal
with it. That won't be the last tough decision that he will
have to make if we don't get our budget reality in order.
I am even more concerned that the decisions--we have got
men and women who have served in our Armed Forces, senior
leaders, who have never seen a budget passed on time in their
entire careers. Or at least in their senior developmental
lives. There may be Members of this body, their entire tenure,
they have never seen it done on time. And I can't go back until
I--I have to go back to almost being a colonel.
So those are things that are, I think, even more important
questions to ask. What will we do? We will do the best we can.
And I believe that a full network and all the resources we can
bring to bear to----
Mr. Scott. General, I appreciate your service and
appreciate your comments.
We have a 2018 number. We have a 2019 number. I think that
I understand. I think your comments are justified.
But I will tell you that this is a 2020 decision. And while
the Chinese are making a strategic shift to not just pay off
the leadership of countries, to provide services to the
citizens of a country, for the U.S. to pull back on that soft
power side, I think it is a strategic mistake for us.
Thank you for your service.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you so much, Congressman Scott, for
your heartfelt questions.
We now proceed to Congressman Joe Courtney of Connecticut.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. And again,
thank you to both witnesses.
Good to see you, General McDew, here again.
And congratulations to you, Admiral Buzby, on your
confirmation as the MARAD administrator.
Admiral, this subcommittee, you know, has really actually
been pretty engaged on the question of the national security
multi-mission vessel, which is to, you know, recapitalize the
Maritime Academy ships.
You know, we, in the last NDAA, authorized $50 million for
that program. And we will see what the appropriators finally
produce in the next hopefully couple days or so. And again,
there have been prior authorizations that have sent that
signal.
Obviously, the administration has come over with something
much different. And I guess the question I would ask is maybe
just if you could, sort of, talk a little bit about how you
see, you know, that proposal which again, will deal with two
academies.
There are four others that are, sort of, built in the
recapitalization program for. And just whether or not you see,
you know, our plan or the congressional plan as, sort of where
does that fit in in terms of, again, particularly those four
remaining academies?
Admiral Buzby. Right, thank you. Yes, sir. The school ships
are a very high priority of ours. We fully recognized the
criticality of them to the whole idea of mariner training, in
particular those two old ships, the Empire State and the
Kennedy, that absolutely need to be recapitalized now, which is
why I think we seized upon the opportunity with the fiscal year
2019 budget request to try and take care of two of them
immediately, right away, with using used ships, what we would
modify to serve as training assets.
You know, we will have to see what comes out of 2018. You
know, that may advise us a different direction to go in 2019.
But absent that, you know, we have the design for the new
ship and that is a great place to go. That is, I think, an
aspirational goal to get to. It is a very capable ship. And it
actually will help advise us on the kinds of things that we
would want to have in a ship that we would procure and modify
if necessary in a U.S. yard.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, thank you. I mean, as I said,
this has been, you know, an issue of high interest in the
committee, again for the reasons that General McDew said.
I mean, at some point, we are talking really more about
workforce than platforms in terms of this recapitalization
program. And if, you know, we just, sort of, let this go, you
know, it has a much bigger ripple effect in terms of the
future, you know, maritime sailors that the country needs.
Admiral, we also talked the other day about a project that
was started by your predecessor, Mr. Jaenichen, you know, to,
sort of, finally get an updated maritime strategy for this
country, which, as he repeatedly reminded us, hasn't happened
since 1936.
Again, the general, you know, mentioned in his comments
about the fact that maybe we do need to, sort of, go back and
look at, you know, the barnacles that have built up over the
years there.
But again, this is not an easy project because there are so
many agencies that, you know, touch, you know, this issue. And
I was just wondering, again, what your thoughts are about
trying to complete that project and, you know, whether or not
you see any timeline that we can expect?
Admiral Buzby. Well, that draft strategy was waiting for me
in my inbox the first day I walked in to take over as
administrator. And I actually participated in contributing to
it prior to becoming the Maritime Administrator. And I think
Administrator Jaenichen did a great job putting that together.
It is my goal to get that across the finish line. We are
working on it in my staff right now to update it, bring it up
to reality, to the realism of today. And we are getting it
chopped within MARAD right now. And we will be getting out to
the industry to have a look at here very shortly.
And the goal is to get it out so we can all start rallying
behind it. It is an important document.
Mr. Courtney. Absolutely. Again, as the general said, we
are a maritime country, and I think it is time to get, sort of,
a clear focus.
Again, the Seapower Subcommittee, which I think at some
point probably will have a role to play in terms of executing
on some of that strategy, as I said, we are on standby, you
know, waiting for that process to be completed.
Again, I want to thank you for, again, your commitment to
finishing it.
Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir.
Mr. Courtney. So with that, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Ranking Member Courtney.
We now proceed to Congressman Trent Kelly of Mississippi.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank both of you flag officers, general officers, for
being here today and thank you for what you do.
General McDew, I want to go back to Mr. Scott from
Georgia's question, because I don't think that is an adequate
answer.
United States Navy hospital ship Comfort deployed to the
gulf coast of Mississippi in 2005 to respond to Katrina. In 12
days, the medical crew there provided care and medical
treatment that was sorely needed by the residents in my State
and the emergency workers in Mississippi and Louisiana.
Our hospital ships have served American citizens, foreign
nations, in times of emergent and national disasters forever.
There is a national security requirement for two ships to
respond to mass casualties from a potential forcible entry
operations. And the Navy is planning on retiring one of them.
If the requirement is two, we have to have two or either we
have to be screaming loudly.
And I don't think blaming it on the budget from the House--
I have only been here 3 years, so I haven't been here as long
as those guys. The House passed ours in September. We passed it
again in November. And we passed it again for the defense part
of that again in January.
So we passed it three times through this House and we have
got to get the Senate, but that still doesn't excuse--when I
was a district attorney and I lost a statement that I needed
for a murder case, I couldn't say just dismiss the murder. I
still had to try that murder case and I had to find a way to
win.
We have an obligation to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
Marines, and also the civilians across this world, for you to
scream loudly to the CNO or whoever that is that makes that
decision to say we have a national requirement for two.
And so I really hope that you would take that back and say
we have a requirement for two, not just for wartime and
forcible entry, but also for peacetime.
And so I just really ask that you fight as hard as you can.
Even though they may have thrown out your best option of
evidence, please push hard to get us that second ship because
there will come a time when we need that. And we need to always
be ready.
And I think you are the guy who has to push that for us. We
can't speak as loudly as you can, General McDew. And so I hope
you will tell me you will do that.
General McDew. I will try my best. And I would like to
apologize if any of my comments seemed to be offensive about
the budget. I speak loudly about the things I feel obligated to
speak about in the defense to the Nation. The budget happens to
be one of them.
Hospital ships, I am a big fan of hospital ships, because I
love the fact that we can help injured and ill members. But I
will tell you, for every one hospital ship we are short, we are
going to have a requirement for 479 air refueling tankers.
Mr. Kelly. I agree. And that is my next question.
General McDew. We have a requirement. I can throw a bunch
of numbers at you.
Mr. Kelly. I am there, too. And I actually ate dinner--I
actually spent some time with Secretary Mattis last night and I
echoed your point about doing things on time. So I am doing my
part to fuss at whoever I need to get us there, because I agree
with you wholeheartedly.
But I also know that in hard times, we just got to suck it
up and get there. We got to figure out a way. Because I have
served 32 years and I am military.
I want to go back to C-17s and KC-135s. Mississippi has two
grade wings or squadrons. I am not an Air Force guy. I am an
Army guy. You know, we talk about battalions and brigades, not
wings and squadrons.
But I will tell you, those guys have been the first to
deploy and the first to get there timely every time this Nation
has had an incident. And our C-17--and I would invite you to
come down and visit those guys. And I know that you have
before, but I want you to come see them again.
But it concerns me that with the shrinking requirements,
that we are shifting assets to not make those guys as ready.
Let me just tell you, our pilots are as good or better than the
guys on Active Duty because they get more hours because they
also fly civilian. Our maintainers are better because they are
more experienced, have been there longer, and continue to
maintain.
So I just ask, when you are looking at any kind of leveling
or any of those requirements, General McDew, just make sure
that you understand those guys are ready and they can, do,
have, will deploy on a moment's notice.
And we were strategic reserves when I was a kid, but the
Guard and Reserve is no longer strategic. They are operational,
and we have to plan for them to be that.
And I know you are doing that, General McDew, so I just,
kind of, want to give you a shout-out and thank you. But I also
wanted you to respond to that a little.
General McDew. I am one of the biggest fans you will ever
find of the Guard and Reserve. I have flown with those units,
and I have actually trained with those units. The wing
commander of one your units was actually my stick partner when
I went through C-17 initial qualification. I probably was the
instructor for some of the guys on the 135. So I absolutely
agree with you.
But here is another thing I would throw back. We are using
them as an operational reserve. We are not funding them and
resourcing them to be an operational reserve.
I know they will come to the sound of the gun when we ask
them to. But what we are asking them to do every single day is
getting harder and harder, and will they stay with us in what
we might call peacetime, at the pace we are using them? I
believe they will, but I think I want to pay attention to how
we are using them in peacetime.
Mr. Kelly. I can speak for my Mississippians. We will be
there. We will stand fast. We always have. And thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, General Kelly, for your
questions.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Susan Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, both of you, for being here today.
I am sorry I missed some of your earlier comments, but I
wanted to get back to two issues that have been discussed by my
colleagues, the first one dealing with the Ready Reserve Force.
And in previous testimonies, we talked about allowing a
foreign-constructed ships to be inducted into the Ready Reserve
Forces. This is very different than the personnel that we need
to do that as well. But I didn't know what TRANSCOM's plans
recently have been discussed to recapitalize the Ready Reserve
Force. What is the length of time that it would take to
implement this plan?
General McDew. So really, I believe the committee may have
had some folks here yesterday or the last few days to talk
about the Navy's plan to recapitalize----
Mrs. Davis. Right.
General McDew [continuing]. That force. And right now it
has got a multipronged program because we can't buy our way out
of this problem overnight.
One of them is to service life extend several of the
younger sets of ships as we can. The other will be to try to
buy used. That avenue we have to have as a bridge to building
new ships.
The point we get to building new ships is, I think, 2028.
So between now and 2028, I really don't want to be the largest
owner of steamships in the world. You don't want me to be the
largest owner of steamships in the world. So it has got to have
that multipronged approach, and we need your authority.
Mrs. Davis. Do you see that more with retrofitting? And
would we be doing that domestically?
General McDew. So the buy used or the building ships? The
building ships would be a plan to build in U.S. yards. The
service life extension would be worked on in U.S. shipyards.
The buy used could be a combination that we would be right now
having to go out on air--I mean, American-built ships on the
open market, which there are fewer of those because the decline
of international trade in the U.S. market over time.
Mrs. Davis. And what about security concerns on foreign-
constructed ships?
General McDew. The foreign-constructed ship would need to
be retrofitted and brought to U.S. standards in U.S. yards.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. And I am sure those concerns are being
attended.
General McDew. And we have many of those ships that we were
proposing to purchase used are sailing for us now in the MSP
program.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Appreciate that.
And on the issue that we have have just been discussing,
and I am delighted to hear my colleagues talking about needing
to project soft power through the Mercy and Comfort. And having
been on the Mercy when it is out in theater, I greatly
understand and know how important that is.
So I think we are looking at 2020, and obviously the
decision has to be made far before that. Do you see us weighing
in on that and trying to look at what we might do to think
about a replacement? Is that in the cards? What are you
thinking about?
And the other thing, General, don't feel bad about the
budget. That is exactly what you needed to say, frankly, from
my point of view. Because we make a lot of decisions here and
they have got be connected to these issues. And, quite frankly,
they are not.
And so when we create large spending measures in the form
of tax cuts and other things that we do, I mean, we need to be
thinking about how that impacts this. And it is very
appropriate for you to raise that issue. So I wanted to be
supportive of you in doing that.
So what are the plans for replacement? And how can we be
thinking about this so that perhaps we make a very strong
statement about the strategic implications of not having that
kind of a force available to us in the future?
General McDew. I will defer the actual plans for
replacement of the Comfort, those hospital ships, to our Navy
for that decision. That has got to be in their budget top line
and they have to get through that and as part of their overall
recapitalization plan for ships in the shipbuilding strategy.
My apology, by the way, was not because of what I said. It
was if it was took as offensive. That was my apology. I am a
Southern boy----
Mrs. Davis. Sir, I didn't take it offensively.
[Laughter.]
Just yes. Thank you. So at this point, it is in the Navy's
hands, and if we have an interest in weighing in on that, I
think what would be helpful, and again, this is, you know, I am
sure the Navy is listening, that it is important to know what
is that worth to us? I mean, what is it worth it, you know,
to----
General McDew. Well, I would offer that question on a
number of things across our country. And in particular, I love
the fact that you have us here today shining a light on some
areas that don't get a light shined on them.
Everybody likes to talk about our kinetic force, and we can
build the greatest assets in the world, but there are a lot of
things that are foundational to the Department of Defense and
national security that go without this kind of attention.
Mrs. Davis. Yes.
General McDew. And I go back to our commercial industry. I
will go back to all those assets that are out there that make
us the Nation that we are.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congresswoman Davis.
We now conclude with the best, Congressman Bradley Byrne of
Alabama.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Buzby, my Uncle Jack Langsdale graduated from the
Merchant Marine Academy and served in World War II.
Admiral Buzby. Great. God bless him.
Mr. Byrne. I came across a letter that he wrote to my
grandmother Christmas Eve 1942, telling her that he is fine,
``But if you don't hear from me, that is good news.'' The next
thing she heard he was lost at sea with all hands on his ship.
And we lost thousands of merchant mariners, you know, during
World War II.
And I was thinking about that when I was looking at your
written testimony because I heard you say we have got 1,800 gap
on merchant mariners. But your written statement says, ``The
estimate assumed that all qualified mariners would voluntarily
report when called upon.'' I think that probably would happen.
``And that there will be no ship losses or personnel
casualties.''
Admiral Buzby. Right.
Mr. Byrne. We know that is not likely to be the case.
Admiral Buzby. That is correct.
Mr. Byrne. So your 1,800 number dramatically underestimates
what our need is.
You heard Mr. Courtney's on the Education and Workforce
Committee, Chairman Wilson's on the Education and Workforce
Committee, Ms. Stefanik's on the Workforce Committee. I am too.
What can we do to help?
Admiral Buzby. Well, the biggest thing, probably, you know,
it is going to be a matter of--that is a good question.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Byrne. That is why I asked it.
Admiral Buzby. There are a lot of ways to come at it.
You know, the 1,800 people short, the way we have place for
people to work today is more ships. And for more ships to be
around there has to be more cargo. It all kind of hangs
together.
Mr. Byrne. Right.
Admiral Buzby. So it needs to start with that and then work
up toward with more cargo to carry, more opportunity, more
ships then, therefore, to be around to carry it, requiring a
larger pool of mariners there to man those ships. So that is
really what it comes down to.
Mr. Byrne. Yes. And then, sometimes we get lost at that
here in Congress. We think that what is going on here is we are
trying to prop up some private sector industry for its own
sake. That private sector industry is critical to the national
security issues regarding the United States----
Admiral Buzby. Absolutely.
Mr. Byrne [continuing]. Of America.
Admiral Buzby. That is what we depend upon.
Mr. Byrne. And so we want to help you. You can help us by
helping us put that case together. And you can state it better
than we can. It is better for us to refer to you and what you
have determined and what you think is important for the
security of the country. And I would ask you to help us help
you by giving that to us and give us a plan.
What do you want us to do? Here in the Armed Services
Committee, Education and Workforce Committee, what do we need
to do so that we make sure that we have those personnel in
place?
Because there is a conflict out there in the future and we
are hearing in other hearings that our adversaries are
developing very capable submarine fleets, just like the Germans
did before World War II.
And we have got to be very dry-eyed about this and
understand what is out in front of us and what we have got to
be prepared for because if we wait until the conflict happens--
you know this better than I do--it is too late.
Admiral Buzby. Right.
Mr. Byrne. We have got to do it now. So I would just ask
you to help us help you by giving that to us. Lay out the game
plan for us.
I told this to Secretary Spencer not too long ago. I am
like the offensive guard on the football team. Coach call in
the play. But you got to give us that play so we can know what
we need to do to carry it out. And I just ask you to spend some
time thinking about that and let us know.
Admiral Buzby. Right. And we will be happy to provide that.
Mr. Byrne. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congressman Byrne, for your
extraordinary family heritage.
[Laughter.]
We thank the witnesses. We appreciate your service to the
Nation.
And Tom Hawley has been excellent again keeping us on
track.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:23 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 8, 2018
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 8, 2018
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
March 8, 2018
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HANABUSA
Admiral Buzby. On an annual basis, of the Maritime Security Program
(MSP) ships that receive stipends, none have been called into full-
time, exclusive service for the Department of Defense (DOD).
Nevertheless, all MSP vessels transport DOD and/or other impelled U.S.
government cargoes over the course of any year as part of normal
operations. In addition to the MSP stipend, these ships are paid to
transport government cargoes. The MSP provides a monetary incentive for
DOD to have assured access to a fleet of 60 privately-owned,
commercially active, and militarily useful ships, with predominantly
U.S. citizen ownership and crews, as well as the global intermodal
networks maintained by most MSP participants. In return for a monthly
retainer, or stipend, participating carriers commit to making these
ships and associated intermodal capacity available ``on call'' to meet
DOD transport requirements. The MSP fleet is a key component of U.S.
sustainment sealift readiness. [See page 15.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 8, 2018
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COOK
Mr. Cook. Must an airline be a U.S.-flagged carrier to participate
in CRAF? Must that U.S. air carrier participate in CRAF in order to bid
on routes awarded under the GSA city pair program? With all of that in
mind, would it make sense that the GSA city pair program should use the
same tier system utilized by the CRAF program?
General McDew. Yes. To be eligible to participate in CRAF, air
carriers must possess a certificate issued under section 41102 of title
49, US Code. Certificates under that section may only be issued to U.S.
citizens.
Yes. Since the 1990s, the GSA has required CRAF membership as a
condition of being able to bid on, and be awarded, routes under the
City Pair Program. This policy was implemented at the request of DOD
following the first Gulf War in 1990-1991.
The division of CRAF into domestic, international (long-range), and
international (short range) segments defines the capability available
to support DOD within those segments. I would defer to GSA on whether
this same segmentation would meet GSA's needs under the City Pair
Program.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY
Mr. Conaway. Admiral Buzby, the Texas A&M Maritime Academy has been
in operation since 1962 and is the only State maritime academy in the
Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, the Texas A&M Maritime Academy has
operated without a suitable training vessel for over a decade. The
President's FY19 budget provides $300 million to acquire and convert
ships for the New York and Massachusetts Academies. However, the budget
does not include anything for Texas. Additionally, it eliminates the
direct support that all Academies rely on which also places the Texas
program in serious jeopardy. What is the administration's plan to
ensure the Texas A&M Maritime Academy will get the asset it needs to
continue making its contribution to our maritime mobility and
transportation capacity?
Admiral Buzby. MARAD's plan is to recapitalize the Training Ship
Fleet based on remaining service life. The order in which the training
ships are replaced must be based on the remaining service life of each
vessel to ensure safe operations and to maximize continuous
availability of critical training capacity for students at all the
state maritime academies (SMAs). This approach would place Texas A&M
Maritime Academy (TAMMA) fourth in line to receive a replacement
vessel. The FY 2019 House and Senate Appropriations Committee markups
provide $300 million for the construction of the second National
Security Multi-Mission Vessel.
It will take several years for MARAD to recapitalize the entire
training ship fleet. During that recapitalization period, all the SMAs
will be in a ship-sharing phase. In fact, TAMMA cadets will be trained
aboard the TS EMPIRE STATE, as part of the current ship-sharing
arrangement. The Senate Appropriations Committee mark-up for FY 2019
provides $8 million to cover the cost of ship-sharing to help reduce
related expenses borne by the SMAs, including TAMMA. MARAD will also
host a conference this fall to develop a detailed ship-sharing plan, at
which all representatives of the SMAs will have ample opportunities to
provide input.
Finally, in recognition of concerns that TAMMA officials have about
the current training vessel arrangement, MARAD offered to make one of
our larger Ready Reserve Fleet (RRF) ships available to TAMMA for pier-
side U.S. Coast Guard-required training. Relocating a RRF ship to TAMMA
would also provide the additional classroom space required to justify
requests for additional funding from the State school system. A RRF
ship's presence would also prepare TAMMA to receive a bigger and newer
ship, if dredging and pier improvement necessary to accommodate a
vessel of this size are made.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BYRNE
Mr. Byrne. The United States is faced with declining merchant
mariners and our own policies appear to exacerbate this shortage. The
10-year security assistance memorandum of understanding signed with
Israel in 2016 precludes Israel from purchasing U.S.-flagged vessels
with U.S. mariners. At a time when the Maritime Administration believes
we are short over thousands of mariners, is such a policy wise?
Wouldn't the United States be better off doing everything it can to
make it easier for U.S. shipping companies and their merchant mariners
to participate in sealift programs that serve to supply U.S. Armed
Forces?
Admiral Buzby. Efforts have been made to address concerns within
the MOU. In relevance to the U.S. merchant marine, the Government of
Israel will be permitted to continue its utilization of funds derived
from the Foreign Military Financing program to procure U.S. sourced
fuels. These fuels will be mandated for transport onboard American flag
vessels.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GALLAGHER
Mr. Gallagher. What impact has INSURV inspections had on the Ready
Reserve Fleet and how has conducting these inspections influenced or
change readiness expectations?
Admiral Buzby. The Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV)
has no impact on readiness of RRF ships. By statute, MARAD must ensure
the RRF fleet meets the regulatory requirements of the U.S. Coast
Guard, and maintains ships in-class, under the classification society
rules of the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). MARAD has adequate
control measures for inspection and quality assurance to identify
needed repairs to ensure readiness, but the RRF still requires
resources to meet planned service life extensions and maintenance of an
aging fleet. The average age of Ready Reserve Force (RRF) vessels is 44
years.
MARAD supports the Navy's plan for RRF recapitalization, but notes
that the requirement to reach 60-years of service life for nearly all
46 ships in the RRF fleet is likely to result in resource challenges.
Maintenance activities necessary for these service extensions take
longer and are more complex. As the service life of hulls, equipment,
and systems reach the end of economical service, MARAD is compelled to
apply more resources across the entire fleet for urgent requirements,
and to defer non-critical efforts for military utility and readiness
efforts for extended service life. The GAO's August 2017 report: NAVY
READINESS--Actions Needed to Maintain Viable Surge Sealift and Combat
Logistics Fleets (GAO-17-503) details how readiness is impacted by
deferred maintenance and extension of service life to 60 years.
Mr. Gallagher. Would there be an impact on the merchant mariner
manpower shortage if the Navy required the credentialing of surface
warfare officers to meet international rules of the roads requirements?
Admiral Buzby. In the near term, there would be little or no impact
for licensed mariners. It generally takes eight to ten years to attain
the training and sea time necessary to reach the highest level
unlimited credentials of Master or Chief Engineer. Nevertheless, a
percentage of the sea time spent aboard certain military vessels does
qualify as valid sea time for purposes of obtaining or raising the
level of a merchant mariner credential. In addition to sea service,
however, there are other training requirements and written examinations
that all applicants are required to pass in order to obtain or raise
the level of a U.S. merchant mariner credential. Assuming a percentage
of Surface Warfare Officers (SWOs) obtain the highest level of mariner
credentials and exit military service for commercial U.S.-flag maritime
employment, then such a requirement could help provide some relief.
MARAD is most concerned about a shortage of mariners with the
highest level unlimited credentials. While data limitations currently
prevent MARAD from breaking down mariner shortages into subcategories,
in MARAD's experience hiring mariners for its own organic fleet, and
according to similar accounts from representatives of labor and
industry, it is most difficult to find higher level unlimited licensed
mariners and not entry-level Third Mates or Third Engineers.
It is also important to note that merchant mariners are civilians,
and service aboard any ship is completely voluntary. The proportion of
fully qualified mariners that might volunteer for sealift mobilization
cannot be estimated with greater accuracy without a survey to determine
current levels of volunteerism. Accordingly, the Maritime Workforce
Working Group (MWWG) recommended conducting a survey of U.S. merchant
mariners to determine their availability and willingness to volunteer
for sealift services if asked to do so. In response to that
recommendation, MARAD is working with the Department of
Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics and has secured a
contract to conduct a biennial survey of mariner availability and
willingness to sail for specific types of licensed and unlicensed
mariners.