[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                     
 
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 116-81]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING

                                   ON

        FISCAL YEAR 2021 NAVY AND MARINE CORPS READINESS POSTURE

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             MARCH 12, 2020


                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
41-865              WASHINGTON : 2021 

                                     
  


                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                  JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii                DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
ANDY KIM, New Jersey, Vice Chair     AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma             JOE WILSON, South Carolina
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       ROB BISHOP, Utah
JASON CROW, Colorado                 MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico     MO BROOKS, Alabama
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan             ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
               Melanie Harris, Professional Staff Member
                 John Muller, Professional Staff Member
                           Sean Falvey, Clerk
                           
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Readiness......................................     1
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Colorado, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Readiness..............................     3

                               WITNESSES

Burke, ADM Robert P., USN, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, 
  Department of the Navy.........................................     5
Geurts, Hon. James F., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
  Research, Development and Acquisition, Department of the Navy..     4
Thomas, Gen Gary L., USMC, Assistant Commandant, Headquarters 
  United States Marine Corps.....................................     7

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Garamendi, Hon. John.........................................    23
    Geurts, Hon. James F., joint with ADM Robert P. Burke and Gen 
      Gary L. Thomas.............................................    27
    Lamborn, Hon. Doug...........................................    25

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    [There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
        FISCAL YEAR 2021 NAVY AND MARINE CORPS READINESS POSTURE

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Subcommittee on Readiness,
                          Washington, DC, Thursday, March 12, 2020.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Garamendi 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

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

    Mr. Garamendi. We will get started here. The committee will 
come to order. As we notice, this is a rather vacant room. The 
attending physician has recommended that we hold hearings with 
as few people as possible in attendance at the hearing. These 
hearings are available via C-SPAN. And those who want to watch 
this and listen to the hearing, they can certainly do so on the 
C-SPAN channels. I want to thank our witnesses for bringing 
only essential staff. And I have one staff. Doug, you have one 
staff with us?
    Mr. Lamborn. I have people that are essential that are not 
here. I don't want their self-esteem to suffer.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well said. And I will just say, me too. Now 
those who really want to come into the room, it is an open 
hearing and you are welcome to do so. Well, you can do so. 
Welcome is another matter. But you certainly can come to the 
hearing.
    Let us go ahead and get started. Opening statement, I will 
probably do most of this, because it is relevant to all the 
things that we need to cover here.
    Today, the subcommittee will hear from the Assistant 
Secretary of Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, 
the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, and the Assistant 
Commandant of the Marine Corps on the state of the Navy and 
Marine Corps readiness, and how the fiscal year 2021 operation 
and maintenance budget supports training, weapon system 
maintenance, in alignment with the National Defense Strategy.
    For the past several years, we have heard concerns about 
the state of the Navy and Marine Corps preparedness for great 
power competition. At the same time, a series of devastating 
accidents at sea, in the air, and on the ground have 
illustrated the urgent need to direct sustained attention to 
training of our personnel and the maintenance of our platforms.
    While my colleagues on the Seapower Subcommittee may have 
their own views on this year's smaller shipbuilding budget, I 
must applaud the Navy for its attempt to protect readiness and 
the message that this budget sends about the risks of creating 
a hollow force.
    As for the Marine Corps, I would like also to recognize the 
Commandant's forward-leaning visionary planning guidance and 
look forward to learning about the sustained concepts that will 
support a realigned Marine Corps.
    There are several issues at the forefront of my mind. I am 
extremely troubled that the Department, in its wargaming, 
budget planning, and public narrative, seems incapable of 
confronting the deteriorating sealift capacity. This year, we 
learned that only 40 percent of the Ready Reserve Force was 
able to get underway in TRANSCOM's [U.S. Transportation 
Command's] turbo activation exercise. The decline of the 
logistics force is an existential threat to our deterrence 
capability. And this issue cannot be held hostage to 
institutional paralysis any longer. There have been numerous 
hearings on this, including yesterday afternoon, and in which 
we went into this in some depth. We may explore it today also.
    From the perspective of the subcommittee, this means we 
must ensure we are appropriately investing in recapitalizing, 
maintaining, and manning our sealift vessels. We must also keep 
an eye on the ball when it comes to ship maintenance, with only 
one-third of the availabilities delivered on time in recent 
years. We are still not where we need to be.
    As Secretary Esper stated in his testimony to the full 
committee, maintenance challenges are preventing the Navy's 
force generation model from operating as intended.
    I look forward to hearing about the plans that the Navy has 
in fiscal year 2021 to improve the timeliness, modernization of 
the public shipyards, and provide more stability and 
predictability to the private shipyards, and invest in building 
a skilled workforce.
    This subcommittee has also focused extensively on aviation 
readiness. While we saw encouraging results from Secretary 
Mattis' 80 percent mission capability initiative, the Navy and 
Marine Corps needs to avoid regressing in the meantime, and 
demonstrate sustained commitment to remedying the problems with 
depot throughput, spare parts, and maintenance practices that 
have motivated this effort in the first place.
    In addition, I am deeply concerned about the cost of 
sustaining the F-35 and the Department's lack of access to key 
technical data necessary for organic maintenance. We will 
undoubtedly come back and deal with the F-35 in detail at other 
hearings. I note today it was reported there are 883 flaws in 
the F-35 system. We are not going to cover all of them today, 
probably not even one.
    Finally, we have held several hearings on the tragic ship, 
aviation, and ground vehicle accidents of the past several 
years. I note today that the U.S. Army had one death at Fort 
Irwin yesterday. And the Marine Corps had one death and two 
injuries in an accident in the UAE [United Arab Emirates] 
yesterday. Tragic as it is, we are going to focus on that and 
deal with it.
    I am particularly concerned that the ground vehicle 
mishaps, which do not involve multi-billion dollar assets and 
platforms, often receive less attention. Nevertheless, they are 
deadly. And when they add up, the numbers are quite large.
    Training safety is of paramount importance. And we need to 
prioritize identifying and addressing the root causes of these 
accidents.
    I look forward to our discussion today. With that I turn to 
Ranking Member Lamborn of Colorado for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Lamborn.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in 
the Appendix on page 23.]

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

    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Chairman Garamendi. Today, we will 
hear testimony regarding the readiness of the Navy and the 
Marine Corps to execute the National Defense Strategy under the 
President's fiscal year 2021 budget request. We find ourselves 
at a critical point where the need to modernize is undeniable, 
but I am increasingly concerned how we are going to balance 
modernization with our current readiness needs.
    Just this week, we learned that the Navy plans to cancel 
the planned service life extensions for Flight I and Flight II 
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers [DDG 51s]. The impact of this 
decision is that the Navy will lose 27 DDG 51s between 2026 and 
2034. My understanding is that this decision was driven by cost 
concerns, but it is unclear how the Navy will recover this 
capability, or how the fleet's readiness will be affected. This 
is a major deviation from the plan, and I am concerned that the 
committee was not briefed about this information before it was 
made public.
    The Navy has made some progress in improving the cost and 
schedule performance for ship and submarine maintenance 
availabilities, mostly through more realistic scheduling by the 
fleet commanders, level loading work in the shipyards, improved 
contracting practices that all reduce administrative waste and 
that encourage private industry investment, as well as 
leveraging data to reduce the amount of unforecasted work.
    That said, in each of the last 2 fiscal years, the Navy has 
requested reprogramming in the magnitude of $1 billion to cover 
shortfalls in its ship depot account. This would lead us to 
believe that significant improvement is still required.
    Because approximately two-thirds of ship availabilities 
complete in the second year, the Navy is requesting $1.3 
billion to continue a fiscal year 2020 pilot program that 
authorizes private contract ship maintenance for the Pacific 
Fleet through the Other Procurement, Navy account, which is 3-
year money. The committee will be watching this pilot closely 
as it should improve performance and has the potential to bring 
costs down.
    As I stated in the TRANSCOM hearing yesterday, I am deeply 
concerned about the health of the surge sealift fleet--by the 
mid-2030s, over half of which will be unusable. With 85 percent 
of the joint force based in the United States, our military 
readiness is potentially irrelevant without the capability and 
capacity to project those forces to a fight. The budget request 
would only fund the purchase of two used vehicles--and I want 
to--excuse me, vessels, and I want to hear from our witnesses 
what the Navy's investment plan is to address this growing 
concern.
    General Berger, the Commandant, has embarked the Marine 
Corps on a transformation effort to ensure that it is prepared 
to fight near-peer competitors. His guidance is that, quote, 
``The Marine Corps will be trained and equipped as a naval 
expeditionary force in readiness, and prepared to operate 
inside actively contested maritime spaces in support of fleet 
operations,'' unquote.
    I fully support this effort, and I will be looking forward 
to hearing from General Thomas how the Corps will balance this 
transformation effort with current readiness requirements. As 
Chairman Garamendi has pointed out, logistics capability will 
determine our success or failure in a future Pacific fight. We 
also look forward to learning more about how the Navy and 
Marine Corps will sustain this future force.
    Finally, the Navy and Marine Corps have made significant 
progress with aircraft readiness under the MC [mission capable] 
80 construct that Secretary Mattis put in place. The F/A-18 and 
EA-18G fleets have met the 80 percent mission-capable 
objective.
    While the F-35 has not achieved this goal, it has improved 
from 54 to 72 percent. The fifth-generation F-35 is a game-
changing capability that our warfighters need. We owe it to 
them to ensure that we get the sustainment for this program 
right. I continue to have significant concerns about 
intellectual property issues in this program. We need to have 
better clarity on the impact that the program will have on 
service sustainment budgets.
    So, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn can be found in the 
Appendix on page 25.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. I would like now to 
welcome our guests: James Geurts, Assistant Secretary of Navy 
for Research, Development and Acquisition; Admiral Robert 
Burke, Vice Chief of Naval Operations; and General Gary Thomas, 
Assistant Commandant, United States Marine Corps.
    Mr. Geurts, if you would care to start.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES F. GEURTS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
 NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION, DEPARTMENT OF 
                            THE NAVY

    Secretary Geurts. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member 
Lamborn, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you 
for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 
readiness posture of the Department of Navy. Before I begin, I 
would like to express the Department's deepest condolences to 
the family members of the servicemen who tragically lost their 
lives in recent days. Their sacrifice for our Nation serves as 
a stark reminder of the gravity of our responsibilities to our 
warfighters.
    Properly maintained, equipped, and manned ships and 
aircraft are critical to ensuring the Navy and Marine Corps are 
ready to respond when called. The fiscal year 2021 budget 
request sustains the commitments to improve readiness made in 
fiscal year 2017 all the way through fiscal year 2020.
    With consistent funding, we have stopped the decline in 
readiness, and we are seeing positive indicators that our 
maintenance issues are making a difference. For instance, our 
aviation depot-level Periodic Maintenance Interval inspection 
cycles on the F/A-18 are over 57 percent faster. Our supply 
chain is more robust, and our maintenance teams are more 
efficient. As noted last October, we achieved an 80 percent 
mission-capable rate for the F/A-18 E/Fs.
    We are applying the same holistic reform approach to ship 
maintenance in both the public and private yards, making 
significant changes to our maintenance planning, leveraging 
modern commercial statistical methods, and using a wide range 
of contracting options with the authorities this committee has 
given us so we can properly plan, buy, and execute, with stable 
workforce, and in the process, save the Navy and the taxpayer 
time and money.
    In the private shipyards, a combination of efforts have 
taken us from a 37 percent on-time completion rate to an 
encouraging 50 percent current on-time completion rate, and we 
are forecasting over 70 percent this year. In our public yards, 
we have reduced the maintenance backlog delays by 50 percent.
    Although we have made significant gains, steady investment 
and close attention to this issue is required for us to 
recapitalize and get to where we need to. Our end goal is to 
deliver our ships and aircraft on time and in full.
    We look forward to working closely with Congress to achieve 
that goal, and we thank you for the strong support this 
subcommittee has always provided our sailors and Marines and 
their families.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, 
and we look forward to answering your questions.
    [The joint prepared statement of Secretary Geurts, Admiral 
Burke, and General Thomas can be found in the Appendix on page 
27.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Secretary Geurts.
    Admiral Burke.

  STATEMENT OF ADM ROBERT P. BURKE, USN, VICE CHIEF OF NAVAL 
               OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    Admiral Burke. Good morning, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking 
Member Lamborn.
    Mr. Garamendi. We are going to work on name pronunciation 
here. Is that Geurts? Is that correct?
    Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
    Admiral Burke. Good morning, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking 
Member Lamborn, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 
On behalf of the Chief of Naval Operations and the sailors, 
civilians, and families of the United States Navy, thank you 
for inviting me to testify today.
    Our Nation depends on a ready Navy-Marine Corps team, and 
your commitment to the training, maintenance, and modernization 
of our fleet will ensure not only a Navy ready for today's 
fight, but also a Navy ready to meet the challenges of 
tomorrow. We are excited about where we are headed, but we feel 
a sense of urgency and we know that we need to go faster.
    The Navy's distributed maritime operations concept works 
hand in glove with the Marine Corps expeditionary amphibious-
based operations concept in order to maximize our lethality and 
complicate things for our adversaries.
    It is a new way of doing business, and we are experimenting 
and exercising each and every day, working together as one 
team, out and about with today's fleet, while at the same time 
carefully evaluating the details of the capabilities we are 
going to need to improve the execution of those concepts with a 
future fleet.
    That said, our budget top line is essentially flat 
throughout the Future Years Defense Plan. And accounting for 
inflation, we really lose buying power. In looking back, that 
top line has been essentially constant in same-year dollars 
since about 2010. And as you have heard before, it is about 
enough to keep a fleet of between 305 and 310 ships properly 
manned, trained, equipped, and maintained. And we are not going 
to recommend increasing ship numbers if we can't keep them 
properly equipped, manned, and ready to go out and fight. So, 
given that reality, we prioritized with our 2021 budget the 
Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine first. It is the 
replacement for our Nation's primary strategic deterrent force, 
and we have to get that ship class out in time. There is 
absolutely no margin for schedule slip, as the Trident-class 
submarines originally designed for a 30-year life are reaching 
the end of their 40-plus-year extended lifetime.
    Our next priority is unquestionably readiness. We continue 
investments to preserve the momentum we have established to 
ensure that your Navy is fully ready to fight tonight. After 
that, we are keeping the press on modernization. We continue to 
invest in those key capabilities that are going to be the game 
changers for the future fleet. Artificial intelligence, 
hypersonics, unmanned, directed energy; things of that nature. 
And finally, capable capacity. That is the pursuit that 
continues. So, shipbuilding does remain a priority.
    On readiness--and I know many of you have been to sea 
recently and seen this firsthand--we are making good progress, 
and as Secretary Geurts has also just told you. But we have to 
keep in mind readiness is a long game, and it requires a 
continued and stable commitment to funding to enable us to 
overcome years of wartime operating tempo, the budget 
variability that we have seen, and, frankly, the effects of 
sequestration which we are still working to overcome.
    Your continued dedication and attention since the 
supplemental funding bills in fiscal year 2017, has made an 
incredible difference. And fiscal year 2021 budget will 
continue to build on the readiness recovery we began then, and 
it will allow us to continue to train our force for the high-
end fight, while we continue to simultaneously press to improve 
ship, submarine, and aircraft depot maintenance. Efforts like 
Secretary Geurts described, with their naval sustainment system 
for our F/A-18 strike fighter force, and a whole host of what 
we call performance-to-plan programs are being applied across 
the board, and we are beginning to see results. We are not 
there yet, but we are on a positive trajectory.
    On behalf of the sailors, civilians, and families who make 
up our Navy team, thank you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Admiral Burke.
    General Thomas.

 STATEMENT OF GEN GARY L. THOMAS, USMC, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, 
            HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

    General Thomas. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, 
and distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for 
the opportunity to appear before you and discuss the readiness 
of the United States Marine Corps. Along with our Navy 
partners, we are ready to fight today, while at the same time 
preparing for the challenges outlined in the National Defense 
Strategy. The Marine Corps budget execution over the past 2 
years prioritized readiness recovery and made key investments 
in lethality as we turned to great power competition. Stable 
and predictable funding, combined with your support during our 
hurricane recovery efforts, have greatly improved readiness, 
supported our Marines and their families, and sustained 
important modernization efforts.
    The fiscal year 2021 budget request sustains the commitment 
to improve readiness made over the last few years. This request 
funds our major readiness accounts, allowing for more spare 
parts, completion of critical maintenance, increased depot 
throughput, and more flying hours. At the same time, the Marine 
Corps is focusing on the pacing threat to ensure that we are 
ready for the future operating environment.
    Through careful analysis and war gaming, we are developing 
new warfighting concepts, and have identified the need to 
invest in additional capabilities in support of joint and naval 
forces. These investments reflect a pivot to a new force design 
which we will begin to implement this year.
    With your support, your Marines will continue to maximize 
the precious resources that have been entrusted to us. Stable 
and predictable funding will ensure that the Marine Corps is a 
ready, modern force that is prepared for a changing strategic 
environment.
    I look forward to answering your questions.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, General.
    There are a whole series of questions that we have, so let 
me--Mr. Scott, you may not know it, but we are now implementing 
the advice of the House, and that is to limit access to--limit 
and suggest that people not come to the hearing but rather to 
watch the hearing on the television. And that is--and staff 
limitations.
    Mr. Lamborn. He is allowed to be here.
    Mr. Garamendi. Members are allowed to be here, yes. And so 
it goes.
    A whole series of questions that are out there. We should 
start with what we now see in this committee which is social 
distancing.
    I want to put this to Admiral Burke and to General Thomas, 
could you please describe how your Navy and Marine Corps are 
dealing with the operations in the age of coronavirus. General 
Thomas, you seem prepared, so jump into it.
    General Thomas. Chairman, as you know, we are following, 
you know, the direction of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention] and the Department of Defense. The Secretary of 
Defense, just this morning, signed, you know, additional 
guidance that will restrict travel for--that will hold Marines, 
soldiers, sailors, and airmen in place for 60 days for Level 3 
countries, and then restricting travel for dependents for those 
Level 2 countries. Within the Marine Corps, you know, we are 
doing all the things that, I think, we are starting to see 
across the country. We are reviewing our disease, you know, 
containment plans. We have--we are starting to reduce, much 
like we are seeing here in this committee room, large 
gatherings.
    We are implementing measures to screen and quarantine 
Marines when necessary. And we are also screening at places 
that are, you know, unique in the sense that they bring people 
from all over the country; for example, entry-level training. 
Those are the broad steps that the Marine Corps is taking in 
alignment with the Department of Defense, and the Centers for 
Disease Control.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, General.
    Admiral Burke.
    Admiral Burke. Yeah, the main concern for the Navy, like, I 
think, all the services is the well-being of our sailors and 
their family members. That is our absolute top priority. We are 
also providing support, as are the other services, to Health 
and Human Services [Department] and the Centers for Disease 
Control, working under the coordination of the U.S. Northern 
Command. So, each of the services are supporting their efforts 
as needed.
    And as General Thomas outlined, each of the services are 
following the CDC guidance as minimum requirements, with 
implementation above and beyond those requirements as necessary 
that meet the unique needs of the service. For example, with 
our ships at sea, we are very sensitive to the fact that we are 
moving from place to place rapidly. We do not want to be the 
source of, you know, transmission of the virus.
    So, we put measures in place right away in the Pacific 
early on. And, now, it is globally, ships, once they leave a 
port, will stay at sea for 14 days, monitoring their crew, 
ensuring that no symptoms are out there. So, effectively, a 
self-quarantine before pulling into another nation, and then 
monitoring prior to pulling into ports, and things of that 
nature. And then basically all of the other things that General 
Thomas outlined as well, similar.
    Mr. Garamendi. Secretary Geurts, anything to add?
    Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Certainly a little bit of a 
longer term, but we are taking a close look at all of our 
acquisition programs. We have been working for a long time on 
supply chain integrity. So, this plays into the supply chain, 
understanding our supply lines where we have got fragility, 
planning forward on that. So, a little longer term, but could 
be a longer impacting element is going to be that on all of our 
acquisition and sustainment programs.
    Mr. Garamendi. Okay. A couple of things. Part of that 
supply chain are your medicines. Our colleague on this 
committee, Vicky Hartzler, and I have introduced legislation 
dealing with drugs, the availability of drugs. Most of which on 
the generic side, 90-some percent come from China. And that 
supply chain is already interrupted. And it could be a national 
strategic problem since China could decide they don't want 
those to come to America. So, we are looking at how to develop 
our own domestic production of these key ingredients for that. 
And the rest of the supply chain is similarly at risk given 
this virus.
    I think I will go into one other set of questions here, and 
that has to do with the accidents. I notice in the audience 
Kathleen, whose fiance was killed in a rollover accident in 
Camp Pendleton more than a year ago, I would like all of you--I 
noticed also a shipboard accidental death occurred over the 
last couple of days, somebody falling down a stairwell. So, 
let's deal with that issue of accidents, General Thomas.
    General Thomas. Thank you, Chairman. Just for context, you 
know we have--after having 5 years of no vehicle rollovers, or 
serious Class A, we had a spike last year of three which 
included the tragic loss of Lieutenant McDowell. And then we 
have had also two already this year. This is not a--it is not 
a--this is not a resource issue. There are several things that 
we have done immediately to improve the safety in these 
instances. We have instituted additional training for the crews 
manning these vehicles. We have increased the use of our 
tactical vehicle simulators. And then, I think, perhaps most 
helpful would be across our entire training areas, which, as 
you know, are quite large, we are designating and marking, you 
know, hazardous terrain as a risk mitigation.
    And then, finally, just in terms of training, you know, we 
are redoubling our efforts to mitigate risk through a crawl, 
walk, run approach. We are also, you know, during training, we 
are building in opportunities for remediation for--it could be 
individuals or crews that need a little bit more training time. 
And we are emphasizing hazard identification and assessment 
prior to each training opportunity.
    Mr. Garamendi. If I recall, in previous hearings we had 
asked for an analysis of the accidents, and what was the cause, 
and what could have prevented that. I don't believe we have 
received that yet. So, if you could attend to that and provide 
us with that information. So, how is it going?
    General Thomas. Chairman, we will get you that information 
this week.
    Mr. Garamendi. If you would, please.
    Admiral Burke.
    Admiral Burke. Whether it is major accidents, like the 
McCain and the Fitzgerald or minor, you know, aviation 
incidents moving aircraft on the back of an aircraft carrier 
causing equipment damage, we treat them the same.
    And, fundamentally, the root cause of both of those issues 
is a cultural one where people are either complacent, or there 
is a culture of lack of questioning attitude. People aren't 
inquisitive about what they are doing and what the 
ramifications of not doing it properly are.
    So in the case of the McCain and Fitzgerald, we have talked 
to you--and I think Vice Admiral Brown was here a month ago 
talking to you in detail about the actions that came out of our 
Strategic Readiness Review and our Comprehensive Review.
    All of those actions, though, are really designed at sort 
of a three-step process to, you know, first get the surface 
force safe to operate, and then get them to the point where 
they could operate effectively to get out and get the reps and 
sets that they needed to build confidence with a goal of 
turning the corridor of reaching this goal of culture of 
excellence, where every watch stander, every sailor, every team 
member on every component of team is seeking to become a better 
version of themselves, seeking to make the team better all the 
time.
    They are asking if the procedure is right, if they could 
optimize it, if they could make it more safe, whatever the 
objective of that procedure is. And we have places in the Navy 
where that's done very well. We have places where it just needs 
to improve, and we are building that culture in.
    The same thing in aviation maintenance mishaps, we have put 
mechanisms in place. Our air boss, Vice Admiral ``Bullet'' 
Miller, has brought in outside organizations to teach this and 
build it into the DNA of our maintenance processes and 
reinforce it as we go and build it into the culture, so that it 
is reinforced at every step. In cases like this, when you're 
doing complex, technical process, sometimes slower is faster if 
you are being very deliberate about it and talking through 
these consequences before you go to the next step. So, it is 
elements like that.
    Mr. Garamendi. My final question, and then I am going to 
turn to Mr. Lamborn. Reported in today's review of what is 
going on in the military is this little note: The Navy mulling 
taking sailors off forward-deployed ships as part of a $40 
billion savings drive. Manning forward-deployed ships with 
fewer sailors.
    We have been working the exact opposite direction, Admiral 
Burke. What is this all about?
    Admiral Burke. I can't speak to what that article is about. 
I am not aware of any initiative to reduce manning at forward-
deployed naval ships. We are working the opposite direction. 
We've--the average destroyer right now across the Navy, but 
first was in FDNF [Forward Deployed Naval Forces] forces, Japan 
and Europe, you know, we have added 25 to 30 sailors per ship 
and we are adding more. We are simultaneously growing the Navy 
with more ships, and we are adding more sailors to every ship 
because of the things that we learned. I am not sure what the 
article is referring to.
    Mr. Garamendi. It must have been overheard at some bar late 
at night and----
    Admiral Burke. Perhaps. I will look into it.
    Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. Incorrectly reported.
    Mr. Lamborn.
    Admiral Burke. But we are continuing to work towards 
improving manning. And we have budgeted for it, and it is a 
matter of the accessions coming through the training pipelines 
and getting there.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Admiral.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Geurts, the decision to cancel the service life 
extensions on the DDG 51 class is concerning--because if 
allowed to stand, this will cause the Navy to lose 27 
destroyers between fiscal years 2026 and 2034. So, what is the 
business case for this decision, and how will the Navy 
reconstitute this capability?
    Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir, and I apologize upfront if that 
caught the committee off guard. And we should have communicated 
better with you on that. To put it in perspective, what we are 
talking about is post-FYDP [Future Year Defense Plan] changes. 
So, none of these would be until the 2026 through 2030 area. 
So, that was one of the reasons it didn't get communicated 
clearly given the shipbuilding plan.
    We had originally looked at adding service life to 
destroyers, if you recall, in hearings last year and the year 
before; that was one of the ways we were increasing the naval 
size. What this shows you is some of the stark choices the Navy 
is having to make with a relatively flat line. Service life 
extensions do add to the size of the fleet, but they kind of 
just push the cliff to the right. And so, we have got to be 
cautious you don't keep extending forever without building, 
because eventually you will run out your ability to extend.
    And so, it reflected some hard choices we had to make in 
long-term planning. Having said that, this is a 2026 and out 
piece, and it is something we are going to continue to look at 
what is right business case. My guess as we go closer to that, 
we made some pretty big swings from 35- to 45-year service 
lives for our oldest destroyers. I think we will look at those 
in a little bit more micro detail as we get closer to make sure 
that business case is there.
    As we are seeing now with cruisers, there is a point where 
extending these older ships does become--the cost is not worth 
the benefit, particularly if we don't have the ship maintenance 
enterprise working at full efficiency.
    And, so, my other expectation is we drive ship maintenance 
effectiveness and efficiency higher, that may allow us to 
extend those ships without breaking the budget.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. And you brought up an important point, 
the shipyard availabilities. I know we are making progress on 
that, and I appreciate that. How is the pilot program, though, 
going that will use procurement funding--and have you learned 
any lessons at this point that might be applied to other major 
programs?
    Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. One, thanks for the support of 
Congress to put that pilot in place. I think it will be an 
important pilot force. We are a little bit early in that pilot 
because it is just in the first year. The Navy is committed to 
fund that pilot in the budget. So, we moved the money 
commensurate with the money that was moved in last year's 
budget.
    So, as we work through that, I think we will get 
efficiency. One, we won't go through the fiscal year boundary 
issues that we have with O&M [operation and maintenance]. And 
two, it gives us a little more flexibility as we gain 
efficiency in these availabilities. We can then reapply those 
funds quickly to future availabilities. My commitment after, 
you know, another year or two, is to report back to Congress 
and----
    Mr. Lamborn. Please do.
    Secretary Geurts [continuing]. We can decide whether to 
scale, sustain, or stop.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Please do. Thank you.
    Lastly, on the Ready Reserve Fleet, given that over half 
the sea [sealift] fleet will be unusable by the mid-2030s, I am 
concerned that we are not seeing a more significant investment 
in recapitalizing the fleet.
    So, what percentage of the MARAD [United States Maritime 
Administration] and MSC [Military Sealift Command] fleets does 
it make sense to overhaul?
    And Admiral Burke, do you have a perspective on this also?
    Secretary Geurts. I will say from the acquisition side, we 
have got to work together with Congress. The initial cost to 
replace those as new-build ships without some of the 
initiatives yet in place to revitalize our commercial 
shipbuilding industry, put those ships as very expensive ships. 
And I don't believe we want to be putting half a billion 
dollars into new builds. I don't think that is the right 
strategy.
    We are doing some near-term mitigations in terms of 
additional service life extensions, and as spoken about 
earlier, some purchases of used ones. I think we have got to 
work together to find the right balance. New construction isn't 
off the table, but until we can come up with an affordable way 
to do that, I don't think, you know, replacing that whole fleet 
with brand new construction ships is going to be the answer 
either. We have just got work to do together to find the right 
balance.
    Admiral Burke. Sir, I would echo what Secretary Geurts said 
at--first of all, I absolutely agree that sealift is incredibly 
critical to our efforts. And with what we know right now, we 
are applying a balanced approach. We have put significant money 
towards operation and sustainment funding for the sealift fleet 
in the PB [President's budget] 2021 budget as a first measure. 
We are also applying the performance-to-plan types of 
techniques to everything that we are doing in the day-to-day 
efforts, and shoring up those practices.
    We ran the turbo activation exercise that you referred to. 
That was Navy-initiated, the fourth one of the year that we put 
a lot of money towards to validate what we thought was a 
readiness deficit so that we could go after this. So, the 
results were not surprising. We wanted to know this so that we 
could go after it.
    I think the balanced approach, though, consists of going 
after the maintenance, getting better at that, making it more 
cost-effective, more efficient, going after the service life 
extensions for the ships that have reasonable life after that. 
We did six last year. We are doing 10 this year. We will do 
more next year. We are on track to do that. And then, it is a 
mixed of buy used and buy new.
    So, thank you for the authorities to do the incremental 
funding on the new ship. We have money in PB 2021 that will 
work towards a 2023 layout for a new construction that will 
deliver in 2026, the first one of a new class. And, then, the 
used ships, we will follow suit. We got the authorities all in 
place and lined up for the first purchase, and the second 
purchase this year, and then another one, the following year, 
seven in total right now.
    So, I think we are in good shape down that track as we 
learn more about what is in the art of the possible in the new 
construction, and we will figure out the balance.
    And Chairman Garamendi brought forward some interesting 
proposals of working through industry to help us with that new 
construction piece. And we are really looking forward to 
working with the committee on that.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
    Ms. Houlahan.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
gentlemen, for coming today. My questions have largely to do 
with shipbuilding, as I come from Pennsylvania and we have both 
private and Navy shipyards in Philadelphia and small businesses 
that support the naval shipbuilding industry.
    The Navy has been using the engineering readiness and 
assessment team program for over a decade, employing retired 
sailors as contractors to help current crews maintain Navy 
ships and train their crews. These programs seem to have 
different requirements on the east and west coasts, and are 
routinely exposed to funding and contractual instabilities.
    So, my question is, why are there different contracts and 
requirements and funding? And why are they not aligned under 
one command and resource sponsored to ensure more predictable 
funding and consistency throughout the fleet?
    Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. I just became aware of that 
issue. So, I would like to take that for the record. I will go 
look at the acquisition strategy of why do we have multiple 
contracts and multiple standards, and if it is okay to come 
back with you in more detailed response and----
    Ms. Houlahan. Absolutely.
    Secretary Geurts [continuing]. Address the issue. I agree 
there should not be different requirements and different 
performance standards.
    Ms. Houlahan. Perfect. Thank you very much.
    The Navy also has struggled to forecast ship depot 
maintenance costs and requested congressional approval to 
reprogram about $1 billion to cover shortfalls in fiscal year 
2019 and 2020. What are we doing to better predict the cost of 
maintaining the Navy ships?
    Secretary Geurts. As we have been digging into this fairly 
complex system, one of the key contributors to extending both 
the costs and the delays in the availabilities was a poor 
planning on the front end. We struggled a little bit to submit 
a budget 2 years ahead of execution, but that is not an excuse 
for not planning it right from the start.
    So, we have taken kind of a big data approach to that, 
updated our data models so that we are taking much more into 
account what is really driving those delays, whether it is port 
loading, or availability of skilled workers, or all the other 
associated factors. That new model so far has delivered five on 
five on time. For this fiscal year, that is part of what's 
getting us from a 30 percent to 70 percent. I would be lying if 
I said it was perfect. But I think that is informing, and we've 
rolled our 2021 budget and out using that model.
    Now, it is still a dynamic thing. I would expect we may 
have small reprogrammings as we get through execution in year 
if we find something really, you know, unexpected, but a $1 
billion-a-year swing should not be kind of standard business.
    Ms. Houlahan. Excellent. My next question is that the Navy 
has recently met its goal of employing 37,000 public shipyard 
workers. Are you confident--and I believe I asked a very 
similar question last year--that you have the right mix between 
management and skilled trades? And when do you plan to complete 
the next wage grade study to ensure that the balance is right?
    Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. So, I think, yes, we hired 
ahead. So, the good news is we have got the workers here, we 
actually got them there using a lot of the authorities that 
this subcommittee and others have given us for direct hiring 
authority. That is good. Our challenge is they are relatively 
inexperienced, about 50 percent less than 5 years. But our 
opportunity is they are relatively inexperienced and they are 
digital natives. So, our main focus right now is getting them 
trained up and proficient.
    Let me also get back to you, for the record, on when we 
will do the next wage grade study there, but that is something 
that we continually look at. We are doing the same thing on the 
fleet readiness center from aviation side as well.
    Ms. Houlahan. And how does this budget invest to better 
leverage and expand private shipyard capacity?
    Secretary Geurts. So, again, some of that is in how we plan 
the contracts, which I have talked about. I have been meeting 
now quarterly with all the CEOs [chief executive officers] from 
ship repair. So, the vice and I actually sit down with them 
about once a quarter to really get the business environment 
correct. We got into a just-in-time contract award, one 
contract at a time, that is not efficient. So, we are trying to 
find the right balance of competition, yet enough planning 
horizon. I think one of the things that is helping is grouping 
maintenance so you will win, say, three destroyers back to back 
so that you can hire a workforce, they can get proficient. And 
that will help us both drive schedule efficiency as well as 
drive costs down through that efficiency.
    Ms. Houlahan. And I apologize--oops, is my time up? My time 
is up. So many questions. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. There is a hearing, or a briefing, going on 
for all Members of the House having to do with the coronavirus, 
and so many members of this committee are attending that.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think that a 
briefing also has to do with the economic realities of what is 
happening out there as well. And that is one of the things I 
know we as a committee will be wrestling with as we write the 
NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], is what are the 
actual revenues going to be and what timeline is that based on, 
and having an election coming up in November. As much as none 
of us like CRs [continuing resolutions] and as much as you 
don't like CRs, if I were a betting man, I would bet that you 
end up having to operate under a CR until--until after the 
election is over. Well, I would rather be honest than----
    Mr. Garamendi. Go ahead.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Geurts, I am going to say this. This does 
not apply specifically to this meeting. I did speak with Dr. 
Roper yesterday. I like Dr. Roper. I think he is a great man. I 
think we are fortunate to have people like Dr. Roper and 
yourself that will work for the government knowing the 
opportunities that are outside. It is every bit as patriotic as 
the people out there fighting with the guns every day, in my 
opinion.
    I do want to mention this, though. I am concerned with some 
of the more advanced technologies that as we move to things 
like ABMS [Advanced Battle Management System], that the other 
branches are not engaged during the development aspect of 
things. Army's Future Command came out and said a couple of 
months ago, Hey, ABMS looks great for the Air Force, but not 
sure it will work for us. We understand now the Air Force is 
bringing the Army in in the development.
    And I have a concern about as we develop these advanced 
weapon systems, these advanced systems as a whole, if they are 
going to be operated by one branch and serve the other 
branches, that there is not more coordination in the 
development of those systems.
    Admiral Burke. Representative Scott, if you don't mind, if 
I can take that one answer.
    Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.
    Admiral Burke. I have been kind of leading our coordination 
effort for the Navy at this stage, since we are not actually 
quite in the acquisition phase yet. And I will tell you that 
the teamwork with--the Air Force, you know, initially developed 
the concept of the what is now being called Joint All-Domain 
Command and Control, which is the name of the concept that's 
going to give us this superhighway cell phone network, if you 
will, that allows us to use sensors as a service, weapons as a 
service, platforms as a service, any weapon system, any 
platform can talk to each other.
    ABMS is one thing that would plug into it. And I think we 
have gotten Army's concerns addressed by them understanding 
they could plug their own command and control module into this 
network as well. But our teamwork has been pretty good. And 
actually, the management of this is going to be taken up to the 
joint level managed by the vice chairman so that each service 
has a piece of this that they are bringing into the fight.
    Mr. Scott. Admiral, I appreciate your comments--and I hate 
being on a 5-minute clock--but I do want to point out that the 
head of Army's Future Command publicly stated, and now I 
understand they have walked back those comments. But just as a 
Member of Congress, it bothers me when I see the head of the 
Army's Future Command say, Hey, the Air Force is developing all 
this stuff and it won't work for us. And when we do these 
advanced things and these development of things, there has got 
to be the coordination of all the branches in what it is going 
to look like.
    Admiral Burke. Absolutely. And that coordination is taking 
place now. And whether the Army chooses to use this piece or 
not, we are going to make it so that that becomes not a major 
investment decision, and also, the rest of the component works. 
So, if that makes sense.
    Mr. Scott. I am just saying that decision should be made 
earlier----
    Admiral Burke. Early, yes, sir.
    Mr. Scott [continuing]. And all of the branches should be 
involved more from the conceptual development than to have--I 
forget exactly what--multiple generals in Future Command that 
are pretty high ranking, you know, made a pretty public 
statement about a system that is actually going to operate out 
of my----
    Admiral Burke. And that is the great advantage of having 
brought it up to the Vice Chairman of the Joint Staff level so 
that we can get it kind of adjudicated, make sure everyone is 
on board with it. So, that it works for all. So, I think we are 
on a good track, sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Scott has raised a very, very important 
question that we need to pay attention to, not only this 
committee, but in the other committee and full committee.
    With that, I am going to make an ending statement here. We 
do have another subcommittee to which we belong that is also 
meeting at this same moment.
    Ms. Houlahan, you had a question?
    Ms. Houlahan. General, I just have one more question, and I 
want to commend you for the actions that you have done to 
design a force that is more suitable to deter China. And I 
think I am speaking for most of us when I say I am eager to 
figure out what the final Marine force design will look like. 
And one of the things that I wanted to ask is as the Corps 
develops the expeditionary advanced base ops [operations] 
concept, I am wondering what challenges you are facing for 
command and control in this contested environment?
    General Thomas. Thank you, Congresswoman. Just first on the 
force design piece, the Commandant is in the process of 
briefing all the committee chairs and ranking members, and so 
we look forward to sharing that information with you shortly.
    The challenge of, you know, expeditionary advanced base 
operations really is--or any operation in the Pacific, has to 
do with the distance involved, so sustainment, and some of the 
points that have been made earlier are key, as well as a 
resilient command and control network. That gets into the Joint 
All-Domain Command and Control. But also, for components to 
have resiliency, should some of those capabilities be denied. 
That is to say, an overall joint capability with the ability to 
fall back to a secondary system that will allow those forces to 
continue to work at the operational level as well.
    Mr. Garamendi. Yes, this issue of the command and control 
systems and the integration amongst the various branches is 
going to be on all of our minds here, and particularly the--
what is the future Marine Corps going to look like. That brings 
us back to the sustainment issues, which we have had many 
discussions about.
    I am not going to go into these in details. We have covered 
these in meetings and briefing sessions. The Fallon training 
range, we want to get that done this year. And so, pay 
attention to that. On the sealift, we have discussed that 
several times, and we will be working on that. And specific 
proposals will be made for the NDAA, and we are going to need 
feedback.
    Also, Admiral Burke, the question arises as to dry-dock 
capacity everywhere, particularly on the west coast. And if it 
is in short supply, as we have heard, what are the plans to 
deal with that? If you can get back to us on that, it would be 
appreciated. F-35 will be the subject of another probably joint 
committee hearing a little later on as to what to do with the 
F-35. The depot issues, we have discussed those. Those will 
continue to be on our mind as we go through this coming year.
    We have talked about the fleet resist--response plans, that 
also we want to continue to be brought, on a regular basis, up 
to date on the private shipyard program and how you are going 
to change the work orders on that. And I know that that has 
been discussed. You talked about it here today in brief.
    Those are many of the key issues we will be in touch with 
you on all of that. And for all of us, we will be paying 
attention to the pandemic and what we need to do. This is one 
example of holding hearings that people can watch on TV and 
communicate that way and staff, similarly, social distancing. 
Which brings us to the next hearing. I see that our colleagues 
are completed here.
    Thank you so very much for your testimony. We continue to 
look forward to working with you.
    [Whereupon, at 9:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



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




                            A P P E N D I X

                             March 12, 2020

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

      



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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             March 12, 2020

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

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]