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


                                     
 
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 116-80]

                                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 SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

                          meeting jointly with

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                   SEALIFT AND MOBILITY REQUIREMENTS

                       IN SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL

                            DEFENSE STRATEGY

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             MARCH 11, 2020
                                     


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 




                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 41-866             WASHINGTON : 2021 

                                     
  

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

                  JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut, Chairman

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
FILEMON VELA, Texas                  MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr.,           VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
    California                       PAUL COOK, California
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine               TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia, Vice 
    Chair
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York
              Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
                Dave Sienicki, Professional Staff Member
                           Sean Falvey, Clerk

                                 ------                                

                       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

Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.................     1
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Readiness......................................     3
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Colorado, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Readiness..............................     4
Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.........     2

                               WITNESSES

Buzby, RADM Mark H., USN (Ret.), Administrator, U.S. Maritime 
  Administration.................................................     6
Lyons, GEN Stephen R., USA, Commander, U.S. Transportation 
  Command........................................................     5
Nahom, Lt Gen David S., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and 
  Programs, Department of the Air Force..........................     9
Williamson, VADM Ricky L., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, 
  Fleet Readiness and Logistics (N4), Office of the Chief of 
  Naval Operations, Department of the Navy.......................     8

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Buzby, RADM Mark H...........................................    54
    Courtney, Hon. Joe...........................................    35
    Garamendi, Hon. John.........................................    39
    Lamborn, Hon. Doug...........................................    40
    Lyons, GEN Stephen R.........................................    42
    Nahom, Lt Gen David S........................................    69
    Williamson, VADM Ricky L.....................................    59
    Wittman, Hon. Robert J.......................................    37

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. Kelly....................................................    83
    Mrs. Luria...................................................    83
    Mr. Norcross.................................................    83

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Norcross.................................................    91
    Mr. Vela.....................................................    92
    Mr. Wittman..................................................    87
    
 SEALIFT AND MOBILITY REQUIREMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                                STRATEGY

                              ----------                              

        House of Representatives, Committee on Armed 
            Services, Subcommittee on Seapower and 
            Projection Forces, Meeting Jointly with the 
            Subcommittee on Readiness, Washington, DC, 
            Wednesday, March 11, 2020.

    The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Courtney 
(chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces) presiding.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
CONNECTICUT, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION 
                             FORCES

    Mr. Courtney. [Mic off.] 2:30 because, again, we have got 
votes coming in about an hour and 15 to an hour and a half and 
we want to, obviously, make sure we get a chance to hear from 
the witnesses and ask questions.
    So, good afternoon. Today's Seapower and Projection Forces 
Subcommittee and the Readiness Subcommittee are meeting to 
examine sealift and air mobility capabilities, two critical 
elements of our Nation's defense strategy.
    Before I introduce our witnesses, I want to note that this 
year marks the 100th anniversary of the Jones Act. For a 
century, the Jones Act has helped promote a robust domestic 
maritime industry while preserving our Nation's security.
    We are a maritime nation and the Jones Act is one of the 
foundation pillars of a strong maritime policy now and in the 
future.
    In beginning here today, I just want to--it is also the 
75th anniversary fast approaching for the end of World War II 
and Winston Churchill was quoted right after that conflict by 
saying, ``Victory is the beautiful bright flower. Transport is 
the stem without which it could never have blossomed.'' And 
right now, I think the stem is--for a lot of us is we are 
concerned about and that is really, obviously, the focus of 
today's hearing.
    Again, because of the time issue, I am going to submit my 
remarks in writing to the record and, again, we want to, 
obviously, give members a chance to ask a lot of questions. The 
briefing we had a couple months ago I think shows that there 
is, certainly, high interest.
    And with that, I would now yield to Mr. Wittman, the 
ranking member of the Seapower Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the 
Appendix on page 35.]

  STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
    VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND 
                       PROJECTION FORCES

    Mr. Wittman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate you yielding. I especially want to thank Chairman 
Garamendi and Ranking Member Lamborn for this enduring interest 
in our Nation's logistics capabilities. We know how 
extraordinarily important this is and I can think of no better 
panel to discuss sealift and airlift than the folks we have 
before us today.
    As I assess the state of our Nation's military logistics, 
there are many areas that allow us to rapidly project power to 
include our tanker and airlift forces.
    These capabilities are foundational to a great power and I 
believe that we have done a good job of providing this force. 
However, it is essential that our subcommittees take aggressive 
action to staunch the bleeding occurring in our logistics 
forces today.
    For example, our lack of strategic vision in our Nation's 
sealift forces is particularly wanting. I think that this lack 
of vision is a relic to years of strategic hubris and 
complacency.
    My friends, sometimes we are not aware of what is rapidly 
changing around us. We continue to support legacy sealift force 
that is designed for regional conflict and presumes sea 
control. Both of these assumptions have been invalidated with 
our new National Defense Strategy.
    Yet, it is almost as if the Navy forgot to read the 
strategy when they put together their budget plan or, worse, I 
think that we have a strategic seam between the Army and the 
Navy.
    For me, I think that the Navy's budget is overtaxed with 
support for the $110 billion Columbia ballistic missile 
submarine program. I believe it is time for the Army to pick up 
the budget responsibility for the surge sealift forces that 
uniquely support the Army's ability to go to war.
    As to our subcommittee's response to our surge sealift 
plight, I am opposed with the administration's legislative 
proposal that would solely rely on procuring used foreign-built 
vessels to recapitalize our surge sealift.
    I continue to support a combination of procuring used 
vessels through the National Defense Sealift Fund and procuring 
new sealift vessels. At the same time, I do not believe that we 
can sustain a new construction option to support the 
administration's $550 million per hull assessment and look 
forward to pursuing other options that reduce this $25 billion 
new construction recapitalization effort.
    As for our air logistics component, while I am satisfied 
with our current aviation refueling capacity, I think that we 
need to tailor the response to mitigate KC-46A deficiencies. 
There are some that believe that we should cancel the KC-46A 
aircraft contract in its entirety. I do not believe this is a 
prudent strategy. However, until we can deliver a capable KC-
46A aircraft, I think that we should slow both the ordering and 
delivery of KC-46A aircraft and we need to retain legacy 
tankers to cover these shortfalls and we need to ensure that we 
have adequate competition at the conclusion of the current KC-
46A contract.
    And while I could sit here and pontificate about the 
shortfalls of this program, simply put, I think we need to now 
look at making the best move in a bad situation and one that 
is, sadly, of our own making.
    In conclusion, I am reminded of a quote from Alexander the 
Great when reflecting on his extensive logistics train required 
to resupply his battle lines where he indicated, ``My 
logisticians are a humorous lot. They know if my campaign fails 
they are the first ones I will slay.''
    While I don't espouse the slaying of our logisticians, I 
think this clearly paints an indomitable reality that a failed 
logistical plan will allow potential adversaries to dictate the 
circumstances of future warfare, a future which our great 
United States of America can ill afford.
    I believe it is essential that we take aggressive steps in 
the National Defense Authorization Act to staunch the bleeding 
and address these substantial logistic issues.
    Again, I appreciate Chairman Courtney and Chairman 
Garamendi's support for having this important hearing and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the 
Appendix on page 37.]
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Rob, and we will now have to call 
you Wittman the Great.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Wittman. No. No. No. No. No. No, absolutely not.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Courtney. And I yield to my colleague, the chairman of 
the Readiness Subcommittee, John Garamendi.

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

    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I was watching our witnesses as Alexander the Great was 
speaking, something about slaying, which I find it fully 
understandable.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Garamendi. But we do have a problem. I am going to 
shorten this. I ask that my testimony or my opening statement 
be put into the record.
    KC-36--excuse me, KC-135, KC-10s, and the 46 [KC-46]--what 
is going on here? We need to get this squared away. General 
Lyons, you think we need more. The Air Force thinks we don't. 
We are going to have to sort that out. The reality is it is a 
very, very serious problem and I could probably echo most of 
what Mr. Wittman said but I won't right now.
    But that has got to be addressed. The sealift is an ongoing 
problem. I don't think the Navy is going to be able to afford 
the sealift capacity necessary to meet the new National Defense 
Strategy.
    I am not even sure they can meet the old one. Some very 
useful work had been done by the Center for Strategic and 
Budget Assessments. Draw it to your attention, I think I 
deliver this to all of you. It basically calls for the 
rebuilding of our merchant marine, using that with military 
useful ships to address what we will never be able to 
accomplish or not likely to accomplish with the Navy budget, 
even if we are to raid the KC-46 budget to do it.
    So, I think there is a strategy, a national fleet strategy 
that we can employ. I will be asking questions about that and 
we can continue with what we presently have but even that is 
woefully inadequate.
    So, we need to build those ships and if we do it on the 
private sector side, guaranteeing that they have cargo, which I 
think we can do, and provide the necessary support, we can, I 
believe, quickly within the next decade, provide the necessary 
sealift capacity.
    I guess I am going to have to deal with something that--it 
is called luggage, personal property. Ongoing issue. General 
Lyons, it is your turf and that will be my last question.
    If I run out of time, I will get you personally later and 
we will go through it as this is the annual whipping of the--of 
the problem. Excuse me, the semiannual whipping. I will let it 
go at that and we will get on with it.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in 
the Appendix on page 39.]
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
    I now recognize the ranking member of the Readiness 
Subcommittee, Congressman Lamborn.

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

    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Chairman Courtney. I truly 
appreciate the collaboration that you and Ranking Member 
Wittman continue to show Chairman Garamendi and myself on these 
issues that are critical to both of our subcommittees.
    There is an old saying. Amateurs talk about tactics, but 
professionals study logistics. An examination of the issues 
before us reveals the wisdom of this statement. Our witnesses 
today are at the very heart of projecting and sustaining the 
joint force.
    General Lyons, I really appreciate your recent visit and 
the opportunity to discuss the major issues facing USTRANSCOM 
[U.S. Transportation Command]. As you highlighted in your 
opening statement, which will be presented here soon, the world 
is changing and we need TRANSCOM to focus on great power 
competition.
    I am particularly concerned about the cyber threats posed 
to our distribution networks by Russia and China and their 
ongoing efforts to erode access to the U.S. and our allies. We 
must assume that logistics support for future operations will 
take place in highly contested environments.
    Given how central these two--the two issues dominating 
today's hearings are to our overall military readiness, I want 
to add my concerns to those of my colleagues. With 85 percent 
of the joint force based within the United States, our military 
readiness risks being irrelevant without the capability and 
capacity to project those forces to the fight.
    During the turbo activation exercise in September 2019, 
only 60 percent of the organic surge fleet was considered ready 
and only 40 percent of those were able to get underway in the 
time allotted.
    As General Lyons stated in his written statement, by the 
mid-2030s over half of the sealift fleet will be unusable. 
Congress had provided the Navy with authority to begin 
recapitalization through a combination of buying used vessels 
and some new ship construction.
    But to date, we have seen very little action. The fiscal 
year 2021 budget would provide funding to purchase two.
    The KC-46 program, as has already been discussed, is yet 
another example where poor contractor performance is severely 
degrading warfighter capability and requiring the government to 
underwrite the cost of retaining legacy aircraft longer than 
planned.
    Given the unsafe conditions created by the biggest Category 
One deficiency on the KC-46, the remote vision system, it would 
be irresponsible for us to allow the U.S. Air Force to proceed 
with its planned tanker retirements.
    According to Air Force Chief of Staff General Goldfein, we 
are close to a way ahead with Boeing on the KC-46, but it will 
take two to--excuse me, 3 to 4 years to implement.
    I am not one who is calling to cancel this program but if 
we don't see progress this year the Department may need to 
reconsider recompeting the program.
    Finally, I am encouraged by the progress that TRANSCOM has 
made regarding the Defense Personal Property Program. The 
business case analysis [BCA] for the Global Household Goods 
Contract was delivered on time to the committee and it appears 
to demonstrate a significant increase in performance and 
capability.
    My understanding is that GAO [Government Accountability 
Office] will complete its review of the BCA shortly and I want 
to commend TRANSCOM's efforts to address industry concerns.
    Thank you to our witnesses for your testimony, for what you 
do for our country, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn can be found in the 
Appendix on page 40.]
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
    Now we will start with General Lyons and just go right down 
the table, and the floor is yours, General.

    STATEMENT OF GEN STEPHEN R. LYONS, USA, COMMANDER, U.S. 
                     TRANSPORTATION COMMAND

    General Lyons. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
    Chairman Courtney, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Members 
Wittman and Lamborn, distinguished members of the committee, it 
is my honor to represent the men and women of the United States 
Transportation Command who, at this very moment, are employed 
around the globe conducting mobility operations 24 hours a day, 
7 days a week, 365 days a year.
    Our mission at TRANSCOM is enduring and that is to project 
and sustain the joint force globally at our time and place of 
choosing, thereby representing multiple options for our 
national leadership and multiple dilemmas for potential 
adversaries.
    With 85 percent of the force element stationed in the 
United States, as you mentioned, it is TRANSCOM's job to move 
forces and materiel in support of the Secretary of Defense's 
strategic priorities.
    Our National Defense Strategy underscores the importance of 
advancing our national security interests, deterring potential 
adversaries and, should deterrence fail, responding with 
overwhelming force to win.
    Power projections are a distinct U.S. comparative 
advantage, but we are not alone in this effort. Our vast global 
logistics network are underpinned by a deep bench of allies and 
like-minded partners that facilitate critical access basing and 
overflight activities.
    Our world is changing and the defense strategy describes a 
future in which TRANSCOM must be able to project the force 
under all-domain persistent attack. We acknowledge that our 
success today does not guarantee success tomorrow and we are 
actively preparing to meet tomorrow's challenges.
    Today, I am confident in our ability to successfully 
execute our mission but the risk, as noted, is increasing. Our 
aerial refueling and sealift forces require immediate attention 
to meet current and future challenges. We are actively 
exploring the feasibility of a specified sealift appropriation 
to mirror DOD [Department of Defense] and congressional efforts 
to recapitalize the Ready Reserve Force in the 1990s.
    Before I close, I do want to highlight the Department's 
ongoing work to improve the Defense Personal Property Program, 
an area of great interest for Congress.
    The Department, we acknowledge, can no longer afford to 
operate a disparate confederation of government activities 
supervising a similarly disparate collection of hundreds of 
transportation providers.
    My message for DOD families: We have heard your call for 
improved accountability, transparency, and quality capacity and 
we are committed to deliver.
    My message for industry providers: If you provide quality 
service today for our military members you have a place in the 
future program.
    It is an exciting time to be the commander of USTRANSCOM 
and I could not be more proud of the team of professionals that 
create the strategic comparative advantage called the Joint 
Deployment and Distribution Enterprise.
    I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of General Lyons can be found in 
the Appendix on page 42.]
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, General.
    Now, I will move to Admiral Buzby who is joined here this 
afternoon by his wife. Thank you. You are welcome to join us 
here today and, again, the floor is yours.

  STATEMENT OF RADM MARK H. BUZBY, USN (RET.), ADMINISTRATOR, 
                  U.S. MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

    Admiral Buzby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon 
to you, sir, and to Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Members Wittman 
and Lamborn, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss the Maritime Administration's role in 
supporting strategic sealift.
    As the members well know, America's strategic sealift 
capability is comprised of government-owned ships, assured 
access to a fleet of U.S.-flagged commercial vessels under 
civilian mariners, and intermodal systems.
    While this is an efficient and effective force for moving 
cargoes worldwide during peacetime, I am concerned about its 
ability to reliably project and sustain power globally in a 
contested environment.
    To address this, we must strengthen our sealift capability 
and reverse declines in U.S.-flagged commercial fleet and U.S. 
shipbuilding repair industry.
    The top of our priority list is the recapitalization of the 
Ready Reserve Force, or RRF. Along with the 15 Military Sealift 
Command surge sealift's ships, the 46-ship Ready Reserve Force 
provide the initial surge of ready sealift.
    These vessels' average age is 45 years old and, 
consequently, we have struggled to maintain readiness. The 
results of the September 2019 turbo activation are reflective 
of the current readiness of these ships despite focused and 
valiant efforts by their crews to maintain them.
    We continue to work with the Navy on a recapitalization 
strategy that includes a combination of targeted service life 
extensions which have begun; by acquiring and converting used 
vessels, which is also now in progress; and eventually building 
new vessels in U.S. shipyards.
    MARAD [U.S. Maritime Administration] has recently released 
a request for proposal for a vessel acquisition manager who 
will identify, purchase, modify, and after purchase potentially 
operate these new vessels.
    The decline in our domestic capacity to build and repair 
large commercial ships is a major concern. Of the seven large 
shipyards involved in the last major effort to construct or 
convert large commercial-type ships for sealift several decades 
ago, three of those are now closed, one no longer does 
commercial work, and two perform conversion work only. Of that 
original seven, only one retains its expertise to build large 
commercial-type sealift ships.
    Last year, I reported 81 ships in our international 
commercial fleet. Today, we are 87 but still down from the 106 
in 2010. The overall decline in the size of the U.S.-flagged 
fleet makes the Maritime Security Program essential.
    Maritime Security Program ensures access to a fleet of 60 
commercial vessels to meet DOD contingency requirements. MSP 
operators also support the employment of 2,400 of the trained, 
skilled U.S. merchant mariners that our country depends upon to 
crew surge sealift ships.
    I thank the committee for its reauthorization of MSP 
through fiscal year 2035. The Maritime Administration is also 
ensuring compliance with cargo preference requirements. We are 
significantly expanding our outreach and engagement to maximize 
the use of U.S.-flagged vessels. More cargo means more U.S.-
flagged vessel operators employing U.S. citizen mariners, many 
of whom will be needed for sealift.
    We also remain committed to our domestic Jones Act fleet. 
Jones Act requirements support U.S. shipyards and repair 
facilities, sustain supply chains that produce and repair 
American-built ships, and the employment of U.S. citizen 
mariners. It is the indispensable foundation of the U.S. 
maritime industry and our economic and national security.
    Due to declines in the U.S.-flagged fleet, I am concerned 
about our access to enough qualified mariners. We are working 
to better track our pool of available mariners who could be 
available for sealift and are exploring a range of options to 
ensure that a sufficient number of mariners are trained and 
available to meet potential contingency operations.
    The Maritime Administration continues to support mariner 
education and training through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy 
and the six State maritime academies. Congress's funding of the 
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel [NSMV] program will help 
provide our State academies with modern training vessels to 
prepare future mariners.
    The President's budget requests $300 million for a fourth 
ship designated for Texas A&M [Agricultural and Mechanical] 
Maritime Academy. We expect that our vessel construction 
manager, TOTE Services, will have a shipyard under contract 
shortly in order to deliver the first NSMV in fiscal year 2023.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to address this 
committee on the state of American sealift. I look forward to 
your questions and ask that my testimony be entered into the 
record, sir.
    [The prepared statement of Admiral Buzby can be found in 
the Appendix on page 54.]
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. So, ordered.
    Admiral Williamson.
    Could you push the button on that? Yes.

  STATEMENT OF VADM RICKY L. WILLIAMSON, USN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF 
NAVAL OPERATIONS, FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS (N4), OFFICE OF 
     THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    Admiral Williamson. [Inaudible.] Sorry, sir. [continuing] 
And distinguished guests of the House Armed Service 
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces and Readiness. I 
am honored to be here today to provide a Navy perspective on 
the sealift and support of the National Defense Strategy.
    One of my primary responsibilities as Navy's logistics 
champion is making sure that the strategic sealift fleet has a 
strong resourcing advocate on the Navy staff. I can tell you 
from my personal experience this issue of sealift readiness has 
the attention of my entire chain of command.
    Since assuming my role 7 months ago, I have spoken 
personally with the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] several 
times, the Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of Defense as 
we worked hard to balance the needs of the sealift fleet with 
those of the combatants that enable ships to deliver their 
cargo.
    As the CNO said in his testimony a few weeks ago, we are 
beginning to make investments in strategic sealift where we 
haven't made significant investments in a while.
    We expect that investing now will yield returns of 
increased long-term readiness as we work to recapitalize the 
sealift ships using the multi-pronged approach delivered in the 
March 2018 ``Sealift That the Nation Needs'' report to 
Congress.
    We continue to demand analytic rigor that provides 
actionable data to guard our investments in maintenance and 
repair to return the fleet to our agreed readiness goal of 85 
percent.
    Finally, I see no barriers to our plans to recapitalize the 
sealift fleet. I will continue to work alongside General Lyons 
and Admiral Buzby to provide the sealift readiness our Nation 
needs.
    I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Admiral Williamson can be found 
in the Appendix on page 59.]
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Admiral.
    And lastly, but not least, because he is a native of the 
State of Connecticut, Lieutenant General Nahom.

STATEMENT OF LT GEN DAVID S. NAHOM, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 
      FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

    General Nahom. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Courtney, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Members 
Wittman and Lamborn, distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
thank you for having us here today with U.S. Transportation 
Command and Maritime Administration to discuss the state of the 
mobility enterprise and provide testimony on Air Force's role 
in supporting the Department of Defense's air mobility 
capabilities.
    The Air Force provides capabilities, crews, fleets 
essential to mobilize global support. The mobility fleet faces 
many challenges providing the force and fleet readiness needed 
to meet ever-increasing demands our Nation relies upon.
    Our most significant challenge today is the move to a two-
tanker fleet as we must stretch our resources to meet demands 
while balancing the appropriate risk by divesting the legacy 
aircraft to move toward the future force.
    As we modernize to counter growing threats, we must also 
ensure that forces remain ready and able to offer options to 
our Nation's leaders and combatant commands.
    There is no doubt the demand for mobility capabilities 
remains high. With the support of Congress, we have made major 
improvements to mobility readiness and hope to continue 
increasing our ready forces.
    I am looking forward to the discussion today and to 
continue to work with this committee for a more ready and 
capable mobility force in the future.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of General Nahom can be found in 
the Appendix on page 69.]
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, General.
    So, we are going to go into questions. Again, we are going 
to apply the 5-minute rule to everyone, including folks near 
the microphones here and, hopefully, we will at least get 
through one cycle and if there is extra time then we will keep 
going, depending on next votes.
    So, Admiral Buzby, thank you for at least recognizing we 
got a couple things right last year in terms of restoring the 
funding for the National Security Multi-Mission Vehicle. Great 
to hear things are on track with that program, and also the 
extension and reauthorization of the Maritime Security Program.
    We also backed a three-pronged approach which, again, was 
mentioned earlier about extending current sealift ships, buying 
used vessels, and requiring the start of a domestic new-build 
ship and gave some additional authorities to build these new 
ships using alternative contracting approaches.
    Again, that alternative contracting approach I would like 
to focus on just here for a moment, again, is being deployed in 
the case of the multi-mission vehicle.
    Can you talk about what, you know, knock on wood, you know, 
how that is proceeding and then whether or not that we could 
use that model again as a way of getting more sealift ships 
built and with a little more flexibility.
    Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
    As I mentioned in my testimony, we are about that close to 
actually having our vessel construction manager TOTE Services 
get to contract with the shipyard.
    The process has been a learning process for all involved, 
both the government, us in Maritime Administration, TOTE 
Services, our contractor, and the potential shipyard.
    I think that it offers great promise because what we are 
going to be doing is using a commercial practice to deliver a 
ship at a fixed price and a fixed timeline and contract, and I 
think that it offers--I think we are going to see a great 
savings from it.
    I mean, the proof will be in the pudding. I know we have 
been talking with the Navy, with Naval Sea Systems Command on 
this. They have been watching it very closely, and I think they 
have gotten more comfortable as time goes on.
    I don't want to speak for them but, you know, as we have 
matured it and gotten through it and worked through the bumps, 
I think--I think it definitely offers great promise and needs 
to be seriously looked at if we go forward to procuring more 
sealift ships.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I don't know if, Admiral 
Williamson, you want to comment at all. But, again, as you 
said, the committee sort of expressed its, you know, support 
for this approach that he just described in terms of just what 
is the Navy's take on it.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. As the CNO testified earlier, 
you know, we are working really hard to close these gaps from 
our--us not investing in the past 15, 20 years.
    You know, we see this as an opportunity. We will partner 
with MARAD and do the analytical rigor necessary to ensure 
that, you know we can find executionable solutions within the 
constraints of our budget, sir.
    Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you, and we will be, you know, 
again, really anxious to see how this unfolds again because we 
have got to get sort of a different approach here if we are 
going to really start getting some momentum in terms of filling 
some of the gaps here.
    Admiral Buzby, our subcommittee also for a number of years 
has been sort of tracking the progress about getting a national 
maritime strategy sort of on the books, which have been decades 
since we have done that as a nation, and I know it is a 
challenge because there is a lot of different Federal offices 
and agencies that touch the maritime realm. But maybe you could 
just give us an update in terms of how that is proceeding.
    Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir. I am very happy to report to the 
committees that our report back to Congress as was directed in 
the 2014 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], actually 
the Coble Act, is complete and has been submitted. It is 
entitled ``Goals and Objectives for a Stronger Maritime 
Nation,'' our report to Congress.
    It lists 4 goals and about 39 objectives to get to a 
stronger merchant marine. It is not a global maritime strategy, 
one that encompasses the Navy and the Coast Guard and all the--
all of the facets of maritime America.
    It really is kind of focused on the commercial side and 
those things that we in the Department of Transportation could, 
clearly, focus on. But I enjoin everyone to take a good look at 
it and, you know, it is a starting point. It is a place where I 
think we and industry can all stack our hands together and move 
forward from.
    Mr. Courtney. Well, we are, you know, glad to hear that is 
happening. Again, if we can sort of get progress in the 
commercial sector that will spill over and benefit, obviously--
--
    Admiral Buzby. I would agree.
    Mr. Courtney [continuing]. Other parts of shipbuilding, 
whether it is Navy, Coast Guard, or, you know, sealift and, you 
know, if you look at the aerospace sector, you know, the fact 
that they are able to sort of balance their industrial base 
with commercial work in addition to military work, I mean, that 
has really been the missing sort of ingredient in the 
shipbuilding area and your description of the shipyard decline 
that is happening, you know, that is just--we have to turn that 
around----
    Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Courtney [continuing]. And really glad you finished 
that report. So, thank you.
    I recognize Mr. Wittman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
thank our witnesses for joining us.
    Admiral Buzby and Vice Admiral Williamson, I want to go to 
you to begin with. As we look at the fiscal year 2021 budget 
request for recapitalizing the logistics fleet--the Ready 
Reserve Fleet as it is formally called--we look at a $550 
million per ship cost in constructing new ships.
    I am not confident that we can afford ships at that price 
and build the fleet back at the pace that we need to build it 
back. But I do think there are a lot of different ways that we 
can think about how we can make those things happen.
    Chairman Courtney talked about several. I think we have to 
engage the industry. But I want to get your perspective. I 
think, looking at U.S. shipbuilding companies, looking at their 
potentially partnering with other companies across the globe 
that are in the shipbuilding business and how we can make sure 
we have critical U.S. systems on board those ships here, make 
sure they are designed specifically for the purpose of the 
military, looking too at the idea of the use of those ships by 
the private sector and then contracting for those ships to be 
made available for the United States military and then at a 
certain point maybe the sealift--our Maritime Administration 
purchasing those ships as kind of a reverse of the MSP program.
    I think all those things are efforts that should be on the 
table. I want to get your perspective about how do we, as 
quickly as possible, rebuild that capacity, much like Secretary 
Lehman did back in the 1980s. Time is not in our--in our favor 
now and we have to be able to do this quickly.
    Admiral Buzby, I want to get your perspective. And then, 
Admiral Williamson, I want to get your perspective, because it 
really doesn't seem that the Navy is really serious about this.
    It seems like the Navy is saying, you know what, doesn't 
make a big difference to us. We don't need ships to get to the 
fight. We got them. And if the Army wants to get to the fight, 
we will let them worry about it.
    So, it seems to me it is pretty doggone parochial and it 
seems like to me we are not making any progress in getting 
where we need to be. So, I would like to get both of your 
perspectives on that.
    Admiral Buzby. Thank you, sir. Thanks for the question.
    I absolutely agree, we need to get on with this. You know, 
we have to kind of approach it kind of two ways right now.
    We have to--we have to fix and get as ready as we can the 
ships that we have for the very near term and we have to do 
some of the replacement using the authorities that Congress has 
granted us to get us moving. You know, some of the things that 
we are discussing here is going to be, you know, kind of a mid-
term sort of set of actions.
    We have to, I think, kind of make a fundamental set of 
decisions here on where these ships are going to come from. The 
current Ready Reserve Force now is virtually all foreign built.
    There are a few U.S.-built ships in there. But for the most 
part they are in fact foreign-built ships. Ships that we will 
be talking about bringing in near term are foreign-built ships.
    So, you know, we are going to need to, you know, have a 
real serious policy discussion on how critical is it that those 
ships be built in the United States and there is some 
criticality to that, and, you know, it goes to the comments 
that I made earlier about our industrial base.
    That is something to be taken into account and something we 
don't want to, I think, just throw away. So, I think that 
seriously needs to be taken into account against the need to 
get ships quickly, very quickly.
    But, you know, we are going to be working really closely 
with the Navy and, obviously, with TRANSCOM setting the 
requirement on what that mix--proper mix should be.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good.
    Admiral Williamson.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
    As I said in my opening remarks, my leadership is taking 
this very seriously, is closing this gap as quickly as we can, 
and I think that is representative in our 2021 budget proposal.
    You know, the funding of the two used ships at $60 million 
I think helps, to Admiral Buzby's point, get us added capacity 
and readiness now. I also believe that as far as the costs of 
building new, we are committed to building new that is also 
represented in our submittal of $37 million to do a design of a 
ship to be built in--start build in 2023 and delivered in 2026.
    Additionally, we are working with your staff right now to 
address this, to find solutions that are affordable but also at 
the same time, to echo what Admiral Buzby said, working very 
closely with him and TRANSCOM how do I get after the divot that 
was about 10 years out, as identified in the CBSA [Center for 
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments] study.
    And I believe through a combination of the service life 
extension program, additionally with the used ship buy, two 
planned in 2021--we have an additional one in planning for 
2022--I think that helps us lessen the impact of the--of the 
shortfall identified in the CBSA study. So, we will continue to 
partner with USTRANSCOM and MARAD to get after this, sir.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wittman.
    Chairman Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
    Reality. A little reality check here. With regard to this 
sealift capacity, it isn't going to be done in the traditional 
way. It is not going to happen. There is not money in the naval 
budget to build the sealift capacity. There is no money to 
rebuild the Ready Reserve Fleet. It just isn't there.
    So, we need to think differently. Fortunately, there is a 
proposal--a plan, if you will--that has been proposed to us and 
we need to get real about this.
    We either say this plan laid out in these documents is not 
worth our effort to even think about or it is, and I would 
suggest that this year we make a decision to pursue a different 
strategy than the one that we know will not work, and that 
strategy is something along the line that was laid out by the 
Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments in this document 
``Sustaining the Fight'' and then in its followup document.
    It basically calls for the rebuilding of the American 
merchant marines system using things that are already in place 
such as the Jones Act, celebrating its 100th birthday, as Joe 
told us earlier, and utilizing stipends, subsidies, and other 
programs that have been on the books for more than 50 years but 
not used in the last 25 years.
    Essentially, building a fleet that is militarily useful, 
and we can do this. The United States is now one of the largest 
exporters of oil and natural gas, none of which is on American-
built ships. Keep in mind that Russia is requiring that its LNG 
[liquid natural gas] from its northern Siberian area be on 
Russian-built ships and Russian-flagged ships.
    Why are they doing that? Because they see it as an 
opportunity to build their merchant fleet, useful for their 
purposes.
    Similarly, we could, using legislation that we proposed 
called the Energizing the American Shipbuilding Industry, 
requiring that a small percentage of that oil and gas that we 
ship overseas be on American-built ships with American 
mariners, solving two problems simultaneously.
    And if those ships are built appropriately, for example, 
with a center--what do you call this, Mr. Buzby?
    Admiral Buzby. A construction differential subsidy.
    Mr. Garamendi. That is it. That is one of the subsidies. 
But also built so that that ship can be used for resupplying 
the Navy fuel at sea with a center post, I think you called it.
    Admiral Buzby. King post. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. King post. And also some sort of a reel of 
pipe at the back?
    Admiral Buzby. Stern refueling capability.
    Mr. Garamendi. There you go. Good words all the way around. 
We could do this, and in the process reenergize and build in 
our shipyards and all the things that we have been talking 
about here.
    So, we need an overarching strategy that is in place. 
Hopefully, Admiral Buzby, your new maritime strategy, should it 
ever emerge from OMB [Office of Management and Budget]--where I 
understand it is still stuck.
    Admiral Buzby. It is out, sir. The Secretary has signed it 
out. It is----
    Mr. Garamendi. Oh, my.
    Admiral Buzby. It is for real.
    Mr. Garamendi. Oh, my, my. At last.
    Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. In any case, better now than never.
    What I am--what I basically want to get into a deep 
discussion on is in this year, in this year's NDAA, build upon 
what we have--what we already have in place and stretch it 
further so that we can do two things--leading the national 
security requirements of this Nation.
    So, let it go. I talked to all of you about this. Your 
comments? Let us begin with Admiral Buzby and then go both 
different directions.
    Admiral Buzby. Sir, I would concur that we definitely need 
a bit of a more bold approach if we want to get ahead of the 
bow wave of obsolescence that we know that is coming, it's 
well-documented, of our--of our sealift forces.
    So, taking the outlay that is laid out in the CSBA report 
is one way to do it. We have to just find the right mix, the 
affordable mix, that still meets the capability requirements 
that General Lyons lays out to meet the OPLAN [operations plan] 
square footage and dry fuel--and wet fuel movement.
    Mr. Garamendi. Admiral Williamson.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. As I said, my leadership--we 
are absolutely committed to closing this gap in the near term.
    Mr. Garamendi. Are you willing to think outside the box?
    Admiral Williamson. Sir, we are willing to partner with 
anyone to be able to close that gap sooner, and we will work 
shoulder to shoulder with Admiral Buzby, TRANSCOM, industry, 
and your staff.
    Mr. Garamendi. I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Lamborn.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thanks.
    Boeing's performance issues with the KC-46--and by the way, 
I am going to ask about refueling and tankers because I share 
concern on the sealift capability but I think we have been 
addressing that really well so far.
    But on the KC-46, it puts everyone in a bind. It is hard--
it seems like it is going to be hard to even support day-to-day 
combatant commander requirements not to mention the surge 
required in case of major contingencies.
    So, given the safety issue of the boom operators not being 
able to see that last 18 inches, and I am not sure that it is 
an acceptable risk to say they are still ready to go into a 
major conflict.
    So, General Lyons, could TRANSCOM meet its refueling 
requirements if the Air Force was permitted to retire its KC-
10s but Congress were to direct it to retain additional KC-35s 
so as to have 23 or so additional craft?
    General Lyons. Sir, as you know, we have been working with 
the Air Force and the delay in the KC-46 does in fact cause 
about a 30 percent reduction in outputs and day-to-day 
competition space. So, we are talking about non-mobilized 
enterprise.
    We would like to remediate that down to about 10 percent 
reduction and that is where the delayed retirement for the 
legacy fleet KC-10s and the KC-135s come into play. And I know 
the Air Force--I know Dr. Roper and so forth has talked to you 
and they are working very, very hard with Boeing, and Boeing 
has got to come through and deliver a technical solution.
    I want to talk to the Air Force on the programmatic piece. 
But for an operational piece, we are approaching a high window 
of risk if we continue to retire those jets.
    Mr. Lamborn. And, General Nahom, is contract refueling a 
viable option to bridge the gap as one way to meet this need in 
case of further--either a contingency or the need of a surge?
    General Nahom. Sir, we are looking at contract refueling, 
and that wouldn't really be for so much contingency. That would 
be some of the CONUS [contiguous United States] requirements.
    Mr. Lamborn. For day-to-day?
    General Nahom. Some of your training, your tests.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Okay.
    General Nahom. Things that you do here at CONUS, not more 
of your day-to-day overseas.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. I understand. I understand.
    So, if so, would TRANSCOM or the Air Force be the more 
appropriate party to manage the contracting process?
    General Nahom. Sir, I don't want to speak for TRANSCOM here 
but I believe--I believe that would fall under the Air Force as 
we--you know, it is our duty to supply the air refueling that 
is needed for the joint force and we take that seriously right 
now.
    The KC-46 is giving us--it is quite a challenge and we have 
31 of them sitting on the ramps right now and, as you said, 
day-to-day usage--the risk is just too great to use those in a 
day-to-day usage.
    The chief did say recently that we would use these in time 
of a national emergency. We would use the airplane to whatever 
capability we would--we could get out of it. But we are not 
willing to use it day-to-day.
    This is where our partnership with TRANSCOM is critical 
right now, to make sure that we do retain enough legacy 
refueling that we have for day-to-day operations. But we are 
going to have to accept some risk in the near term so we can 
correctly modernize too our two-tanker fleet, which is our 135 
and our KC-46, and I think this is going to be the balance that 
we are going to look to--obviously, the guidance from this 
committee and working with TRANSCOM to make sure we get that 
balance correct.
    Mr. Lamborn. And, General Lyons, any last thoughts before I 
turn back my time?
    General Lyons. No, sir. The air component--the Air Mobility 
Command is in fact at the direction of Congress as well, 
looking at the feasibility, the business case, of outsourcing 
some level of commercial aerial refueling options, much like we 
do in the CRAF [Civil Reserve Air Fleet] program for commercial 
augmentation.
    And my commitment to General Miller is to support her in 
any way that she requires support and we will take a look at 
that, sir.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
    Congresswoman Luria, the floor is yours.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
    General Lyons, in your statement you noted that the 
readiness of sealift today is 59 percent against the stated 
goal of 85 percent. That 85 percent goal, is that against the 
10.5 million square feet of sealift that we currently have?
    General Lyons. That is correct, ma'am. Nineteen----
    Mrs. Luria. But is 10.5 the requirement or is that 
requirement actually significantly higher?
    General Lyons. Well, the requirement is 19.2 million square 
feet of roll on/roll off space.
    Mrs. Luria. So, 19.2. So, if we have 60 percent of the 10.5 
million that is about 6.3 million square feet currently, and if 
you actually find the percentage of that 19.2 million it is 
only about 30 percent that we currently have.
    So, I am just looking at this number and I am confused 
because if we are only meeting 30 percent of that requirement, 
it seems like this would have been a much higher priority over 
the preceding year.
    And when I asked this question last year about our ability 
to meet sealift demand, both you and your deputy stated that we 
could meet that demand but just not in the time required was 
what was said this year.
    So, I kind of see one of two things is either true. Either 
you don't need the 19.7 million square feet or the combatant 
commanders' timeline in their TPFDD [Time Phased Force 
Deployment Data] doesn't matter.
    So, which is it if you are saying that you can meet the 
requirement but you don't have the square footage or you can't 
do it in the amount of time? Which one is the answer?
    General Lyons. No, I think that is quite a reasonable 
question. The 19.2 million square feet requirement has been 
really consistent throughout multiple strategies over the 
years. We do the force sizing work on that, as you know.
    And so, when you don't have that, and we don't have that 
today, there is direct implications on the arrival of the 
forces relating to the TPFDD, relating to the global 
[inaudible] war plan.
    And so, to your point, that is the requirement and we are 
unable to meet that today. That is the bottom line.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
    And in this budget year, I understand that Military Sealift 
Command--MSC--has allocated $50 million towards building a new 
headquarters building and I also understand that this is not 
coming from MILCON [military construction] construction. It is 
coming from their O&M [operation and maintenance] account so 
actually money that would go towards fuel, maintenance.
    So why, if you are at 59 percent readiness on sealift, why 
is the MSC spending $50 million of that money that could be 
going towards maintenance and these other upgrades for these 
sealift ships on the new headquarters?
    General Lyons. Well, I won't talk to the--from the Navy's 
position on headquarters on the title 10 requirements. But I 
will say this. When the MSC headquarters got BRAC'd [base 
realignment and closure] from the Navy Yard down to Norfolk, it 
is currently in probably two dozen or more different 
facilities.
    This is the headquarters that, over time, has migrated to 
an administrative headquarters. We are trying to migrate that 
back to a warfighting headquarters consistent with the 
strategy.
    So command and control is a very important part of the 
warfighting function and it really is important that Admiral 
Wettlaufer has a command and control capacity that is 
facilitated by a facility down there at Norfolk and I think 
that is what they are working on.
    To be honest with you, I don't exactly know the costs 
associated with that. But there is a lot of work to be done in 
that area.
    Mrs. Luria. But do you agree with that funding for that 
facility coming directly out of the operations and maintenance 
funding that could be going to fix the problem with sealift 
rather than a military construction project, which would be the 
normal means for funding a building and a headquarters?
    General Lyons. Well, to build a new headquarters would be 
military construction, as you know. There are other ways to 
improve and modernize your facilities within SRM [sustainment, 
restoration, and modernization] and other accounts.
    It is not an either/or trade, right. You must have mission 
command capacity to command and control your fleet that is a 
global fleet. So, we have to address the command and control 
construct for the maritime component. We also have to address 
the readiness issues on the fleet.
    Mrs. Luria. So, I understand that that is being prioritized 
this year over fuel for our MPSRON [Maritime Prepositioning 
Ship Squadron] forces, over maintenance on these sealift ships. 
That has become a priority this year is this $50 million 
towards the headquarters over those urgent needs for the 
sealift fleet?
    General Lyons. Again, Congresswoman, this is--we are not 
talking about--you know, we are not talking about plush 
headquarters here. We are talking about a warfighting apparatus 
to command and control a global fleet that we must employ in 
combat operations. It is a warfighting function.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
    Mr. Kelly.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman, and thank each of you for 
being here today and thank you for your service to our great 
Nation.
    I want to talk a little bit, General Lyons, about--we just 
recently did an EDRI [Emergency Deployment Readiness Exercise]. 
I guess about a year ago out at Gulfport where we're exercising 
alternate and contingency ports. I think that is great.
    Tying that in, how much are you working with AMC [Air 
Mobility Command] to make sure that what we lack currently in 
sealift capacity or air capacity to make sure that we have 
preposition stocks that are not too much at risk but are in 
where we think the next fights may be?
    Because there is one way--you either get them there after 
the conflict starts or either you have to have them there, 
which puts them at a little bit at risk, so that we make sure 
we can go.
    Everybody has a plan--do you get hit in the mouth, and so 
you want to make--you have enough. We don't want another Korea 
where we almost get pushed off the peninsula by the time we get 
forces there.
    So how much do you work with AMC to do that?
    General Lyons. Sir, we work very closely with the services 
who are responsible to determine their preposition 
requirements. In this case, I think you are talking about 
Army--Army Materiel Command. So, we work very, very closely 
with them both in maritime prepositioning as well as supporting 
their preposition ashore programs.
    Mr. Kelly. I think that is real important. And General 
Nahom, if you can kind of--the same way with the Air Force, 
either through staging, basing, or prepositioned planes or 
stocks or munitions, what are you doing to make sure that we 
have the right stuff forward quickly enough. Are you working 
with the--I guess the AMC of the Air Force to do the same 
thing?
    General Nahom. Sir, I don't want--I would say there is a 
lot of prepositioning forward that happens through our overseas 
combatant commands and, certainly, our major commands that 
support that in the Air Force and we work very closely to make 
sure they have the necessary--the necessary, you know, tools.
    In terms of the equipment we would need to get to the 
fight, obviously, we work very closely with TRANSCOM to make 
sure we have the appropriate capacity in which to defeat the 
fight as necessary.
    Mr. Kelly. Because I think while we wait on the sealift or 
airlift to get to where we need to be, we are much leaner 
everywhere around the world than we were when I was a young 
guy.
    You know, we were doing Defender 2020 which is kind of like 
the old Reforgers but we had 300,000 troops forward then. We 
had all kind of airbases forward then. We don't have those same 
things.
    But we also have better allies probably who are more 
prepared today, but a combination--I just want to make sure 
that we are--until we get the sealift gap closed we need to 
make sure that we are ready to fight tonight.
    General Lyons, I am concerned about the future of the C-17 
Globemaster sustainment. The current PBL [Performance Based 
Logistics] contract between Boeing and the Air Force seems to 
be a model program which has delivered 80 percent-plus mission-
capable rates every year for more than 20 years, a readiness 
rate that makes the C-17 have the highest OR [operational 
readiness] rate in the Air Force.
    I understand the Air Force is considering a change to the 
sustainment strategy for the C-17 and concluded a business case 
analysis last year. Is that accurate?
    General Lyons. Sir, I am not familiar with that. I will 
take that for the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 83.]
    Mr. Kelly. I guess that answers my next question. Was 
TRANSCOM consulted in the business case analysis? General 
Nahom, do you have an answer to that?
    General Nahom. Sir, the change to the PBL, I don't have 
that information at hand. I am going to have to get back to you 
for the record, sir.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 83.]
    Mr. Kelly. Okay. And which goes to my next question, which 
I know you can't answer but I am going to ask it for the 
record. And would this change to the sustainment strategy 
affect the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard, which have 
C-17s?
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 83.]
    Mr. Kelly. Finally, I guess I just want to talk about the--
a little bit--we have talked a little bit about the tankers--
the refueling tankers. And, guys, we just got to get this right 
and it goes back to we got to think outside the box if we have 
to do something differently in the interim.
    But I don't think we can ever again put ourselves in a 
position like we did in Korea or like we did at the early 
stages of World War II or World War I where we don't have 
enough to go toe to toe, because what that means is we are 
fighting for footholds or ports or airbases.
    Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines die. And so, we have 
got to get the long-term solution. But in the interim I just 
ask that you guys think outside the box to use every tool in 
the box that we have to be able to close and fight tonight.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Norcross, you are recognized.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to thank 
the witnesses for being here today. I want to focus on three 
quick issues: aerial refueling assets, the strategic sealift, 
and if I have time, the CMV-22.
    First one. Three major issues left on the tanker--the tie-
downs, which has been addressed and is being fixed; the boom 
stiffness, which was actually on us; and the remote visual 
system, which is absolutely a critical problem.
    But one thing we have to remember is that cost is on 
Boeing. This is a fixed contract which needs to be looked at 
the way we do it because the requirements has been an issue on 
this piece, literally, going back years.
    So, when we look at that, and I have great respect for my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but the idea of 
halting this contract to me would be an absolute critical 
mistake. Ninety-five percent of the time of building that plane 
doesn't involve the remote vision system.
    We can build those, continue its mission while it is being 
fixed. We are too far behind and we are talking about great 
power competition, I don't want to send an F-35 up when we are 
in a major fight, especially if some other rather negative 
things happen. They are not going to be able to fly. The KC-46 
can still fly.
    So, the idea of stopping a contract because of Category 
One--we wouldn't have aircraft carriers, we wouldn't have an F-
35, we wouldn't even have submarines. We need to go at this. 
Boeing's on the hook here. They need to perform. There is no 
question about it.
    But the idea of delay, I think, would be an absolute 
critical mistake and something that we shouldn't go into.
    But shifting over to the sealift, corona [coronavirus] has 
taught us something in a lesson that we should take--that when 
our supply chain is outside the United States, we are at risk. 
First suppliers that are coming in from China, we are seeing 
things delayed and that also goes with human capital.
    So, those mariners that I have heard Mr. Buzby talk about 
time after time, you don't grow them overnight. This is a focus 
and we can only do it with an American fleet.
    So, I echo the comments of my colleagues here that this is 
a critical component that we don't fix overnight. Training 
takes a tremendous amount of time and we need to make sure that 
in our budget that the money is where it needs to be to supply 
that next generation.
    So, to Admiral Williamson, talk to me about the next 
generation of supply chain going to our aircraft carriers, the 
CMV-22. What is the transition that will take place when that 
comes in? I think it is 2020, 2021 when your first one gets 
delivered for the Carl Vinson.
    Admiral Williamson. I am sorry, sir. I didn't hear the 
first part of your question.
    Mr. Norcross. The CMV. The Osprey.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes.
    Mr. Norcross. Is that next chain of supplies for our 
carriers that is coming on in 2021. Talk to us how that support 
mechanism is going to transition from what we presently have 
with the CODs [carrier onboard delivery] and others.
    Admiral Williamson. Sir, I am not familiar with that in my 
portfolio. I would love to take that for the record and get 
back with you. I can speak to how we have incorporated the 22 
onto other platforms and how we are using that to look at 
distributed maritime ops.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 83.]
    Admiral Williamson. For example, EPF [Expeditionary Fast 
Transport], which is an auxiliary platform, we are building 
small, fast, light auxiliary. Looking at the next phases of 
that with the VS-22 gives it about a 350-mile nautical range 
capability. In addition to that, we have incorporated it into 
our refits of our hospital ships, offering that an additional 
350-mile capability as well.
    And so when you look at the distributing--the supply chain 
across the Log [Logistics] Continuum from the inter to intra, 
the last tactical mile, obviously, I think the--and looking at 
the distance of which we have to do in distributed maritime 
ops, the VS-22 provides us some extremely good capability to 
ensure that our sailors and Marines keep supplied.
    Mr. Norcross. So, we will follow up on the carriers' supply 
ship and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Norcross.
    Mr. Bergman.
    Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Admiral Buzby, you mentioned about building ships on time, 
on budget. Did I get that right?
    Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. Vice Admiral Williamson, I have never 
heard that from the Navy. On time and on budget for ships. We 
have had hearings over the last couple of weeks and many 
members of the committee here have expressed concern about the 
Navy shipbuilding plan. Okay.
    I just wanted to--I am not expecting you to answer. I am 
not asking you a question. So, Admiral Buzby, back to you. What 
is it that is unique to the maritime industry that allows you 
to be able to make that statement? What plans, planning, 
whatever you want to call it--P2s, P3s--have been put into 
place to allow you to make that statement?
    Admiral Buzby. Excellent question, sir.
    The key point to commercial contracting for new-build 
construction is a couple of very key points. You go in with a 
very mature design that is well understood, with the 
requirement is well laid out and that the shipyard fully 
understands what they are going to have to build. So, the 
requirement is crystal clear, and right up front before they 
sign the contract all of the risks are negotiated out.
    You know, you are--you know, the risk is either retired 
through understanding of the requirement or it is retired 
through costs that is added in by the shipyard to take care of 
any fluctuation in the design as they are building it.
    So right up front, that is, you know, agreed to rather than 
having it sort of float along and be a surprise as the ship is 
being built. That is really the beauty of it.
    Mr. Bergman. As you are--as you are working with industry 
to work out to see where the risk is, these ships are going to 
sail across the seas. There is no guarantee that they won't 
face some level of enemy threat, if you will.
    As part of the risk mitigation, is that part of the 
discussion to some level of extent as to what kind of risk we 
are assuming if this ship was to take a hit?
    Admiral Buzby. The risk primarily that we are talking about 
is really design risk----
    Mr. Bergman. Okay.
    Admiral Buzby [continuing]. And construction risk. The risk 
that the ship faces once it is in the custody of the government 
and off--or the commercial entity doing its thing, that is 
operational risk, which is separate than this construction 
risk.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. Well, I guess, again--again, this is 
more of a statement, Vice Admiral Williamson, about I would 
really--I think a lot of us would like to see the Navy at least 
consider at what level can we use this industry model and then 
as we got our warfighting ships--you know, it takes on a 
different character but still be able to get as close to a 
budget, if you will, a business proposal that makes sense that 
this committee can look at and say it is--you know, this is--we 
can fund this because it makes sense.
    Back to you, Mr. Buzby. While the maintenance of the Ready 
Reserve Force is important, so too is the development and 
training of the mariners to command the vessels and to crew the 
vessels.
    How are you leveraging modeling and simulation and other 
emerging training technologies to better prepare our merchant 
mariners?
    Admiral Buzby. Sir, that--using simulation is basically 
mainline now in the training of today's mariners both on the 
unlicensed side and on the licensed side. Matter of fact, I 
visited all the State maritime academies, all six of them, plus 
Kings Point on a regular basis.
    All of them have fairly sophisticated simulation 
capability. The Coast Guard recognizes 30 days of sea time in 
exchange for simulator time as it stands right now and probably 
more going forward. At Kings Point we are rededicating an 
entire building and rehabbing it just to be a simulation 
center, going forth, with the most modern simulators.
    So absolutely critical to the training of a modern--to do 
it efficiently, to do things in the simulator that you can't do 
without very high risk of failure and potential calamity if you 
try and do it for real at sea.
    Mr. Bergman. As a veteran of simulation in my flying 
career, the whole object of simulation is to be able to scare, 
if you will, the pilots or the mariners to the point where they 
learn, and you don't hurt anybody or destroy any equipment in 
the process.
    Because if you are not in their minds when they get into 
the real thing, they are not as prepared as they could have 
been and we--through the failure to leverage the simulation.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Bergman.
    Mr. Golden.
    Mr. Golden. Thank you.
    Just a question for the panel. Anyone can field this one. I 
imagine that USTRANSCOM is looking to remain on the cutting 
edge of technological innovation as part of this discussion as 
well.
    Just as an example, back home in Maine at the University of 
Maine Composite Center it is also the advanced additive 
manufacturing facility that they have up there for research and 
development.
    They have the largest 3D printer in the world where they 
recently did a 25-foot 5,000-pound boat in about 72 hours; if 
you think about that in regards to potential for just design, 
testing, research, and development. They've got a big basin up 
there for testing these types of things out as well.
    But I don't think they believe they are going to continue 
to have the largest 3D printer in the world for long. They are 
going to go bigger and they are thinking about unmanned and 
things of that nature as well.
    They also have made composite shipping containers, as an 
example, where you can, first of all, think about the fuel 
savings to the Navy, potentially, with shipping containers that 
are half as heavy as steel, the kind of logistics potential 
that comes with something that is stronger than steel but also 
able to collapse in upon itself and stack in case you are not 
using it all, but also fiber in the composite material so now 
you are attached to the grid so you can do inventory scans. You 
can do security scanning. It doesn't block GPS [Global 
Positioning System] and transmission signals and things of that 
nature. You know, they are working hard for the future.
    So, I just wanted to give you all the opportunity to 
discuss ways in which TRANSCOM is partnering with industry in 
general to adapt and innovate to meet the sealift requirements 
that the joint force needs in the future.
    General Lyons. Congressman, I will start and I will defer 
to the--particularly to the services.
    But I think you are right, it is absolutely amazing the 
technology and innovation that we see across all of our 
universities and campuses.
    At TRANSCOM, specifically at the headquarters, we are 
really focused on decision support systems and command and 
control systems, big time into enterprise data environment, 
enabling machine learning, thinking about artificial 
intelligence, and these kinds of things.
    And then at the weapons systems level, I mean, the 
services, largely, work the weapons systems level and those 
kinds of things. So, I will defer to the services if they have 
additional thoughts on this.
    But I agree, the rate of change is impressive.
    Admiral Williamson. Sir, thank you for the opportunity to 
comment. Additive manufacturing, we have already started to 
experiment with that on our ships. Stennis used this on her 
last deployment.
    And to your point, being able to get a part that is 
necessary to continue combat operations in a short period of 
time, we think there is some incredible opportunities there. 
When we look at--you know, earlier we talked about the supply 
chains and being able to get those things done.
    Additionally, digitalization of our supply chains, being 
able to take, obviously, various different systems, bringing 
that together to give not only at the tactical level but the 
operational level and strategic level the commanders real-time 
information to make real-time decisions I think is a road we 
are exploring and already making some progress.
    Thank you.
    General Nahom. And, sir, obviously, no ship examples. But I 
would say for the Air Force if you look at where we are going 
with digital design it is going to really revolutionize how 
we--how we build aircraft in the future.
    The perfect example that doesn't apply to the portfolio 
here but our new trainer, the T-7, which is the first aircraft 
100 percent digitally designed, and you look at how we are 
manufacturing it is not about a different aircraft. It is about 
building an aircraft differently, and that is going to lead 
into the future as we go beyond some of the current mobility 
assets we currently fly right now.
    Mr. Golden. I thank you all for that, and let me extend an 
invitation up to the University of Maine on their behalf, if 
you are interested, you know, from the perspective of additive 
manufacturing.
    I know they are looking at potential jet fuel, you know, 
composite and additive manufacturing. Makes sense in Maine. 
We've got the largest contiguous forest--working forest in 
North America. So, we are the wood basket, so to speak, and you 
can do an awful lot with it. So, thank you.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Golden.
    Mr. Conaway.
    Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    A couple of real quick questions. It won't take long.
    General Nahom, KC-46A is not qualified for tanker missions 
but it can do other things--air ambulances, other things. Have 
we actually used any of those aircraft in a mission of anything 
other than training yet?
    General Nahom. Sir, right now, it is--the use of the 
aircraft is currently in a beddown in the testing. We are 
looking for the other capabilities, the cargo and, certainly, 
our medical evacuation, and we are looking to certify those 
capabilities very quickly.
    You know, unfortunately, those will be certified before the 
air refueling but we will be able to get to those kind of 
missions very quickly.
    Mr. Conaway. I am sorry. Did you say they should have been 
certified for that before the air----
    General Nahom. No, but for--I mean, we would have--in a 
perfect world we would have air refueling before those 
capabilities.
    Mr. Conaway. Okay.
    General Nahom. But it looks like, based on the remote 
visual system, we are going to have the other capabilities 
first.
    Mr. Conaway. For those capabilities, I mean, they are 
obviously planned for ahead of time. I have been on board one 
of those--the planes and there is a lot of room.
    General Nahom. Yes, sir. And that is--we are just bedding 
down the first airplanes. You know, they are at McConnell now, 
soon to be at Pease down in North Carolina, and we are--right 
now, we are working on those missions to get those certified 
and out to the fields.
    Mr. Conaway. Okay.
    A little more mundane. General Lyons, you have got a--gone 
to a single-move manager for movements. I guess the idea was to 
be more efficient and customer friendly.
    How are you going to make sure that it doesn't devolve into 
just the big guys getting the moves and the smaller movers get 
weeded out or pushed out of the way and customer service 
deteriorates rather than improve?
    General Lyons. Congressman, it is a great question. I will 
tell you, the way we started this is we recognized that the 
current program we have was never going to deliver the level of 
accountability, transparency, and incentivize the level of 
capacity we needed for peak.
    So, the restructure in our relationship with industry 
through the single-move manager construct was really about 
making sure that our relationship with industry was clearly 
delineated with key performance parameters.
    As I always say to the moving companies that are out there 
today, the same moving companies if you are performing well you 
will still be performing well in the future program. So, the 
single-move manager will absorb the global network as it exists 
today.
    We will measure the level of performance and incentives 
that will incentivize growth over a longer period of time in a 
contractual relationship.
    And let me--I guess to be more clear, Congressman, I will 
give you a couple of examples. So, if I--if I asked--if you 
asked a question what company, and I won't name the company 
publicly but what company has the most suspensions and 
warnings?
    I can tell you that company has got over a thousand 
suspensions and warnings, and under the current program they 
did $26 million of business in the Department of Defense last 
year.
    So, we think that is unacceptable. We think it is 
unacceptable that the 950th company of 950 still show up at 
your curbside.
    So, what we are really trying to do is keep the good 
companies, incentivize the growth of the good companies, push 
out the bad companies and incentivize the performance inside 
that relationship and hold industry accountable inside the 
Department. The Department can hold me accountable.
    Mr. Conaway. So there is a recommendation, though, that 
there could be new companies come into the scheme that would 
have some sort of a fair shot at getting to be able to build a 
reputation that they are either good or bad, and you are 
looking at making sure that new folks can come in, because 
there will be companies that go out of business, especially 
ones you push out of the--out of the system if they are not 
functioning.
    But you are looking at the whole package, not just allowing 
some single-source--single-move manager to create a fiefdom of 
good friends who get all the business.
    General Lyons. No. No, sir, you are exactly right and we 
want to incentivize new players that come into the market that 
are not incentivized to come in today.
    Mr. Conaway. All right. Thank you.
    General Lyons. We actually want that. Thank you.
    Mr. Conaway. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    Yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Conaway.
    Mr. Brindisi.
    Pass. Okay.
    So, all right. We have done one run-through of the 
committee. It looks like that votes are still a little ways 
off. So, I think we, again, have an opportunity for a second 
round of questions and, again, I will just lead off.
    I just have, actually, just one question for General Lyons, 
which is, again, last Congress, you know, we definitely dug 
into the issue of, again, our shortfall in terms of maritime 
tanker support and during the NDAA [National Defense 
Authorization Act] we established a tanker security program 
modeled off the successful Maritime Security Program, which 
Admiral Buzby referred to earlier.
    This program would have helped maintain a fleet of 10 U.S.-
flagged tankers to augment our fleet during contingencies. 
Unfortunately, that mark fell out during the conference 
process. But, again, we are very interested in moving forward 
on it.
    Again, I just, for the record, can you state whether or not 
you favor a program like this and can you speak to--if so, can 
you speak to the benefit of a program like this in helping 
TRANSCOM?
    General Lyons. Chairman, thank you, and thanks for the 
language in this--last year's bill. As you know, we will 
conduct the study for the Department to really assess our 
accessibility to the--to the market--to the global market in 
time of crisis.
    And so, I think you are alluding to, as you well know, we 
have a high dependency on foreign-flagged tankers in crisis in 
the maritime tanker area, and so we are looking at this. We are 
ready to report back in about the middle of the year, June 
timeframe.
    We are working with Admiral Buzby. I acknowledge I think 
there is value in a Maritime Security-like program for tankers. 
We just need to take a look at the economics of it. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, and, again, I think our 
subcommittee is definitely serious in terms of taking another 
run at this. So, thank you.
    Mr. Wittman.
    Let us see. Mr. Lamborn.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Just a quick question for General 
Lyons or Lieutenant General Nahom.
    On global fuel distribution, just to think a little bit 
toward the future here, given the challenges associated with 
fuel distribution in a contested environment, I am wondering if 
DOD needs to designate an organization to manage this for the 
joint force.
    While the Defense Logistics Agency does an effective job of 
procuring and distributing fuel for day-to-day operations, I am 
not sure that they are equipped to manage distribution during a 
major conflict with a near-peer adversary.
    And I guess, General Lyons, I will start with you. Have we 
reached a point where the Nation needs to become the global 
fuel distribution integrator and would TRANSCOM be an effective 
choice for that?
    General Lyons. Sir, we--you know, in the fall up at Newport 
with the Joint Chiefs and the combatant commanders, we looked 
at a war game and that red team looked at the end-to-end liquid 
energy value chain.
    I agree with your assessment. I think inside the Department 
we need to take a look at end-to-end global integration role to 
make sure that in global posture, not just in the procurement 
that DLA [Defense Logistics Agency] does, but in global 
posture, in maritime transport, in air transport, the entire 
end-to-end view needs to belong to somebody.
    I have mentioned to the Department--I think at least to the 
vice chairman--that I believe TRANSCOM is the right place to do 
that in the future if they so desire for us to take on that 
mission, much like we do for global mobility. And so, we are 
working with the Department on that, sir.
    But I think as we move forward and to great power 
competition in contested environments, this is something we 
have to look at. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Lamborn. Anything to add to that, sir?
    General Nahom. No, sir. Nothing to add to that.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
    Chairman Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Gentlemen, the Congressional 
Budget Office and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary 
Assessment have both recently identified phased replacement of 
the National Defense Reserve Fleet assets with a fleet of 
privately owned militarily useful commercial sealift and 
tankers as the most cost-effective approach to rebuilding our 
strategic sealift fleet.
    The CBO recommends a phased replacement plan of five ships 
per year, while the CSBA goes further by recommending 
completely replacing the government-owned MSC [Military Sealift 
Command] prepositioned fleet with MARAD-chartered commercial 
ships and expanding the Maritime Security Program to replace 
today's MARAD Ready Reserve Forces.
    So, the question, Admiral Buzby, should the U.S. Government 
transition to a unified national fleet approach that leverages 
the best attributes of the U.S.-flagged commercial industry to 
meet our strategic sealift requirements?
    Admiral Buzby. Thank you for the question, sir.
    I could--I can't give you an absolute right now. I think, 
you know, the proposals that CSBA has made are very attractive. 
I think they need to be more fully teased out.
    The right balance of where our capability lies on the 
commercial side and the government-owned side I think it is 
worthy of further pulling apart and making sure that whatever 
we decide upon meets the requirements of General Lyons and the 
combatant commanders.
    So, there is a--there is a couple pieces to it. There is 
the absolute square footage piece of it. There is the 
timeliness piece of it and when it is required; the reliability 
of both of those forces and how much we pay for those forces.
    All those factors, I think, need to be put together in a 
calculus to come up with what is the right mix. That is an 
option. It makes sense on its surface. I think before we pull 
the trigger on anything like that, we need to kind of make sure 
we are marching down the right road.
    Mr. Garamendi. So, we will pursue it.
    General Lyons, your thoughts on it and also, perhaps, first 
what about the cargo? What about requirements that all military 
cargo, including fuel, be on American-flagged ships, and then 
on to the question that I just asked Admiral Buzby?
    General Lyons. Chairman, as you know, cargo preference 
rules require cargo--general cargo--to move on U.S.-flagged 
ships. For petroleum, there are not sufficient U.S.-flagged 
ships in the inventory, to your point, to move all petroleum 
needs on a U.S.-flagged----
    Mr. Garamendi. And there never will be until the only place 
you could use it is American ships.
    General Lyons. That is correct.
    Mr. Garamendi. Yes.
    General Lyons. That is correct.
    Mr. Garamendi. So therein lies a solution, doesn't it?
    General Lyons. Potentially. Chairman, I am open to 
solutions. Many different ways to approach this. I am really 
wedded to the outcomes.
    I do think, to your point, though, sir, on the--whether you 
could completely outsource the organic sealift fleet for the 
Nation, for the Department, I don't see us ever going there. I 
think we will need a DOD-owned fleet at least for the first 
traunch out.
    But the linkages to the commercial industry are 
inextricable, both in terms of mariners, in terms of additional 
capacity, and in terms of global networks.
    What the report didn't specifically address is how you 
would generate the cargo required to move under the U.S. flag 
that would then generate the ships and then generate the crews.
    I think cargo is king. If we have the cargo, to your point, 
moving under the U.S. flag, we have got--we have got a viable 
U.S.-flagged fleet.
    Mr. Garamendi. The report does recommend several strategies 
to develop the cargo, one of which is you use American ships 
when you are moving military equipment--Coast Guard, on and on 
and on.
    So that is one way the cargo can be generated. The rest of 
it is we are going to have to find some way to make these ships 
available and that is either going to be done with the Navy 
budget or, as Mr. Wittman suggests, the Army budget.
    Either way, it is coming from the DOD or a strategy that 
would leverage the commercial side of it with militarily useful 
ships with king's post or--is that it? Thank you.
    General Williamson, or Admiral Williamson, your thoughts in 
the next round of questions.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
    Ms. Luria.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you, and Admiral Williamson, I wanted to 
turn to you on the buy used that we have talked about a few 
times during this hearing and about the authority that was 
given to buy seven ships used, and we talked a little bit about 
the timeline of why it has been so slow to purchase these 
ships.
    But can you confirm what you are on track to move forward 
for now within this year?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
    We are on track right now, provided we get the funding in 
our request to purchase two ships in 2021 and we are planning 
for an additional ship in 2022. Obviously, this is tied to a 
commitment by the SECNAV [Secretary of the Navy] to demonstrate 
to the committee and to Congress that we are going to buy new, 
and that is reflected in the $37 million RDT&E [research, 
development, test, and evaluation] for the purchase--the 
purchase of the design for the ship to start build in 2023, 
delivery in 2026.
    Additionally, we put forward a legislative proposal that 
decouples the procurement of the used ships from the mandate to 
acquire the used ship--to get away from the mandate to buy the 
new ships.
    That does not mean that we are walking away from the 
construction of new ships. But what it does is allow us to 
procure used ships at a faster rate to get after the gap 
identified in the CSBA.
    Mrs. Luria. So, I understand that the approximate costs 
estimated to purchase a used ship that would have military 
utility is approximately $30 million per hull.
    But do you in--anywhere in the budget take into account the 
costs that it would take to upgrade these ships both to make 
them meet ABS [American Bureau of Shipping] standards--which I 
have heard approximately up to $30 million to take a foreign-
flagged ship to meet ABS standards--and then any additional 
upgrades to ramps, cranes, equipment for the type of cargo that 
they would carry plus anything that would make them militarily 
compatible such as comms [communications] and other 
electronics? What is the total price tag and have you included 
that in the request?
    Admiral Williamson. Ma'am, obviously, that is a very 
detailed question. I would love to get back to you with the 
details on that if that is okay to work with you and your 
staff.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 83.]
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you, but that is very important. That is 
very important for the committee, because if it is a $30 
million price tag to buy the ship but then you need to come 
back and ask for $30 million more to make it useful for its 
purpose, we need to know that going into this process.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Luria. So, thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Mr. Golden. Okay.
    Actually, I did mean to ask one more question to General 
Lyons, and as long as we've got a few more minutes before the 
next vote series, again, the last time this country 
recapitalized the Ready Reserve Fleet, Congress created the 
National Defense Sealift [NDS] Fund as the mechanism for doing 
so in an affordable and nondisruptive way which, again, sort of 
spread the costs throughout the Department of Defense, as we 
heard earlier.
    Again, I just want to just ask you for the record, General, 
do you support and see value in this fund as we begin a new 
recapitalization effort?
    General Lyons. Chairman, I absolutely do. I think we are 
going to have to have an appropriation that is NDS-like to move 
forward. I think that is a--and when I met with Secretary 
Spencer back in the September timeframe he mentioned the same 
kind of approach and the CNO, I believe, is on board as well.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. It is 
helpful as, again, we move more towards the mark.
    Chairman Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Where to go here?
    The--perhaps I will just let it go at this point. My 
colleagues have asked most of the questions that are out there. 
What I am going to do is my last series of questions indicated 
that there was a path that we ought to explore and that we 
should thoroughly analyze a different strategy than the one we 
have been on.
    So, General Lyons, Admiral Buzby, and Admiral Williamson, I 
would like to do that with you and with the Air Force.
    Oh, there is one thing on the KC--excuse me, on the C-17s. 
They really cannot get into a contested environment and 
survive. There is an upgrade that we ought to be looking at for 
the C-17s. I will leave that to another question.
    But back to the sealift capacity here. Looking forward to a 
robust discussion about a different way of accomplishing our 
goal and where we presently are. We can do the oil piece of it. 
That is just a small part of the 86 oilers that are said to be 
necessary. How do we get the rest of them?
    So, let us spend some time working our way through that and 
use this year to get us on a new charted path.
    Thank you. I yield.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Chairman.
    Again, thank you to all the--thank you to all the 
witnesses. You know, your testimony was really helpful and I am 
sure the dialogue will continue as we get closer to the April 
markup.
    Thank you very much, and with that we close out the 
hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



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




                            A P P E N D I X

                             March 11, 2020

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

      



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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             March 11, 2020

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

      
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      
   

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


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                             March 11, 2020

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

      

      

             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS

    Admiral Williamson. There is no shift in the chain of supplies for 
our carrier moving from C-2A to CMV-22. In the Navy Aerial Logistics 
Concept of Operations, Navy-unique Fleet-essential airlift, composed of 
fleet logistics support squadrons operating the C-130T and C-40A 
aircraft, supports the forward logistics movement of critical wartime 
supplies and personnel from the aerial point of debarkation to the 
forward logistics site (FLS) or other fleet support location as 
dictated by the forward deployed nature of naval operations. Fleet 
logistics multi-mission (CMV-22B) detachments then provide the final 
link to finish the last leg of the logistics trail from the FLS to the 
Carrier Strike Group via the CVN. In great power competition, the goal 
is to ensure survivability of this logistics trail through 
unpredictability and use of dispersed/mobile logistics sites.   [See 
page 21.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KELLY
    General Lyons. Yes, the Air Force completed a C-17 Product Support 
Business Case Analysis in March 2019. Although I will defer to the Air 
Force to elaborate on the details of that BCA, I am confident knowing 
that Air Force senior leadership continues to assess options to improve 
C-17 sustainment in terms of cost, performance and risk--which, as you 
know, is critically important to our strategic airlift fleet.   [See 
page 19.]
    General Lyons. The Air Force's Air Mobility Command (AMC) 
represented the interests of all C-17 users throughout the Product 
Support Business Case Analysis effort. AMC is the air component of the 
U.S. Transportation Command and is responsible for a Total Force effort 
to execute Rapid Global Mobility and enable Global Reach missions.   
[See page 19.]
    General Nahom. The Air Force's Air Mobility Command (AMC) 
represented the interests of all C-17 users throughout the Product 
Support Business Case Analysis effort. AMC is the air component of the 
U.S. Transportation Command and is responsible for a Total Force effort 
to execute Rapid Global Mobility and enable Global Reach missions.   
[See page 19.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. LURIA
    Admiral Williamson. The President's Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 
2021 requested $60 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy funding 
to purchase two used, foreign built ships. In the March 2019 market 
survey, there were 58 vessel responses of which nine were roll-on/roll-
off vessels that met or exceeded the minimum operational requirements. 
Of those nine, five vessels are enrolled in the Maritime Security 
Program, therefore, they are U.S.-flagged, deemed military useful by 
the U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), and do not require major 
modifications or conversions. Three of these five vessels are between 
the ages of 20 and 25 years with an average estimated procurement cost, 
including reflagging and reclassification to meet ABS standards, of $30 
million each. Vessel surveys scheduled to be conducted on proposed 
ships for purchase will be conducted in the 4th Quarter of FY 2020. Any 
additional upgrades required to make the used ships militarily 
compatible, such as communications and other electronic equipment, 
would be assessed and the total price tag for those additional upgrades 
would be included in a future budget submission.   [See page 29.]



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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             March 11, 2020

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

      

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN

    Mr. Wittman. In recent years, commercial ship owners and operators, 
and certain classification societies, have begun using digital analytic 
tools and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities to aid in the 
overall maintenance and management of vessels. These tools also apply 
to the commercial offshore exploration and drilling industries. These 
tools can be particularly important for tracking the readiness of our 
nation's fleet, as highlighted in the recent turbo activation of 
sealift vessels. The material condition of many government vessels is a 
major issue affecting our nation's ability to go to war. These advanced 
analytic tools have been incorporated into a pilot program to determine 
their effectiveness at Military Sealift Command (MSC) within U.S. Navy. 
Ultimately these tools can and will be used with the classification 
societies in a condition-based maintenance approach versus the former 
time-based methods of periodic maintenance on ships. These tools, 
coupled with new classification methods, are expected to streamline 
maintenance planning and provide clarity into the readiness status of 
MSC's vessels. These tools can equally benefit the U.S. Navy surface 
and auxiliary fleet as well as the sealift fleet.
    Since Navy already applies commercial classification rules for 
shipbuilding and lifecycle operations, the potential exists for these 
advanced digital classification and AI tools to assist Navy and MARAD 
with ship management and maintenance planning. To that end:
    1. With the success demonstrated to date at MSC, is the U.S. Navy 
and MARAD considering incorporation of digital analytic tools and AI 
methods into other surface vessels?
    2. If not, why not? If yes, when does Navy and MARAD plan to 
utilize these tools for maintenance planning and condition monitoring 
on its ships?
    3. Has Navy considered a pilot program with these new tools similar 
to the pilot program MSC has underway? If no, why not?
    Admiral Buzby. The same challenges that exist for ensuring the 
readiness of our Nation's aging surge sealift fleet exist with respect 
to adopting new technologies. To that end, MARAD has always been open 
to incorporating new technologies into vessel management and 
maintenance when appropriate and resources are available to do so. For 
example, MARAD will evaluate technology to perform tank inspections and 
robotic hull cleaning, which could decrease resource requirements and 
increase availability of vessels. In addition, the American Bureau of 
Shipping (ABS) has introduced Image Recognition Technology that has 
received class approval. There are more than 20 approved providers that 
perform these surveys. It is anticipated that all these processes will 
become more available for the ship manager/owner; however, there is 
presently a long lead time to apply for these services.
    It is difficult to make any type of gains for a fleet that exceeds 
46-years of age; however, MARAD recognizes that improving maintenance 
means a reliance on data and effective maintenance protocols that don't 
simply focus on time. MARAD recently attended the ABS Special Committee 
for Ship Operations meeting in February 2020, and we continue to review 
emerging maintenance approaches proposed by the classification society.
    In 2016, MARAD provided Chief of Naval Operations staff (OPNAV N2/
N6E) with points of contact at MSC for development of a digital twin 
for the LMSR ships and fleet oilers (T-AO), however these digital twins 
are most relevant for new ships where automation, and instrumentation 
are included from new construction.
    Additionally, MARAD operates and maintains the National Defense 
Reserve Fleet (NDRF), including both Ready Reserve Force (RRF) and the 
training ship fleet made available to state maritime academies, under 
memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with both the U.S. Coast Guard 
(USCG) and the ABS. These MOUs have defined requirements that MARAD 
must meet, which do not necessarily align with advances in AI and new 
conditions-based maintenance protocols. In short, advances in data 
analysis have exceeded legacy procedures, due to technology or 
regulatory requirements (e.g. 46 CFR Subchapter R for public nautical 
school ships). MARAD expects the National Security Multi-Mission Vessel 
(NSMV) Vessel Construction Manager to incorporate as many new 
capabilities as possible in constructing the NSMVs. The Navy and MARAD 
will do the same when acquiring used vessels to recapitalize the legacy 
RRF fleet.
    MARAD's NDRF, including RRF vessels were last recapitalized during 
the 1990s, and these ships contain a wide-range of technology and 
instrumentation from the 1960s through 1990s. Despite modernization 
that is often limited by available resources, a significant segment of 
the analysis requires greater instrumentation than is currently 
available to us.
    MARAD has a continuous dialogue with ABS staff and with ABS 
Consulting to identify relevant tools or analysis that could improve 
readiness and availability of aging vessels. During these engagements, 
the promise of gains quickly conflicts with the existing conditions 
onboard an aging fleet of vessels where data for analysis is simply 
unavailable. While in Reduced Operating Status (ROS), the RRF vessels 
are effectively in a continuous maintenance availability vice the 
selective restricted availability of similar Navy vessels. MARAD is 
working with ABS to identify maintenance protocols that change from 
time-based requirements to conditions-based requirements. Often, these 
conditions-based requirements are queued to operating vessels and some 
are therefore unsuitable for ROS vessels, in long-term lay berth 
conditions.
    When practical, MARAD analyzes data resident in MARAD's commercial, 
off-the-shelf system known as Nautical Systems-Enterprise (NS-E). MARAD 
is working in conjunction with ABS Consulting, the provider for NS-E, 
to identify greater and more in-depth reporting and dashboards that use 
NS-E data for informed decision making. MARAD selected NS-E to support 
the Ready Reserve Force Management System. This comprehensive data 
repository helps MARAD and contracted Ship Managers guide preventive 
maintenance, logistics management, and even resourcing decisions on a 
highly adaptable and widely used commercial platform.
    MARAD defers to Navy for comment on development of a pilot program.
    MARAD is actively participating in the Performance-to-Plan effort 
being conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses funded by the 
Director, Strategic Mobility/Combat Logistics Division, Chief of Naval 
Operations (OPNAV N42). The goal of this effort is to develop decision 
tools and ``levers'' that can affect readiness to hasten gains in 
vessel availability and readiness.
    Mr. Wittman. Classification societies have developed cyber security 
protocols and notations for industry use that promote security and 
consequently ensure compliance with government contracting 
requirements. These cybersecurity and risk management protocols are a 
combination of human and technical factors and are based on an overall 
security strategy for the business or organization. Government 
contracting requirements for cybersecurity continue to evolve and 
tighten as threats evolve.
    1. How does Navy/MARAD measure security capabilities onboard 
surface ships in ways that allow integration of commercial industry 
best practices, but with Government security requirements in mind?
    2. What has Navy/MARAD done to incorporate the classification 
standards for cybersecurity piloted by Military Sealift Command for 
other Navy/MARAD ships and systems?
    3. Will the Navy consider specifying classification standards for 
cybersecurity and tools similar to the MSC pilot program in contracts 
for leased, contract operated and new construction contracts?
    Admiral Buzby. MARAD ships maintain a current Vessel Security Plan, 
approved by the USCG, and handled and protected as Sensitive Security 
Information. This document includes best practices from the commercial 
industry, and it is common practice that these are updated as new 
threats, vulnerabilities, or concerns are identified. The USCG is 
responsible for interpreting and implementing the International 
Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements as well as any other 
commercial maritime cyber requirements for U.S. vessels, including on 
RRF ships.
    MARAD encourages all commercial operators to adopt effective 
cybersecurity measures and to report vulnerabilities as appropriate to 
ensure safety and continued, effective operations of ships, ports, and 
the networks that support them. We also, support industry efforts to 
adopt best practices and see promise in the forward-looking guidance of 
the IMO to align cybersecurity as a component of safety.
    Finally, MARAD's contract for services of the onboard network known 
as the Ready Reserve Force Management System (RMS) includes 
cybersecurity elements, response, and authentication processes. We will 
consider increasing the breadth of cybersecurity requirements, and a 
focus on more support for response to any breach or vulnerability, in 
future contracts.
    MARAD also hosted cybersecurity penetration tests, and will 
continue to do so during FY20.
    There is no current classification society standard that is 
required. We have worked with ABS Consulting to determine if ABS's 
CyberSafety Notation will meet the requirements of the IMO and keep 
NDRF/RRF vessels available.
    MARAD permitted ABS to assess the Fast Sealift Ship (FSS) Regulus 
to fully develop their onboard assessment model. They returned to the 
vessel to further refine the model, and much of this effort is now 
being used in the version used for MSC.
    MARAD believes that the presence of Contract Mariners (CONMARs) on 
the majority of sealift ships means that any cybersecurity practice 
should reflect commercial practices with which the mariner pool is 
likely to be familiar.
    MARAD's FY 2020 Ready Reserve Force (RRF) program funding from 
Department of Navy included $1 million that was requested for 
cybersecurity initiatives. The funding will be used to engage a 
cybersecurity contactor to perform a baseline assessment of the RRF 
fleet to help develop additional management practices that meet IMO 
guidance and are acceptable to USCG and ABS.
    MARAD defers to Navy to comment on what it will specify with 
respect to classification standards. MARAD already has cybersecurity 
requirements in its contract for the operation of the RMS network. The 
systems, applications, and networks MSC uses are significantly 
different than from those MARAD uses on the RRF fleet. With regard to 
the NSMV, the Vessel Construction Manager is responsible for 
development of cybersecurity considerations which will align with 
commercial best practices.
    Mr. Wittman. In recent years, commercial ship owners and operators, 
and certain classification societies, have begun using digital analytic 
tools and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities to aid in the 
overall maintenance and management of vessels. These tools also apply 
to the commercial offshore exploration and drilling industries. These 
tools can be particularly important for tracking the readiness of our 
nation's fleet, as highlighted in the recent turbo activation of 
sealift vessels. The material condition of many government vessels is a 
major issue affecting our nation's ability to go to war. These advanced 
analytic tools have been incorporated into a pilot program to determine 
their effectiveness at Military Sealift Command (MSC) within U.S. Navy. 
Ultimately these tools can and will be used with the classification 
societies in a condition-based maintenance approach versus the former 
time-based methods of periodic maintenance on ships. These tools, 
coupled with new classification methods, are expected to streamline 
maintenance planning and provide clarity into the readiness status of 
MSC's vessels. These tools can equally benefit the U.S. Navy surface 
and auxiliary fleet as well as the sealift fleet.
    Since Navy already applies commercial classification rules for 
shipbuilding and lifecycle operations, the potential exists for these 
advanced digital classification and AI tools to assist Navy and MARAD 
with ship management and maintenance planning. To that end:
    1. With the success demonstrated to date at MSC, is the U.S. Navy 
and MARAD considering incorporation of digital analytic tools and AI 
methods into other surface vessels?
    2. If not, why not? If yes, when does Navy and MARAD plan to 
utilize these tools for maintenance planning and condition monitoring 
on its ships?
    3. Has Navy considered a pilot program with these new tools similar 
to the pilot program MSC has underway? If no, why not?
    Admiral.Williamson. 1. With the success demonstrated to date at 
MSC, is the U.S. Navy and MARAD considering incorporation of digital 
analytic tools and AI methods into other surface vessels?
      Yes. The digital modeling, data collection and AI 
approach is designed to apply to any surface ship. The digital twin 
model of the ships structures are built through finite element analysis 
tools that would apply to any vessel. Machine learning technology is 
used for corrosion and coating analysis applied to the digital twin 
model for predictive analytics and repair recommendations.
      Similarly, Machinery Health Monitoring (MHM) capabilities 
can be applied to any machinery whether on a surface ship or an ashore 
facility. Machinery anomaly detection analytics of gauge data is 
applied to individual machine digital models. Historical machinery data 
is used to train AI anomaly detection that is correlated to past 
failures. The resultant machinery models will therefore detect future 
anomalies and provide alerts prior to failure. Mature machinery models 
will ultimately be able to provide failure projections, which will 
support refined maintenance planning and assist with risk-based 
decisions.
      Based on the progress of MSC's pilot program, the Naval 
Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Condition Based Maintenance Plus 
Enterprise System (CBM+ES) program intends to complete a data analytics 
project with ABS to develop a suite of algorithms (supervised and 
unsupervised) to detect early indications of failures on LPD49 Class 
Drive Train. They will develop corresponding prototype software user 
interfaces to provide situational awareness of condition assessment. 
ABS will deliver software requirements to the CBM+ES Program for 
implementation of ABS algorithms and user interfaces into the Navy's 
data repository for machinery assessment. This data repository is 
available to any maintenance technician or engineer to access with a 
CAC card.
      MARAD continues to review emerging maintenance approaches 
proposed by the classification society. MARAD recently attended the ABS 
Special Committee for Ship Operations meeting in February 2020, and 
recognizes using data analytics in a condition-based approach is a more 
effective maintenance strategy compared to time-based approach. time-
based
    2. If not, why not? If yes, when does Navy and MARAD plan to 
utilize these tools for maintenance planning and condition monitoring 
on its ships?
      Yes, the Navy's CBM+ES program will complete a data 
analytics project with ABS in FY20.
      MARAD currently uses analysis of data, resident in 
MARAD's commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) system known as Nautical 
Systems-Enterprise (NS-E). MARAD is working with ABS Consulting, the 
provider for NS-E, to identify greater more in-depth, enterprise-wide 
reporting and dashboards that use NS-E data to inform decision-making. 
MARAD selected NS, later upgraded to be an enterprise wide application 
to support the Ready Reserve Force Management System (RMS). This 
comprehensive data repository helps MARAD and contracted Ship Managers 
guide preventive maintenance, logistics management, and even resourcing 
decisions on a highly adaptable and widely used commercial platform.
    3. Has Navy considered a pilot program with these new tools similar 
to the pilot program MSC has underway? If no, why not?
      Yes. Navy is embracing advanced technology to optimize 
maintenance costs while increasing materiel readiness through the use 
of sensor based technologies and prognostic health monitoring. NAVSEA 
is moving forward to increase use of CBM+ technologies where applicable 
and cost effective. The entire shipboard CBM+ portfolio will be managed 
by NAVSEA's Chief Engineer. This will ensure tested and validated CBM+ 
solutions and capabilities are applied across the Navy's fleet, with 
common data assessment and ship maintenance strategies that can be 
tailored to specific ship classes/hulls and onboard systems/equipment.
    Mr. Wittman. Classification societies have developed cyber security 
protocols and notations for industry use that promote security and 
consequently ensure compliance with government contracting 
requirements. These cybersecurity and risk management protocols are a 
combination of human and technical factors and are based on an overall 
security strategy for the business or organization. Government 
contracting requirements for cybersecurity continue to evolve and 
tighten as threats evolve.
    1. How does Navy/MARAD measure security capabilities onboard 
surface ships in ways that allow integration of commercial industry 
best practices, but with Government security requirements in mind?
    2. What has Navy/MARAD done to incorporate the classification 
standards for cybersecurity piloted by Military Sealift Command for 
other Navy/MARAD ships and systems?
    3. Will the Navy consider specifying classification standards for 
cybersecurity and tools similar to the MSC pilot program in contracts 
for leased, contract operated and new construction contracts?
    Admiral Williamson. 1. How does Navy/MARAD measure security 
capabilities onboard surface ships in ways that allow integration of 
commercial industry best practices, but with Government security 
requirements in mind?
      Navy and MSC abide by Department of Defense requirements 
to assess cybersecurity via National Institute of Science and 
Technology (NIST) 800-53 standards, Risk Management Framework. There is 
flexibility in how these standards are implemented as long as the 
standards themselves are met. Industry best practices can be used as 
long as they meet the 800-53 requirements.
      In accordance with Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
Research Development and Acquisition memo dated 6 Sep 2019, MSC 
incorporates Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) 
252.204-7012 requirements into all contracts with commercial operating 
companies, obliging them to abide by NIST 800-171 cybersecurity 
standards Industry best practices can be used as long as they meet the 
800-171 requirements. MSC will be incorporating the Cybersecurity 
Maturing Model Certification (CMMC) as guidance is released by DOD. 
CMMC will require third-party certification that contractors are 
meeting cybersecurity requirements. The number and granularity of the 
cyber requirements will be commensurate with the sensitivity of the 
data that the contractor processes.
      MARAD ships maintain a current, approved Vessel Security 
Plan, approved by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and handled and 
protected as Sensitive Security Information (SSI). This document 
includes best practices from commercial industry and is routinely 
reviewed and updated as new threat, vulnerabilities, or concerns are 
identified.
      MARAD's contract for services of the onboard network 
known as the Ready Reserve Force Management System (RMS) includes 
cybersecurity elements, response, and authentication processes.
      MARAD plans to host additional cybersecurity penetration 
tests during FY20.
    2. What has Navy/MARAD done to incorporate the classification 
standards for cybersecurity piloted by Military Sealift Command for 
other Navy/MARAD ships and systems?
      There is no current classification society standard that 
is required. MARAD has worked with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) 
Consulting to determine if ABS' CyberSafety Notation will meet the 
requirements of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and keep 
National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF)/Ready Reserve Fleet (RRF) vessels 
available.
      Navy and MSC are guided by the same Department of Defense 
requirements to assess cybersecurity via NIST 800-53 standards via the 
Risk Management Framework process for cybersecurity of Navy-owned ships 
and systems.
    3. Will the Navy consider specifying classification standards for 
cybersecurity and tools similar to the MSC pilot program in contracts 
for leased, contract operated and new construction contracts? Not yet. 
To date MSC has been focused on the pilot, the results of which will 
determine how the classification standards can be incorporated for 
leased, contract operated or new construction contracts. However, MSC 
has been working with ABS to develop a government-specific CyberSafety 
notation, which is an independent review. The notation provides a 
foundation for the assessment of a subset of NIST standards required 
for government systems (NIST 800-53, Risk Management Framework) and 
focuses on the assessment of an organization's overall cybersecurity 
strategy as well as the security of operational technology (OT) 
systems. The notation is complimentary, but does not replace the Risk 
Management Framework requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS
    Mr. Norcross. As the Navy continues its modernization to address 
great power competition, logistics will be critically important. The 
Navy has announced the CMV-22 Osprey as its next carrier onboard 
delivery (COD) aircraft. After completing its first flight operation 
earlier this year, the CMV-22 is scheduled for its first operational 
deployment in 2021 aboard the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson.
    Can you talk about how this aircraft will support carrier-based 
logistics? Given the enhancements to the CMV-22B, are you considering 
the platform for a larger mission set?
    Admiral Williamson. The CMV-22B Osprey re-capitalizes the long-
range aerial logistics support and carrier onboard delivery (COD) 
capabilities from the aging C-2A Greyhound, remaining a critical 
enabler to carrier air wing (CVW) operations. The CMV-22B is a variant 
of the MV-22 with additional range and avionics upgrades that enable 
carrier strike group (CSG) integration and is an integral part of the 
F-35B/C logistics support at sea Concept of Operations. While the use 
of the CMV-22B will be primarily for COD, the fleet will benefit from 
the tiltrotor capability in support of a wide variety of other 
warfighting areas. CMV-22B secondary missions include: vertical onboard 
delivery/vertical replenishment as an adjunct to MH-60S; casualty 
evacuation; Naval special warfare support; missions of state to 
included distinguished visitor movement and humanitarian assistance and 
disaster relief; search and rescue as an adjunct to MH-60S. The 
increased capability of the tiltrotor CMV-22B over the legacy C-2A will 
allow evolution of the long range aerial logistics mission from a 
central point that supplies the CSG, to a point-to-point concept. This 
flexibility will improve the Navy's ability to maintain forward 
presence by enabling forces to sustain prolonged operations with 
credible combat capacity. Given the enhancements to the CMV-22B, we are 
currently considering the CMV-22B for an expanded mission set. Analysis 
of this requirement increase and the associated force structure 
requirements is ongoing and expect to be completed in the future. 
Currently, the CMV-22B program is only resourced to support re-supply 
of the CSG. With the evolution of Distributed Maritime Operations and 
Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations concepts, the intra-theater 
airlift requirement will increase. Following initial operational 
capability in fiscal year 2021, the CMV-22B program will begin post-
production integration of additional capabilities to better enable 
great power competition and civil aviation requirements. These 
additional capabilities include: Link-16; required navigation 
performance area navigation; secondary beyond line-of-sight 
communications; upgrade to the Mobile User Objective System satellite 
communications system; Joint Precision Approach Landing System. These 
capabilities will be critical to ensuring CMV-22B logistics support in 
a high-end fight.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. VELA
    Mr. Vela. What activities are you doing to further advertise and 
recruit more mariners? Can you talk to how you've balanced having the 
right qualifications onboard, while having a large enough pool of 
citizens to recruit from?
    Admiral Buzby. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is exploring a 
range of options to ensure that a sufficient number mariners are 
trained and available to crew the U.S. Government owned fleet in times 
of crisis. This is a challenge, due to the number of vessels in the 
U.S. flag commercial fleet and jobs available to U.S.-citizen mariners. 
Maritime Security Program vessel operators employ up to 2,400 of these 
mariners, which provides some reserve of crew needed. However, concerns 
exist about having enough mariners to meet sealift needs during a full 
mobilization exceeding 4-6 months in duration. There continues to be 
significant interest in working in the industry. Each of the maritime 
academies has more qualified applicants than they can accept, which is 
also true of the union, commercial, and community college maritime 
schools. MARAD is researching ways to ascertain mariner availability 
and willingness to serve in times of crisis. The goal of this research 
effort is to help us better determine the numbers of mariners who might 
be available. MARAD continues to pursue opportunities to encourage 
private operators to internationally sail U.S. flag vessels that employ 
U.S. mariners. MARAD further supports the industry by operating the 
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) and assisting the six State 
Maritime Academies (SMA) to keep the pipeline of qualified mariners 
going. Also, pursuant to Congressional authority, MARAD established a 
program to recognize Maritime Centers of Excellence (CoE) for domestic 
maritime workforce training and education offered through qualified 
community colleges and maritime training centers. MARAD leverages its 
resources to aggressively advertise the opportunities available in the 
maritime industry. We publish informational booklets and pamphlets and 
maintain a dedicated phone line for the public to call and have their 
questions answered. For almost a decade, MARAD, in cooperation with the 
USMMA and SMAs, has co-sponsored the Annual Women on the Water 
Conference at one of the seven maritime academies. This gives an 
opportunity for all aspiring mariners, especially aspiring women 
mariners, to learn about current issues and opportunities, and network 
with leaders and role models in the maritime world.
    Mr. Vela. The Navy has stated it will purchase two used sealift 
ships this year. Can you provide this committee the actual or planned 
dates for RFP release, when proposals are due and when the Navy will 
award the contract for those two ships?
    Admiral Williamson. The used vessel contracting strategy will be 
executed through a joint Department of Navy (DON)/Department of 
Transportation (DOT) acquisition program. DOT's Maritime Administration 
(MARAD) will lead program management activities using a Vessel 
Acquisition Manager (VAM) with assistance from the Navy's Program 
Executive Office, Ships, as the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). 
While DOD retains overall oversight, MDA and MARAD are finalizing the 
processes, roles and responsibilities associated with the stand-up of 
an Integrated Program Office for the acquisition of sealift used 
vessels. The acquisition of the used ships is contingent on having a 
Vessel Acquisition Manager who will assist the DOD/DOT team with 
identifying and selecting used vessels to fulfill DOD sealift 
requirements (VAM) under contract. On February 24, 2020, MARAD released 
a Request for Proposal (RFP) to hire a VAM for the recapitalization of 
the aging surge sealift fleet. VAM offers were originally due April 1, 
2020 to facilitate acquisition of the first two vessels in FY21. 
Proposals have been delayed 30 days to May 1, 2020 due to COVID19 
impacts. Navy and MARAD will evaluate proposals and anticipate awarding 
VAM contract in July 2020. Following the VAM contract award, the 
program can proceed with the acquisition of the first used sealift 
ship, expected in Q1 of FY21, followed by the second ship later in the 
FY.