[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 117-33]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
meeting jointly with
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
POSTURE AND READINESS OF THE MOBILITY ENTERPRISE
__________
HEARING HELD
MAY 18, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-497 WASHINGTON : 2023
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JACKIE SPEIER, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JASON CROW, Colorado AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan, Vice JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
Chair MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
Jay Vallario, Professional Staff Member
Ian Bennitt, Professional Staff Member
Sean Falvey, Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut, Chairman
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
JIM COOPER, Tennessee VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey SAM GRAVES, Missouri
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
FILEMON VELA, Texas MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine, Vice Chair JIM BANKS, Indiana
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
SARA JACOBS, California JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
David Sienicki, 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................. 3
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Colorado, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 3
Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces......... 5
WITNESSES
Lessley, Lucinda, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation; and Kevin M. Tokarski,
Associate Administrator for Strategic Sealift, Maritime
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.............. 7
Lyons, GEN Stephen R., USA, Commander, U.S. Transportation
Command........................................................ 7
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Garamendi, Hon. John......................................... 45
Lamborn, Hon. Doug........................................... 48
Lessley, Lucinda............................................. 59
Lyons, GEN Stephen R......................................... 49
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Carl..................................................... 68
Mr. Garamendi................................................ 67
Mrs. McClain................................................. 68
Mr. Moore.................................................... 68
Mr. Scott.................................................... 67
POSTURE AND READINESS OF THE MOBILITY ENTERPRISE
----------
House of Representatives, Committee on Armed
Services, Subcommittee on Readiness, Meeting
Jointly with the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces, Washington, DC, Tuesday, May
18, 2021.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 4:00 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Garamendi
(chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Garamendi. The committee will come to order.
This joint hearing of the Readiness Subcommittee and the
Seapower and Projections Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee is now in order.
I will start with my opening statement.
I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before us
today to speak on the posture and readiness of the mobility
enterprise. We have before us General Stephen Lyons, the
commander of the United States Transportation Command
[USTRANSCOM]. General, welcome. We have Ms. Lucinda Lessley,
the acting administrator of the United States Maritime
Administration [MARAD]; and Mr. Kevin Tokarski--close--the
associate MARAD administrator for sealift requirements.
I want to thank all of you for joining us today. As you
know, mobility is an incredibly important subject. If you can't
get to or sustain the fight, you have no chance of winning it.
Yet in spite of this fact, each year's budget request doesn't
fully fund mobility to meet our combatant command requirements.
I suspect that this will be the case with this year's soon, or
maybe late, to be released budget request as well.
In last year's budget request, the Air Force requested to
retire 10 KC-10 aircraft, 13 KC-135, in spite of the fact that
the KC-46A was incapable of performing operational boom
refueling sorties.
General Lyons, you opposed this last year. I suspect you
will tell us why it is no longer a problem. Your specific
statement was that the retirement of those aircraft would
create a capacity gap with significant impacts to the combatant
command daily competition and wartime missions. Congress heard
you loud and clear, and we enacted legislation that prohibited
the retirement of the KC-135 aircraft until 2025, curtailed the
rate at which the Air Force would retire the KC-10.
General Lyons, I look forward to hearing from you and why
you think we ought to change that law sometime before 2025.
Regarding sealift, we must study our history to better
invent our future. General Washington's success was due in part
to the French fleet preventing the resupply of the British
forces. Conversely, America's ability to surge forces and
material across the Atlantic and Pacific created the conditions
for success in the Second World War.
So let's now turn to our current sealift system. Oh, my.
The average age of the Ready Reserve fleet is 44 years old. I
looked at that average. You mean some of these are more than 44
years of age? Oh, my. The surge fleet averages 30 years old.
The prepositioning fleet averages 28 years old.
General Lyons, Ms. Lessley, is this a winning hand?
The Navy's near-term solution is to recapitalize our old
ships with used but newer old ships, commercial vessels, and to
delay the new ship procurement until after 2026, which is the
current law on which they are supposed to be delivered. Is this
a winning solution?
I remain concerned that we are not doing enough now to
recapitalize our sealift fleet to meet capacity requirements.
We need a national sealift fleet of smaller, affordable, more
numerous ships, and we have to start this effort now. Failure
to do so will place the Marines, the Army, the Navy, and
anybody else that wants to fight anywhere in the world in an
unacceptable risk in force projection capability beginning in
2024; actually, today.
I ask our witnesses today to explain in detail how they
intend to get after this problem and to elaborate on whether
the services are providing the necessary resources to solve
this problem before it becomes a crisis.
Lastly, General Lyons, please provide an update on the
Defense Personal Property Program [DPPP]. We are aware that the
GAO [Government Accountability Office] sustained protests to
the Global Household Goods Contract and that you have taken
corrective actions based upon their recommendations. I also
understand that you are in source selection and, therefore,
limited on what you can say. However, I am quite interested to
hear in whatever you do have to say on how you are overseeing
this contract.
We want to avoid another version of--oh, God, our favorite
issue--the privatized housing debacle. So I would ask you to
speak on your plan for ensuring that the warfighter is taken
care of and, most importantly, their spouse and children.
With that, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing
today. And I now turn to Mr. Lamborn, the ranking member of the
Readiness Subcommittee, for his remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in
the Appendix on page 45.]
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Chairman Garamendi. And I also want
to thank our witnesses who are here today from MARAD and
TRANSCOM.
Together, our mobility enterprise is responsible for the
sealift, airlift, and ground logistics and distribution for our
armed services. I wish we could have had this important
discussion after receiving the budget, and we eagerly await its
delivery. I am sure we will have some more questions after its
arrival.
Our mobility enterprise must be ready to support the
combatant commands in the face of evolving global threats, yet
I am concerned we are underprepared to support tomorrow's
fight. Deterring our near-peer competitors subjects our
military to the tyranny of distance, which underscores the
importance of logistics and strategic lift.
I hope today that our witnesses can preview the upcoming
update to the Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study, which
we expect to be delivered next month. And given the current
state of our sealift capability, it would appear that we are in
trouble. Almost all of our forward combat unit equipment moves
by sea, but our ships are old and some near obsolete. The Army
has stated that planned fleet reductions could result in,
quote, unacceptable risk in force projection capability
beginning in 2024, unquote.
I know that TRANSCOM can influence but not direct service
budget decisions, but I look forward to hearing concrete
solutions and long-term plans, not simply relying on service
life extensions to rebuild the fleet. Aging airlift and air
refueling assets present another challenge specifically as we
work through recapitalizing the air refueling tanker fleet.
General Lyons, when we spoke last week, you mentioned
continued issues with the KC-46. I look forward to hearing
about plans to operate the KC-46, perhaps in a limited fashion,
and ongoing retirement plans for our KC-10 and KC-135 aircraft.
Our threats are evolving and the mobility enterprise must keep
pace. It is critical that we are meeting the obligation to
sustain, repair, and recapitalize our mobility support assets.
Our ability to project and sustain our force is at stake.
So I want to thank the witnesses for their time here today,
and I look forward to having an open and candid discussion.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn can be found in the
Appendix on page 48.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CONNECTICUT, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION
FORCES
Mr. Courtney [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
I am going to be pinch-hitting here for Mr. Garamendi for a
few minutes while he votes.
Good morning, and thank you to the chairman and Ranking
Member--actually, afternoon--Mr. Lamborn, and also to my
colleague from the Seapower Subcommittee, Rob Wittman, for
conducting this joint hearing to examine posture and readiness
of the mobility enterprise.
I also want to thank the witnesses, General Lyons, Ms.
Lessley, and Mr. Tokarski, for being with us today. Again, you
all bring a lifetime of expertise to this issue, and, I know, a
commitment to addressing the problems which were mentioned in
the opening statement.
As our witnesses know, under the National Defense Strategy,
with its focus on the Indo-Pacific and European Command, the
ability to move quickly goods, equipment, and people at a
moment's notice is an urgent priority of our defense operations
and plans.
As both subcommittees know all too well, the ships and the
aircraft that comprise our sealift and air mobility
capabilities are increasingly challenged by advanced age,
readiness shortfalls, and obsolescence. The disturbing 2019
turbo activation stress test conducted by MARAD, TRANSCOM, and
the Navy, made blindingly obvious the need to recapitalize the
fleet.
In 2020, the United States Maritime Administration and
Transportation Command phased out its obstacles with the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Yet despite that backdrop, in last
year's NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], Congress,
working with MARAD and TRANSCOM, passed multiple maritime
provisions to significantly modernize and boost the fleet.
A major bipartisan accomplishment was the establishment of
the Tanker Sealift Security Program, modeled after the highly
successful Maritime Security Program. This new program
authorizes an adequate stipend to private shipowners who make
their tankers available during time of war or national
emergencies.
We also secured an additional $388 million for the National
Security Multi-Mission Vessel, which is, again, a newbuild
program that is showing great promise in terms of an efficient,
cost-effective way to produce American-made ships. This was in
addition to new priority grants for small coastal ports and
terminals to help with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, $30
million for the Title XI loan guarantee program, a new
strategic program focused on merchant marine recruitment,
training, and retention, and the extension of the Jones Act and
other Federal laws to offshore renewable energy.
It is important to note that our subcommittee also included
a provision in the Maritime System Emergency Relief Act in last
year's NDAA. With this inclusion, we were able to provide
relief to those in the maritime industry during a national
emergency, increase training opportunities for merchant
mariners, authorize a new grant program for smaller ports and
terminals, and establish the National Shipper Advisory
Committee to give our importers and exporters a formal way to
interact with the Federal Maritime Commission.
We also initiated a three-pronged approach of extending the
current sealift ships: Number one, buying used vessels; number
two, requiring a start of a domestic newbuild ship, with added
authorities to build these new ships using existing designs and
alternative contracting approaches that can save time and
money.
However, we know work remains. The COVID-19 pandemic is
still ongoing. We recently saw a cyber attack on the Colonial
Pipeline, resulting in fuel shortages, price spikes, and four
total Jones Act waiver requests as of today: two waiver
requests to transport jet fuel, gasoline, and ultra-low sulfur
diesel between coastwise points, and two additional waiver
requests to transport motor fuel between coastwise points.
I personally, and I think a lot of my colleagues, continue
to believe that waivers such as these should be thoroughly
vetted, rare, short, and only granted in exceptional emergency
circumstances, such as the one that we found ourselves in a
couple of weeks ago.
Finally, we have continued a rigorous oversight of our
aerial refueling capabilities in the rollout of the KC-46
tanker. We remain concerned by the six Category 1 deficiencies
on the KC-46 as of this week and expect follow-up from the
agencies before us, as well as the Air Force, to ensure that
the platform we are delivering to our airmen is safe,
effective, and reliable. They deserve nothing less.
As we prepare to begin the work on the 2022 defense
authorization bill in the coming weeks, I look forward to
learning more from our witnesses and their important work in
addressing these challenges.
And with that, I will now yield to the ranking member on
the Seapower Subcommittee--actually, we could have called
ourselves the sealift subcommittee last year--my good friend,
Mr. Wittman from Virginia.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND
PROJECTION FORCES
Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Chairman Courtney. Joe, I
appreciate your leadership and your friendship.
And I want to thank Chairman Garamendi and especially,
again, our Chairman Joe Courtney and Ranking Member Doug
Lamborn for participating in this detailed review of our
Nation's mobility posture.
I also want to thank our two witnesses for participating
today--actually, three witnesses for participating today.
And, most importantly, General Lyons, I want to thank you
for your years of service in the military. I would note that
this will likely be your last hearing before this committee.
General Lyons, you have worn the Transportation Command mantle
well, always forthright and honest to this committee and an
outspoken mobility advocate who is willing to call out the
improvements and the deficiencies of the military services.
This committee and our Nation is better because of your
service, and we honor you, and we will miss you. Thank you.
As I was preparing for this hearing, I am reminded of the
grim statistics of our surge sealift forces, and I am sure this
comes as no surprise to any of you. However, we are once again
having no capitalization in fiscal year 2020. The average age
of our surge sealift, as has been so eloquently stated here,
has increased by another year to almost 46 years old. And the
plight of our forces is so bad that after having the U.S. Coast
Guard pulling the certificate of inspection of a number of
Ready Reserve Force vessels, MARAD made a decision to reduce 10
percent of the fleet, from 46 to 41 vessels.
This reduction further limits our ability to project forces
in times of conflict. In my estimation, this is quite simply a
dereliction of duty and the definition of a classic seam issue
with DOD [Department of Defense]. We must do better.
And as to the tankers, the KC-46A continues to lag in
providing relevant capability to General Lyons. General Van
Ovost, the next TRANSCOM commander, has called the KC-46
aircraft a lemon.
I understand that the earliest fix for this aircraft will
be September of 2023, but this contract and Boeing losing over
$5 billion to date on this contract is embarrassing. In my
estimation, the overall procurement of this commercial aircraft
and the penalty built into the contract requiring minimum
orders of deficient airplanes is at best procurement
malpractice or at worst an illegal binding of Congress
requiring annual procurements without any specific multiyear
procurement authorization.
On top of this, we are forced to hear semi-triumphant Air
Force messaging that these aircraft fixes are on Boeing's dime,
not the Pentagon. However, this does not account for the whole
story, because it is not Boeing who is paying to keep these old
aircraft flying. The cost is on the shoulders of the taxpayer.
And I look forward to better addressing this issue in the
fiscal year 2022 NDAA.
Additionally, Chairman Smith has discussed his concern
about a concept called vendor lock, which allows contractors to
recoup procurement losses in sustainment because of sole source
sustainment contracts. I am afraid we are already starting down
this line with the KC-46A tanker sustainment effort to the
detriment of our Nation's taxpayers.
Finally, we debated the overall tanker force structure last
year and supported General Lyons' minimum tanker fleet. I am
pleased to note in General Lyons' testimony that he supports
the United States Air Force tanker retirement schedule, and I
look forward to amending the fiscal year 2021 NDAA to more
efficiently manage our legacy tanker force structure.
As we consider how to best address our mobility woes in the
fiscal year 2022 budget request, I am reminded of the words
that have been attributed to Winston Churchill where he said,
``Let our advance worrying become advance thinking and
planning.'' It is time that we stop talking the talk and start
walking the walk. We need to take a serious look at these
rather simple issues and turning our worrying into advance
thinking and an actual plan.
Again, I appreciate Chairman Courtney and Chairman
Garamendi's support for having this important hearing, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Garamendi [presiding]. We have managed to learn the
trick of the game, be the last person to vote on the first vote
and the first person to vote on the last vote. So some of my
colleagues will be leaving shortly.
Okay. If only they would allow remote voting while we are
actually in Washington. That is not the game.
I believe we now turn to our witnesses. General Lyons,
please. Thank you for being here. We look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF GEN STEPHEN R. LYONS, USA, COMMANDER, U.S.
TRANSPORTATION COMMAND
General Lyons. Chairman Garamendi, Chairman Courtney,
Ranking Member Lamborn, Ranking Member Wittman, it is my
distinct honor and pleasure to represent the men and women of
the United States Transportation Command that are operating
around the globe this very day 24/7.
Powered by the dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen,
Marines, coastguardsmen, and civilians, TRANSCOM underwrites
the lethality of the joint force. Our enduring purpose is to
project and sustain military forces globally at our time and
place of choosing, providing our national leadership with
strategic competitive advantage and a wide range of options to
enable the advancements of U.S. national security interests,
enable us to assure our allies and partners and, if necessary,
respond with a decisive force to win.
Given the unprecedented challenges amid the COVID-19 global
pandemic, I could not be more proud of the men and women of
TRANSCOM, who have continued their impressive support to the
joint force and support to whole-of-government efforts to help
American citizens right here at home.
I appreciate this committee's continued support on
important global mobility issues. Many of them have been
mentioned, including sealift recapitalization, aerial refueling
modernization, and Defense Personal Property reform efforts, as
well as your acknowledgment of the future challenges of
logistics operations in an all-domain contested environment.
Today, I am pleased to join Acting Maritime Administrator
Lessley. I thank you very much for your continued leadership
and support for our military forces, and I look forward,
gentlemen, to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Lyons can be found in
the Appendix on page 49.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, General Lyons.
We now turn to acting administrator of the United States
Maritime Administration, Ms. Lucinda Lessley.
Ms. Lessley, I understand that you have one prepared
statement for both yourself and Mr. Tokarski.
STATEMENT OF LUCINDA LESSLEY, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, MARITIME
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND KEVIN M.
TOKARSKI, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR STRATEGIC SEALIFT,
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Lessley. Good afternoon, Chairman Garamendi, Chairman
Courtney, Ranking Member Lamborn, Ranking Member Wittman, and
members of the subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Maritime Administration's role in supporting the
Nation's strategic sealift capabilities. I am pleased to join
General Lyons and to be joined by Associate Administrator Kevin
Tokarski.
Having worked on the Hill for approximately 16 years, I am
humbled and honored to be here today. As a former staffer, I
could not help thinking with a sense of amazement that my words
would be appearing in the proceedings of a committee of the
House of Representatives. And I wanted my first words in that
permanent record to be words of gratitude.
I thank Congressman Elijah Cummings for whom I worked for
nearly 15 years. Without the opportunities he gave me, I would
not be here today. More importantly, the guidance, counsel, and
support he gave me and the wisdom and grace of his example made
me a better person, and I am blessed that, as he would have
said, our lives eclipsed.
I also want to thank the colleagues with whom I now work.
The dedication to excellence and service to our Nation
exhibited by the men and women of MARAD inspires me every day,
and I am honored to work with these extraordinary public
servants.
I also thank Secretary Buttigieg for his leadership and
support and for his commitment to the maritime industry.
America's strategic sealift helps the Nation project power
globally during peacetime and wartime. The government-owned
sealift fleet, which includes the MARAD-maintained Ready
Reserve Force and the Military Sealift Command's surge sealift
fleet, are supported by a fleet of commercially operated U.S.-
flag vessels, including those in the Maritime Security Program
[MSP]. These fleets are supported by strong and highly
qualified U.S. merchant marine and by shoreside personnel.
The members of the U.S. merchant marine have gone above and
beyond to ensure the continued operation of our Maritime
Transportation System during the COVID-19 pandemic. MARAD
appreciates Congress' support for the U.S. maritime industry,
especially the leadership of the members of this committee.
However, more work remains to sustain a strong and effective
sealift capability, as you have all noted.
The 41 Ready Reserve Force vessels and the MSC [Military
Sealift Command] vessels provide sealift surge capability
during initial stages of a response to a major contingency.
However, Ready Reserve vessels average more than 46 years in
age, well past their expected use, which makes recapitalization
critical to maintain readiness.
As authorized in the fiscal year 2018 NDAA, MARAD solicited
for a vessel acquisition manager, or a VAM, in early 2020, and
an award is imminent. This is critical to advancing a
recapitalization effort.
The U.S.-flag commercial fleet provides much of the
sustainment sealift following surge operations. The MSP is the
heart of sustainment sealift. The program encompasses a fleet
of 60 commercially viable, militarily useful vessels that are
active in international trade and available on call to meet DOD
contingency requirements.
In addition, the newly authorized Tanker Security Program
[TSP] has the potential to address the need for more U.S.-flag
product tankers in support of both national economic needs and
DOD contingency requirements. Thank you for your work to make
the authorization of the TSP possible in the 2021 NDAA.
Cargo preference requirements keep vessels operating under
the U.S. flag and create U.S. mariner jobs. MARAD is committed
to ensuring compliance with cargo preference requirements, and
we continue outreach to Federal agencies and industry to assist
them in understanding and meeting these requirements.
MARAD is also committed to supporting the domestic U.S.-
flag trading fleet. The requirements under our coastwise laws
support U.S. shipyards and sustain American shipbuilding supply
chains. Aside from the tens of thousands of tugboats, towboats,
and barges that ply our domestic waterways, about 100 U.S.-flag
oceangoing vessels operate in the Jones Act fleet.
Access to a pool of qualified mariners from a robust
commercial maritime fleet is essential to maintain sealift
readiness. Due to the small number of ships in the U.S.-flag
oceangoing fleet, MARAD is concerned about our ability to
quickly assemble an adequate number of qualified mariners
should an extended mobilization occur.
MARAD, of course, continues to proudly support mariner
education and training through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
and the six State maritime academies. Congress has recognized
the need to replace the aging training ships used at these
institutions and has appropriated funding for four National
Security Multi-Mission Vessels. Construction is underway on the
first two ships, and the first NSMV is expected to be delivered
in fiscal year 2023.
We are committed to providing our DOD and TRANSCOM partners
with the sealift capabilities needed to meet our national
security objectives.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on
the state of our Nation's sealift as a component of the
mobility enterprise. I ask that my written statement be entered
in the record, and look forward to working with you to advance
U.S. maritime transportation interests. And I am happy to take
any questions.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lessley can be found in the
Appendix on page 59.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much for your testimony.
As you can see, we are going to be moving around on our
side. Please excuse us. We will blame that on, I don't know,
Steny Hoyer. Why did he do that to us?
In any case, a series of questions. In my opening
statement, General Lyons, I raised a question. Let's get this
issue of the current law out of the way, and tell us why we
should keep the law or not. This has to do with the aerial--the
KC-10s and the KC-135s.
General Lyons. Well, Chairman, let me just start by
thanking this committee for your support, particularly last
year, on this issue.
Mr. Garamendi. Yes.
General Lyons. So, last year, you asked a question quite
legitimately--can you hear me okay? Okay--what was the impact
of the Boeing KC-46 delay combined with the legacy retirements
on operations. And at that time, the implications for day-to-
day operations were significant.
Since that time, United States Air Force has done some
incredible work. First, to make sure that Boeing is signed up
to complete the work that they are under contract to complete.
Second, to work through some interim capability releases to
allow us to use the KC-46 in operations, albeit not across all
receivers, but certainly across a large portion. Also, to delay
some of the retirements on the KC-10 fleet and then increase
the contributions for the Guard and Reserve. And that combined
has put us in a good position.
I really appreciate the support of the Air Force. I have
talked to the chief about this. I think we are in a very good
place, and I do think it is the right decision to allow the Air
Force to retire the KC-135s that they have requested retire.
Mr. Garamendi. Very good.
Mr. Courtney and Mr. Wittman have both left the hearing.
This is their turf, and we will pick it up--they may want to
pick it up when they come back. I think most of the members of
this committee have had the opportunity to be on the KC-46 and
observe the changes and the operation.
I want to now move to the sealift capacity. And I would
like to stay with you, General Lyons, if I could. What do you
propose we do about what is, in our view and perhaps yours, a
very serious shortcoming in TRANSCOM's ability to meet the
requirements of moving personnel and equipment across the
oceans? General Lyons.
General Lyons. Well, Chairman, again, I want to thank this
committee, and particularly you, for your personal support on
this particular issue.
We share that sense of urgency that the Department must
address the aging sealift fleet. And I am proud to report over
the last year, the Department, the Secretary himself, Secretary
Esper, the Navy, TRANSCOM, supported by Maritime
Administration, has spent a lot of time on this issue over the
last year. I think there is a good way forward, a strategy, as
you alluded to it, used buy strategy of military useful vessels
off the market at one-tenth the price of what it would cost to
build a new sealift ship.
You, this committee, has authorized the procurement of at
least the first nine vessels, at least the first four, without
connecting it to a newbuild sealift ship. And I think you heard
the acting administrator talk about this year, this year, we
should be able to deliver the first or second purchase--the
first two purchases of a used sealift ship to begin the
recapitalization of the fleet.
And I think you are aware, as we look across 10 years, 33
ships out of 50 ships will meet end of useful life. So we have
a lot of work ahead of us. The Department has put money in the
program. I know the President's budget hasn't made it here yet,
but I think you will be pleased with the resources that have
been applied to this, and I think you would be pleased with the
priority that the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] has placed on
this particular issue.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
I would like now to turn to MARAD and Ms. Lessley and to go
down the same path. Is it going to work? Are we actually going
to be able to find the resources to purchase the ships and put
them into the Ready Reserve program and also into the Navy's
ongoing program?
So, Ms. Lessley, let's talk about that, what strategies
MARAD has in mind to fully meet the requirements. Some of this
you touched in your opening statement, but let's go into detail
here.
Ms. Lessley. Thank you for that question, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. If you would use that microphone and be real
personal with it, it would be helpful.
Ms. Lessley. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
As mentioned, we anticipate the award of the vessel
acquisition management contract shortly, and there is--
obviously, the Navy is the program of record for the funding,
but funding available for this year to bring at least into
contract two vessels. And then, of course, we do have ongoing
maintenance on the vessels that we will be retaining in the
Ready Reserve fleet.
Mr. Garamendi. Can we get there with the current strategy?
Can we actually achieve the goal of having ships that are
reasonable in shape and preparedness, given the current number
of ships that we are buying, two a year? If the average age of
the Ready Reserve fleet is 44 and we are buying two a year, my
guess is we are falling further behind every year.
Ms. Lessley. Thank you, sir. I am going to turn it over to
Mr. Tokarski in a minute, but to say that it is to bring two
under contract this year. And I believe the authorization
currently available is to bring seven ships in, again,
recognizing that the Navy is the program of record for the
funding. But the vast majority of the Ready Reserve now is
comprised of ships that were bought and then modified to meet
our needs.
And I will turn it to Mr. Tokarski for additional
information.
Mr. Tokarski. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I think
that the strategy that we do have that we, collectively with
the Transportation Command, the Department of the Navy, and
Department of Transportation through the Maritime
Administration, will work. We have shown and proven that over
the history of this program to be able to go and acquire
sealift vessels with the right level of resources.
The Navy has committed this year with the resources to
enable us to purchase the first two. I think there is a
recognition within the Navy that additional resources above
this minimal amount is going to be required. We do know that
the plans are to accelerate. There are plans for acquisition in
the following years. So we do envision next fiscal year for the
procurement of seven ships--five additional ships to a total of
seven.
But it is not a clean straightforward because there are
some restrictions in terms of how many we can acquire at a
given moment, so not only just the resources alone.
The other sphere of this attack is also to be able to put
the resources into the ships that we do have in the fleet today
that are going to remain in the fleet. And the Navy has
resourced us, at the President's requested level in the last
administration, to make sure that we are putting the right
resources in the ships that we are going to keep. We are not
putting good money into bad ships. We are putting money into
the ships that we are going to keep in the program that we are
going to need to be able to sustain.
Thank you.
Mr. Garamendi. A couple of years ago, we received from
MARAD a chart, ships aging out, ships coming in, ships being
purchased, ships being built. It appears as though the original
discussion we had several years ago in which we would try to
purchase newer used ships, hopefully American built, repurpose
them, and then also build American-built new ships.
General Lyons, is that new ship--new American-built ships
still on the agenda?
General Lyons. Chairman, you know, I will defer to the Navy
on this. I can say where I believe we are as a department is
that we proceed, to the maximum extent possible, with the
acquisition of used ships with high military utility, do
conversion in the U.S. yards, and fix the fleet.
I think, you know, as this committee looks at budgets
across time, it is going to be a pretty steep bill at 10 times
the cost to build a new sealift ship. But I wouldn't say it is
off the tables, sir, but I would say that there is large
consensus that the right way to move forward to invest the
money wisely would be acquire used vessels.
Mr. Garamendi. I asked Ms. Lessley to tell us ships out,
ships in, new ships, refurbished ships. General Lyons, I would
suppose that you would be working with MARAD in putting
together that table of acquisitions and the like. Is that
correct?
General Lyons. That is correct, sir. We are very much part
of that process.
Mr. Garamendi. Here is my concern. We have heard from the
Navy about what their shortcomings are, specifically with
regard to shipyards, the private shipyards. The strategy that
we tried to put in place 5 years ago now was to give work to
the private shipyards, and that work would be the rebuilding of
the American surge fleet. That seems to be almost dead, even
though that policy is still in the law.
We are going to have to look at this holistically. The
shipyards, American private shipyards, are principally building
naval kinetic vessels of all kinds, and we have almost no
capacity--excuse me, very limited capacity to build ships that
are for surge capacity, surge use. And this is a significant
security issue for the United States. And so I am not prepared
to give up on the notion of building these ships, but I am
thinking about a different plan.
Before I go there, the Tanker Security Program, I thought
Mr. Wittman would be here. When he comes back, I do want to go
in--if he does not, we will come back with a second round of
questions on the Tanker Security Program to really understand
how that gets built out. It appears to me there are going to be
a lot of naval vessels in the far-off stretches of the ocean
that will not have fuel, given the current tanker fleet that
the Navy has, and that is not a good thing.
So I am going to hold on that. Give it some thought, and
when we come back to it--where I want to go, I want to go to
Mr. Tokarski. Tokarski. Did I get it right that time? Close
enough.
We had talked about a strategy of a national security fleet
that would be using Jones Act ships that are built to be
militarily useful, of all kinds, roll-on/roll-off tankers, I
don't know, LNG [liquid natural gas] if the Navy ever goes
there. Also ships that are single purpose, ships that are
particularly useful for providing fuel in remote locations,
onto land. Also ships that are heavy-lift ships. It turns out
that the American Jones Act fleet has some of these ships
available and could have more, if we actually obey the law that
this committee passed, on the Outer Continental Shelf, the wind
industry, which is going to be very big, and they are going to
need heavy-lift vessels to build those turbines, if those are
American built, and are also available for the Navy when and if
needed.
Could you please comment on this kind of a strategy, and
the laws that are currently on the books, how we might utilize
existing programs and laws that may be on the shelf but
nonetheless available to us?
Mr. Tokarski. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question.
The history of our Nation, and particularly in ensuring that we
have sealift capability, has intrinsically been linked to
having a defined strategy that invests in commercial sealift
vessels, whether it is through construction programs that have
expired, construction differential subsidy, operating
differential subsidies. We recognized that our approach was to
invest in these commercial vessels. There were financial
assistance programs given to those. And then those ships in
that were entered into commercial service typically for about
25 years, and at the end of that period of time, there is a
requirement that the vessels be turned over, in essence, either
purchased or we did an exchange program where we would exchange
out old tonnage for equal scrap steel, and they were turned
into the fleet, to our National Defense Reserve Fleet.
That is how we built our sealift capabilities in the early
days of the Ready Reserve Force. We had a strategy that linked
our investment in commercial enterprises that planned for those
vessels at the end of that time period to turn into and
actually became the newer ships into our fleet.
So, today, when we look at the programs that we have of
record that can support Title XI mortgage guarantee program is
available for domestic shipbuilding opportunities. Vessels in
that we are excited about offshore energy development and the
new construction of vessels to be able to support those type of
operations. Those ships likely will have military capability
and be militarily useful.
But I still think that the strategy about a longer term
defined, where we have a broader investment, if you will, for
domestic building with an end state that we are going to see
that return back into our sealift fleet really then presents a
link strategy, then today, where we go and we see what is
available for purchase on the open market.
Thank you.
Mr. Garamendi. I want to pursue this strategy. Presently,
we are bouncing from one thing to another here, and it appears
to me we are not going to be successful anytime soon in
rebuilding our sealift surge--our sealift capacity. It is just
not in the cards where we are going.
I want to--I would like MARAD to develop the strategy that
you just talked about, Mr. Tokarski, and present that to this
committee, as well as to the Coast Guard Maritime Committee
[Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure], so that
we can proceed with what is already on the books. It is already
the law, but not really utilized in any way.
We do have the Tanker Security Program out there, and it is
a piece of the puzzle. We do have the purchase of used but not
so old ships and repurposing them, but these are all short
term. If we go back to what you talked about and lay in place a
strategy for the future, recognizing that in the first 25
years, the ships could be available because they have received
a subsidy from the Federal Government, and they could be called
upon, just as airplanes are currently called upon that are held
by the airline industry when needed, maybe specialty ships,
maybe roll-on/roll-offs or other kinds of ships, and that the
Navy and the Ready Reserve be very special ships, munition
ships, for example, that are not going to be--hopefully, not in
the commercial marketplace. If they are, we have got a
different set of problems.
So, General Lyons, what do you think?
And then I am going to turn to Mr. Wilson.
Heads up, Mr. Wilson, you will be next, followed by Brown
and Scott.
General Lyons. Well, Chairman, you and I are in complete
agreement on the essence of having a strong U.S.-flag mariner
fleet, both organic and commercial. And then the mariners that
sail both of them are a critical component of our national
defense and our national security.
You know, I think the work this committee has done on the
Tanker Security Program is great work. We fully support that.
We fully support the Jones Act, the Maritime Security Program.
I think the question that you are alluding to, sir, is
whether you could sweep the Jones Act into the National Defense
[Reserve] Fleet in time of emergency, like a Civil Reserve
Aviation Fleet. And in wargaming, what we have discovered is we
would probably not want to uncover the economic viability of
the coastal wise trade for the purposes of American support.
But there are examples, there are exceptions to that, I
believe, where there could be some utility in some of those
ships and certainly in the mariners.
So what I would say, sir, is we are in complete agreement
with the need for a strong U.S. merchant fleet sailed by highly
qualified mariners. It is critical to national defense.
Mr. Garamendi. Before I turn it over to--thank you,
General.
Before I turn over to Mr. Wilson, we have been working on
this in multiple ways. In last year's bill, the committee
required that the U.S. military use the commercial fleet with
minimal or very little exception; in other words, to give cargo
to the commercial fleet so that its economic viability could be
more secure. And we are going to continue that effort and
provide very few, or hopefully very few exceptions to that.
I think my colleagues know I can go on for hours about
this, and that is not a good thing at this moment.
Mr. Wilson, it is your turn.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman John Garamendi. And,
indeed, I want to thank the three witnesses here today.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Wilson, would you turn on your mic,
please?
Mr. Wilson. Am I on?
Thank you, Chairman John Garamendi, and thank you to the
three witnesses----
Mr. Garamendi. As always, Mr. Wilson, you are making a
brilliant statement that we cannot hear.
So somebody get his mute.
Mr. Wilson. It says that I am not muted.
Can you hear now? It has green on mute.
Mr. Garamendi. Perhaps, Mr. Wilson, the problem lies with
our staff.
Mr. Wilson. No, no. It couldn't possibly be----
Mr. Garamendi. Hold on just a second.
My staff tells me the problem lies with you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Garamendi. Hang on a second.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, this is Congressman Brown. I can
actually hear Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Scott, are you live?
Mr. Wilson. And I can hear Congressman Brown. He sounds
very eloquent.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Wilson, stand by for a second.
I think this is Pogo; we have discovered the problem, and
it is us.
Mr. Wilson. Oh, my goodness.
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Garamendi. Take a deep breath. Get your coffee----
Mr. Wilson. Anthony, it is good to see you.
Mr. Brown. Good to see you, Joe.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Brown, are you live?
Mr. Brown. Oh, yes. Mr. Chairman, I was just telling you
that I can hear Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Brown, hit your mute button, please.
Mr. Wilson. What a beautiful chandelier.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Lamborn, you may have saved this
hearing. Being the ranking member, it is your turn while staff
busies themselves to figure out what the problem is with
remote.
So my colleagues who are remote, stand by.
Mr. Lamborn, your turn for questions.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you.
General Lyons, I want to repeat what others have said.
Thank you for your great service and distinguished and long
service to our country.
We talked about the KC-46 on the phone the other day, and I
think I mentioned to you I went up in one when I was down in
Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma a little while back, and it
looks like it is a great plane to fly, and the pilots and crew
love it. There is this problem with the remote video feed,
though, of the docking system.
So where does that stand? And how soon will we have a fix
on that?
General Lyons. Well, sir, first let me just say thanks for
your interest in taking the time to go up. I know the crews
absolutely loved it and appreciated your attention and interest
in this critical weapon system.
I think, you know, the delays of the KC-46 have been
discussed in many different venues. I appreciate the fact that
the Air Force and Boeing have come to an agreement where Boeing
is committed now to deliver what they were always committed to,
which was an aircraft equally capable as the KC-135 is today.
And so that includes the remote visual system repairs,
modifications through an RVS [Remote Vision System] 2.0. I will
defer to the Air Force and the program manager on timelines and
programmatics.
I will say in the meantime, though, sir, you know, relative
to where we were last year, the Air Force has done a lot of
great work in presenting an interim capability. I think you saw
that weapon system's ability to support a number of receivers,
not all receivers, not in all conditions, but certainly a
capable platform to do work in the day-to-day competitive
space.
So the Air Force has proffered that capability under
certain limitations. They have also made some delays in the KC-
10 profile of retirements, enhanced some Guard and Reserve
contributions, and I think we are in a good place now. But to
your point, sir, there is a lot of work to be done between now
and the actual delivery of an updated KC-46, what is
anticipated to be late fiscal year 2023.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you.
And, lastly, I will shift gears and ask you about household
goods delivery. When we had a hearing 2 years ago and talked
about it, I was very concerned about access to the program for
small businesses. And so now that we are further down the road,
what steps have you taken to ensure that the move manager won't
privilege companies with which it has preexisting relationships
which would shut out other small companies of the DOD
relocation business?
General Lyons. Yes, sir. No, thanks for the question. And
thanks again.
You know, 2 years ago, there were a lot of complaints about
this program and, frankly, I agreed with every one of them. We
knew we had to do some significant change to instill some
accountability, and we are still on that road. We have made
some great progress this past year in improving customer
satisfaction rates and doing some smart things, but we still
have some structural work to do with the Global Household Goods
Contract that you are referring to.
As I always say, with our commercial partners, if they have
a viable, good, quality moving company today, I guarantee their
services will be required in the future. The issue with the
market is, you know, particularly during peak season when we
try to move 400,000 service members around the globe, is
capacity, and we are trying to settle our relationship with
industries so we incentivize the growth in capacity, gain
accountability, and being able to optimize a larger network.
But, sir, to answer your question directly, there is a
place for small business in this program.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. That is great to hear.
Once again, thank you for your service, and I want to thank
all of you for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
For all of my colleagues here and remote, the movement in
and out to vote makes the gavel order, at best, complex and
probably maddening to all of you.
Mr. Wilson, you were up. Unfortunately, you missed your
slot. It was taken by Mr. Lamborn. We now--as is the process,
we go back and forth, and that would then be----
Mr. Wilson. And he is not here.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Norcross, you are up. The chairman of
the Seapower and Projection task force arrived 30 seconds ahead
of you, Mr. Norcross.
Joe, you are up.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you.
I would just like to go back to one of the items I
mentioned in the opening statement was the enactment of the
Tanker Security Program in last year's NDAA. Again, General, as
you know, this was a 2-year process, and we were finally
successful in the conference committee for NDAA to--when the
Senate acceded to the House position and, again, authorized and
stood up the program in law.
Again, just for the record--and I know this has been
alluded, this may be, you know, possibly be one of your last
hearings. I am not so sure we are going to let you go at
Seapower in the next few months or so. But can you just
elaborate a little bit about why getting this program in place
is critical, and why, you know, we obviously need to push to
get some funding through the appropriations process?
General Lyons. Yes, sir, happy to. And, again, let just me
thank the committee, because the committee did a lot of work in
this area and led the effort in the Tanker Security Program.
It is critical, in my view, when I look what the liquid
energy value chain and what that represents, the way it
operates today, and the way we will need to war fit to operate
under all-domain persistent attack. It is clear that we need to
have a U.S.-flag capability to meet our national defense and
national security needs.
Today, that is not the case. We have a large dependency,
not just on commercial tankering, but foreign-flag commercial
tankering. I think this program will be an important step to
move us to a U.S.-flag dependency, which I think is critical to
national defense, sir.
Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you. And I know, you know, we
realize, you know, we have still got follow-up work to do here
now that we have the framework in place, and we are just going
to make sure that it becomes, you know, fully operational.
Ms. Lessley, again, in your opening statement, you alluded
to the new Multi-Mission Vessel program, which, again, is a new
construction program, which, again, was a multiyear process in
terms of getting that recognized. But as you point out, the
primary goal is to create training vessels for maritime
mariners of the future, which is a really important workforce
challenge for the country.
But also, I mean, there is a way that MARAD was authorized
to proceed in the contracting process, which, again, I think
is--I think it is important to elaborate a little bit on that
today because, frankly, it may solve other problems that we
have in terms of new construction for sealift. And maybe you
could talk about that a little bit.
Ms. Lessley. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much for the
question.
Yes, the Maritime Administration is extremely excited about
this program. Obviously, it is early days, but we do have
appropriations for four vessels with two under construction,
and we are anticipating delivery of the first ship in April of
2023.
We had a recent IG [inspector general] report on the
program with two recommendations. The first recommendation is
closed. We are working to close the second one, but note that
the IG cited several important aspects of the program that have
contributed to what we hope will be a very successful program;
that is, having mature designs in place and using the marine
design firm that helped to develop those designs to conduct
subsequent oversight, and then using firm fixed-price orders
after getting a vessel construction manager in place so the
vessel construction manager is using the best private sector
construction techniques. MARAD's job is to oversee the VCM, but
we hold the V--the vessel construction manager responsible for
the delivery.
And, again, the IG cited these important steps as being
critical to getting the program up and running and hopefully to
delivering ships on budget to design specifications on time.
Mr. Courtney. So the intent, obviously, was to try and, you
know, again, create a program that can get true cadence in
terms of, you know, serial production. And I know, Mr.
Tokarski, you were sort of, you know, present at the creation
with some of this. But, I mean, that is sort of the vision that
we have here, which is that, you know, you sort of try to debug
a lot of the program at the beginning and then really it gives
a sense to sort of get that cadence in serial production. Is
that a good way to describe it or is there----
Mr. Tokarski. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for that
question, and thank you very much for your support for the
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel program. And, in fact, I
think it was this committee's direction to our agency that
helped us to be able to map out a pathway forward, not an easy
pathway, but one in the sense of making sure that we had the
rigor of how we did the contracting part for this.
You challenged us to use an entity other than ourselves to
contract for the construction of the vessel, and I think that
wisdom was that we didn't want to see this project take a long
time, and we wanted you to do it within the time bounds of a
fixed budget over a fixed price structure. And you saw the
wisdom that commercial companies build ships today, and when
they build them, they have got to build them on time and it has
got to be on budget.
And so this mechanism that we use, the vessel acquisition
manager, first time we believe this has ever been tried to do
this approach, to be able to build a multiple number of ships,
and we didn't have appropriations for all five, still don't,
but in recognizing it as a means to be able to give flexibility
to the Congress, if we showed success in that, to be able to
appropriate the programs that moved forward, but allowing the
vessel construction manager then to use their commercial needs,
something that they do very well, to be able to go out and
solicit shipyards and, in essence, to build a commercial vessel
to our requirements and our standards.
And we are on track right now, as Acting Administrator
Lessley reported, to be able to deliver that ship on time and
on budget and, most importantly, they are going to build what
we ask them to build. So we are not changing the requirements
along the way. So that is the discipline, I think, that the
Congress gave us in terms of how we structured this.
Thank you.
Mr. Courtney. Right. And, again, to be specific, the work
now is in Philadelphia, adjacent to the Navy Yard?
Mr. Tokarski. Yes, sir. There is a construction manager.
TOTE Services awarded the contract to Philly Ship. And so it is
what used to be formerly called the Aker Shipyard, but Philly
Ship is building it.
Right now, we have four ships under contract. The first two
have started full construction.
Mr. Courtney. Well, it is great to see, again, one of our
heritage shipyards kind of coming back to life with this
initiative.
And, again, looking forward, we sort of struggle with the
sealift recapitalization. And, again, we now have a new plan
submitted by the Navy that is talking about significantly
increasing the number of used ships and delaying new
procurement sealift until 2026.
We are going to hear from them, and obviously it seems like
another sort of, I wouldn't call it a U-turn, but certainly a
change in direction from where over the last few years we have
sort of had put before us.
But assuming this vessel construction manager kind of model
really shows some success, I mean, in my opinion, anyway, and
maybe you could just sort of comment, both of you, and maybe
General Lyons, that that is a model that we could transfer and
transplant into sealift recapitalization in terms of, again,
trying to get some volume in terms of construction.
Again, I don't know if any of the witnesses want to sort of
comment on that.
General Lyons. Chairman, I will take it.
I mean, I completely agree with your assessment. And I
appreciate MARAD and Navy really moving in that direction. That
is exactly the approach they are taking with a vessel
acquisition manager soon to be under contract and soon to
acquire the first two ships to begin the recapitalization
effort of the sealift ships. So we fully support.
Mr. Courtney. Great.
You look like you want to make a comment, Mr. Tokarski.
Mr. Tokarski. Sir, thank you for that follow-on question.
What I have observed over the years in the sealift
business, if you will, and I have been doing this for a long
time, for the business that we have to do in terms of having
vessels to be able to support the Department of Defense, this
is a capability that the commercial industry can do very well.
Our Maritime Security Program, all the ships that we have
in that program, they are all militarily useful. They know how
to go out and acquire the ships. The vessel acquisition manager
was using the same thing. Let's leverage what commercial
industry does on a regular basis in terms of going out and
identifying new ships to bring into U.S. flag. They operate
them commercially. They do the economic model for the right
ships to be able to do that. They can do this.
And if you are asking if I think the vessel construction
manager could be extended to building, in essence, our
commercial roll-on/roll-off or sealift-capable vessels, I see
no reason why that would not be possible.
Mr. Courtney [presiding]. Great. Well, thank you.
I mean, my goal is to have a subcommittee CODEL
[congressional delegation] to Philadelphia when the time is
right where we can actually see some tangible movement on that
program, because I think it is really, frankly, a really
significant development for the future of the issues that we
are talking about here today.
So, with that, I will now recognize Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Chairman Courtney.
I want to, again, thank our witnesses for being with us.
General Lyons and Ms. Lessley, I understand, as I stated
earlier, that there is a 10 percent reduction in the Ready
Reserve Force since we have gone from 46 ships down to 41. And
I am just curious as to what are the problems with delivering
the necessary force structure. Why have we had to reduce those
number of ships?
I understand it is about Coast Guard certification. But
seems like to me that that would even heighten the importance
of bringing new ships or newer ships into the force.
And what is the practical impact of this reduced force
structure? I mean, if the call goes out tonight this is pretty
precarious, and then if you look at any other vessels that
aren't certified to go to sea.
And, listen, I have to agree with the chairman in his
question about what is the long-term strategy. There doesn't
seem to be one. If there is not a long-term strategy about how
we recapitalize, then it deeply concerns me, especially since
we have been emphasizing this now, I know, between Chairman
Courtney and myself, Chairman Garamendi and Mr. Lamborn, now
this is going on 4 years, and we still haven't gotten to the
point of getting two additional ships in.
I can tell you, by any other measure in any other place,
that would be unacceptable, and I would say it is unacceptable
here.
So I just want to hear your perspective on where that
leaves you, General Lyons, as far as force availability, and,
Ms. Lessley, about what is the path forward.
General Lyons. Well, sir, it is a great question, and it is
a fair question.
We have spent a lot of time on this issue this past year,
with the Secretary himself, with the SECNAV [Secretary of the
Navy], CNO, MARAD. As a matter of fact, Secretary Esper at the
time took such interest he dedicated an issue team to look at
it and to look at what we were going to do as a Department to
move forward to align our strategy and then align the resources
behind that strategy.
So there were several things that came out of that effort,
one of which you just alluded to, which was the retirement of a
number of ships that are currently in the Ready Reserve fleet,
some of them in the surge fleet.
So a couple of those were retired because there was no
longer a utility. Two of them were Cape Mays that were--or Cape
Ms [heavy lift ships] that were required for special missions.
A couple were crane ships that were no longer required based on
OPLAN [operational plan] analysis.
But the ones you are alluding to really are seven roll-on/
roll-off ships, and we made a conscious decision to allow those
to be retired a couple years early so that we were not
continuing to put good money into bad, after a bad effort, in
other words, to spare a dry dock down the road, with the full
intent of moving forward as fast as possible given the
authorization that you provided to us a few years ago to start
the acquisition of used ships.
And, as the administrator mentioned, I believe at the end
of this year we will have the first two ships that you
authorized a few years ago. You will see, as the budget comes
over and what follows that in the program is a real resource
line to go ahead and begin continuously, year after year, a
couple ships, five ships, a couple ships, to begin that
recapitalization effort.
And I share your frustration, because I wanted to move
faster, but we are heading in that direction, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Very good.
Ms. Lessley.
Ms. Lessley. Thank you, sir.
I reiterate what the general said. Our plan is to have the
vessel acquisition manager in place as quickly as possible, and
then to bring two ships under contract at least this year. I
believe we are authorized to bring seven ships and hope to
accelerate the acquisition once the vessel acquisition manager
is in place. So that is our component of the ``sealift the
Nation needs'' plan.
If the associate administrator has anything to add?
Mr. Tokarski. Congressman, we addressed--is there a long-
term strategy? The Navy has submitted a plan to the Congress
for a long-term strategy, and I believe you have expressed your
views to me more than once about that.
But, following the chairman's question earlier, I do think
that we are on a pathway that will lead to bringing in newer
tonnage into the fleet. It is going to be older than a newly
constructed vessel. But we are going to be able to find the
right ships for it.
This is how we built this sealift fleet that served this
Nation very, very well from that standpoint.
I mentioned earlier, too, with the chairman that there are
some parts to that which maybe are not linked for a long term.
And that is an area that I think the chair has already asked us
to look at coming back and reporting to the committee on maybe
some other approaches to that.
Thank you.
Mr. Wittman. Yeah. I would like to follow up on that, Mr.
Tokarski, with you and Ms. Lessley, about the lack of at least
execution of a plan. I would argue that the plan that we have
is nonspecific at best, and it is aspirational. You talk about
these seven ships to be procured, obviously used ships.
The question then becomes, though, we really need to have a
long-term plan. We have a 30-year shipbuilding plan to build
combat ships, yet we have nothing that even remotely resembles
that in how we recapitalize the Ready Reserve fleet. It seems
like we are just kind of making this up as we go along, which
is not the way to do this.
So the question becomes, if we are going to go through the
first seven ships in this recapitalization, this buying used
ships, are there other alternatives? And where do you see the
path going forward to sustain the effort that needs to keep us
in maintaining the proper number of modern capable ships in our
Ready Reserve fleet? Because you can't just forget about this
and then push the button and expect it all to come back.
And I can tell you, this is from experience. The best man
in my wedding was Dave Jansen. Dave Jansen was an engineer down
there. And I remember talking to him all the time about what he
was doing as an engineer to plan for the repair and upkeep of
those ships. It is significant.
So I have had decades of experience in listening to Dave
and his concerns with that. So, anyway, I just wanted to get
your perspective on that.
Mr. Tokarski. Thank you, sir, for that question again.
The second part of that question, in terms of the
investment that we are making, we are and we have developed a
plan with the Navy in that to make sure that we are making
selective investments in the sealift ships that we are going to
retain in the program.
And I think, when I look at the readiness numbers of the
fleet today from where they were a year ago, we are about 10
percentage points higher in terms of overall readiness today.
I am not where I need to be. I need this fleet at a minimum
of 85 percent. It fluctuates on a daily basis. Today we are at
71 percent.
So I am short of capability, and I know what the challenge
is. But we are working very strongly with the Navy's support to
make sure we are making the right investments for that.
The first part of the question is, are there other
alternatives for ways to be able to rebuild the sealift fleet?
I think maybe there are. And I think, as with the chairman's
guidance and discussion before, there may be some ways to look
at things that we did in the past and may be able to make an
investment so that we can.
And I appreciate wanting to build ships in American
shipyards. I am happy to sit here before you and tell you I
have got four under contract when many have said that we would
never do that. But it was this committee and other committees'
support in the Congress that has allowed us to do that.
So I do think that there are ways that we can make that
kind of investment to make sure that we have got a long, steady
plan that will recapitalize naturally ships into the program.
The Maritime Security Program fleet, the average age of
that fleet today is probably 13 years, 13 or 14. It is
interesting, because that fleet, we pay a substantially less
amount and able to maintain it, but yet it maintains a younger
fleet. Why is that? Because it is built in that it has self-
recapitalization targets in there.
So those ships are going to come out of the Maritime
Security Program. When they age out at 25 years, what happens
to them? I want them to come into my National Defense Reserve
Fleet.
I am buying them today, in essence, as part of the Maritime
Security Program. We are investing in them. And I would like to
invest with them for the next 25 years. Because I think we have
got good sealift ships that we would be able to retain in the
program, but I don't have the mechanisms in place to do that
today.
Thank you.
Mr. Wittman. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garamendi [presiding]. Okay. I am going to do a
technical issue here. All of you that are on virtual, remote, I
want you to hit your mute buttons and unmute, and then I am
going to call the names that I see on the screen, and hopefully
I will hear your voice. If not, we will keep smiling and keep
listening, and we will try to work our way through this
technical problem.
Are you ready? Okay. Hit your mute buttons, folks.
Okay. Mr. Wilson, can we hear you?
Mr. Wilson. I can hear you.
Mr. Garamendi. Oh, you are looking good, but we can't hear
you.
Mr. Wilson. Oh, my goodness.
Can you hear me now?
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Scott, would you like to say hello to
us?
Mr. Scott. Hello, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garamendi. Yeah, well, you are out of luck.
Who else do we have there?
Kahele?
Mr. Kahele. Aloha.
Mr. Garamendi. No, you have got--nope. Just give us that--
no, we understand the Hawaii hand signals, but could you also
speak?
Mr. Kahele. Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. I am here.
Mr. Garamendi. Apparently not.
Mr. Kahele. Aloha.
Mr. Garamendi. Who else do we have on the screen?
Voice. The problem is on his side.
Mr. Kahele. Yeah, I can hear Jerry and Joe and everyone.
Mr. Garamendi. All right. All of you disrespected us by not
bothering to come in here and see us personally. For the
moment, you are out of luck unless you want to send a written
question.
I know, Mr. Scott, you were up next, but no, you are not
going to come on board until we get you on board.
Mr. Scott. It is on your side, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garamendi. The team is trying to get you guys on board.
I would suggest that you keep your mute button on. In other
words--ooh, somebody is talking to me. Who is that?
Mr. Wilson. Can you hear me? Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Garamendi. All right. Now, now that you are on, don't
hit the mute button, but Mr. Norcross is up next as we are
working our way through this.
Mr. Norcross.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate it.
General Lyons, I echo the other comments. Congratulations--
--
Mr. Garamendi. Okay. Apparently, those of you that are
remote are coming online. So now you can hit your mute button
on your side. Our team will not hit the mute button. Hit your
mute button, those of you that are remote.
Mr. Norcross, you have the floor.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
I had the opportunity to go with Chief Brown on the KC-46
along with Mr. Wittman a few weeks ago and see them run through
their trials, refueling each other. An incredible plane, but
certainly a long time getting here.
We were told there is a fix that both sides have agreed
upon. Has that been memorialized and signed?
General Lyons. Congressman, my understanding is that is
correct. The Air Force and Boeing have a written agreement to
proceed on the requirements for the Remote Visual System 2.0.
Mr. Norcross. So that is the good news. The bad news is
certainly much longer than we ever anticipated. But on the good
side of this, we have a system that literally is 10 years newer
using technology that was not even available. So with that, at
least there is a silver lining.
And certainly there are features and enhancements on the
Pegasus [KC-46A] that's not available to us that we can't talk
about in open session.
I just want to shift the gear here for a moment. As I
understand it, about 95 million gallons of fuel in air-to-air
operations each year. I am not sure how much that fluctuates,
but that is a lot.
We have seen, over the course of the last 2 months, two
major interruptions in the fuel supply, particularly for the
northeast. Texas shut down their refining capacity when they
lost power. That meant that the coastal, beginning of that
pipeline where the fuel goes in, interrupted that.
Coastal has been operating above its maximum capacity for
years. It is that critical point of failure.
But what also is one of those issues that we look at, I
have Joint Base McGuire just north of me, but we have many
bases up and down the coast that really depend on that fuel.
You have storage that will take care of some of that bump, but
you heard Chairman Courtney talk about the Jones Act. They are
looking for waivers, because we don't even have the capacity to
move that fuel.
But when we look at some of those reasons, if we had gone
back just a few years, 10 refineries have shut down in the last
2 years. So we are looking at refining capacity on the
northeast shutting down, which even puts more pressure on that
coastal pipeline, which we can't expend.
Are you looking at this from a national security point,
that that refining capacity is close to where the users are,
they don't need that pipeline, or are there other methods? Have
you in TRANSCOM taken a look at that, if we have a long-term
problem, that we really need this, what we are going to do?
General Lyons. Sir, I would offer a couple things.
When the Colonial Pipeline issue occurred here in the last
week, I had multiple discussions in coordination with the
Defense Logistics Agency director, who procures liquid energy
fuel for the Department, and I can assure you that she assured
me, as well as the Secretary, there were no implications for
DOD relative to the Colonial Pipeline shutdown.
Having said that, I think what we saw, what we all saw, was
that cyber vulnerabilities in the commercial sector can very
well lead to national security vulnerabilities if we are not
mindful.
Mr. Norcross. I understand that. So we had a 1-week
shutdown. Not good at all. But if there was a major disruption
over weeks, again, you have the tanks obviously to take care of
that bump. But in the event that that was out for a longer
term, do we have a long-term strategy, with the loss of 10
refineries, to make that up?
General Lyons. Sir, on that particular question I would
defer to Homeland Security and Department of Energy on that
particular domestically related question, which I think you are
alluding to.
Mr. Norcross. Because that is the last thing we would ever
want.
Just to shift over real quickly to the multi-mission
vessels. The workforce is so important to develop. Courtney
knows that when it comes his subs. Philadelphia Shipyard has
had that legacy and are building back up. So just to give a
shoutout on the great things they are doing over there and the
authorities that were allowed.
I am out of time, and I will yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Norcross.
First of all, to all of my colleagues, apparently we have
solved the communication problem. I don't want to bet my career
on it, but apparently it is solved.
Here is the order we presently have, the gavel order.
Wilson, Luria, Scott, Kahele, Bergman, Carl.
So I am going to apologize on behalf of the technicians and
turn to Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson, go for it.
Mr. Wilson. I can see Anthony Brown. Is that good?
Mr. Garamendi. You are good to go.
Mr. Wilson. Well, hey, thank you, Chairman John Garamendi,
for holding this hearing. And I appreciate your coordinating in
the midst of scheduling challenges what is going on. And I
appreciate your technical proficiency to get us back on
schedule.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being here,
and how important what they do is for our country.
And at this time, with General Lyons, I am encouraged that
America has joined with a Dutch-led European Union [EU]
mobility project that enhances the EU-NATO [North Atlantic
Treaty Organization] cooperation, improves the ability to
mobilize across Europe.
In your assessment, what remains as the most serious
infrastructural challenge to the mobility of armored combat
brigade teams and personnel throughout Europe, especially and
particularly in our valued allies in Central and Eastern Europe
who were suppressed by communism for about 50 years? What can
this committee do to help?
General Lyons. Sir, thanks. Thanks for the question.
I really admire the work that NATO and the EU, SACEUR
[Supreme Allied Commander Europe], is doing, particularly in
Europe, with regard to mobility corridors.
I think you are aware we can push the force faster than
they can absorb it based on some of the infrastructure
limitations the farther east that you go.
And so there is a major effort led by EUCOM [U.S. European
Command] and the allied contingents to invest in
infrastructure--bridges, rail, heavy transport. And that has
taken, I think, a great deal of momentum and achieved some
resources. And it will take some time, but I think that's
moving in the right direction, sir.
Mr. Wilson. And I am encouraged. I have actually seen the
improvements in Bulgaria and Romania. And obviously it has
commercial implications that are positive for our very valued
allies of Central and Eastern Europe.
Additionally, General, this month I introduced the National
Guard Cybersecurity Support Act along with Congressman Andy Kim
of New Jersey. It ensures that the Guard has the statutory
support to lean forward in regard to cybersecurity defense of
critical infrastructure.
To what extent is TRANSCOM evaluating its cyber
vulnerabilities, especially among the commercial partners in
the Military Sealift Command? What impact would this have on
your ability to conduct operations?
General Lyons. Sir, I can't comment specifically on the
legislation because I haven't seen it. I can say, though, that,
to answer your question on what we have been doing in the area
of cybersecurity, it has been a--remains a major priority for
the command, both on the DODIN [Department of Defense
Information Network], working very closely with General
Nakasone at CYBERCOM [U.S. Cyber Command] and NSA [National
Security Agency], and off DODIN, working with our commercial
partners.
We have got an incredible amount of information sharing
going on. We have got several initiatives vis-a-vis cyber
hygiene, contractual compliance, self-reporting, as well as
some special projects that link up select providers with
certain defense intelligence agencies to help see themselves
more clearly and buy down the risk.
So we are making progress. I would report to you that, when
I talk to at least C-suite-level executives, they really do get
it, and we are pushing on an open door. So in that regard I
think it is good news, but a lot of work to do.
Mr. Wilson. Well, we appreciate your efforts.
And, Ms. Lessley, I want to commend you for your service as
a congressional staff member, and there is life after Congress.
Best wishes to you.
What are the actions that TRANSCOM and MARAD are taking to
ensure that there are sufficient qualified mariners to sustain
a prolonged activation should it become necessary?
Ms. Lessley. Thank you, sir. Thank you for the question.
Yes, obviously ensuring an adequate number of mariners for
a sustained prolonged mobilization is of critical importance to
MARAD.
We are working through the tasks that were given to us in
the 2021 NDAA, including developing a strategic plan for
workforce development. And of course this is due every 5 years
until the administrator determines that there is an adequate
number of mariners for sustained strategic sealift.
We are also reviewing the Federal resources available to
assist individuals who want to come into the industry and/or
upgrade a credential as they move forward in their career.
And of course we continue our support for the six State
maritime academies in addition to operating the U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy.
So we are pushing forward on all fronts, but certainly do
share the concern to ensure that we have an adequate number of
mariners.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you for providing extraordinary job
opportunities for young people.
I yield back.
Ms. Lessley. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Because of the coming and going of the members, we are
going to try to keep the original gavel order as much as
possible. If your name is called and you are not here, we will
get back to you with the next opportunity given Democrat,
Republican back and forth.
Mrs. Luria, you are next.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
Thank you, General, Ms. Lessley, for appearing today.
Ms. Lessley, I wanted to address this to you.
This hearing is the posture and readiness of the mobility
enterprise, and the maritime component of the mobility
enterprise is not limited to just the Ready Reserve Force, the
strategic sealift fleet, and the MSP VISA [Voluntary Intermodal
Sealift Agreement] vessels, but encompasses the entirety of the
civilian U.S. maritime industry, including available U.S.
mariners, commercial shipyards, and U.S.-flagged vessels.
And I just wanted to quote Alfred Thayer Mahan, who we all
know well. He said, ``The commercial value cannot be separated
from military in sea strategy, for the greatest interest of the
sea is commerce.''
So, on that note, I was just looking at the number of ships
operating today. There are some 44,000 ships in the world
operating, ships involved in international trade. And of that
44,000, how many of those are U.S.-flagged?
Ms. Lessley. Thank you.
It is just over 80 U.S.-flagged vessels in the foreign
trade.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
And I understand there are others who are just involved in
the Jones Act as well.
Ms. Lessley. Yes.
Mrs. Luria. Jones Act trade.
Ms. Lessley. We do have Jones Act vessels that are deep-
seagoing, yes, correct.
Mrs. Luria. So in the typical year, how many oceangoing
cargo ships are built in the U.S.?
Ms. Lessley. All of the Jones Act fleet would be built in
the U.S.
Mrs. Luria. Of those conducting international trade?
Ms. Lessley. Yeah, I am not aware of any that have been
recently built.
Mrs. Luria. Right.
So I did a little research. I see that there are two that
have been built in U.S. shipyards since the 1990s, and for the
Jones Act vessels, approximately an average of 5 per year, with
a peak of 10 in 2016.
To contrast that, how many ships are built per year in
Asia? Just order of magnitude.
Ms. Lessley. I am sorry, ma'am. I will have to take that
back for the record. But significantly more than are built
here.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Mrs. Luria. Okay. Well as the Maritime Administration, I
would think that we would have a perspective on the scope.
So my research shows that somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000
vessels are built in shipyards in Asia.
And does China subsidize its commercial shipbuilding
industry?
Ms. Lessley. Yes, ma'am, to my understanding.
Mrs. Luria. So approximately 7 years ago Congress mandated
the Department of Transportation submit a national maritime
strategy to Congress to specifically make recommendations to
increase the use of U.S.-flagged vessels to carry imported and
exported cargo from the U.S., yet today it is 7 years later,
and I am not aware of any policy recommendations that have been
made, and the U.S. maritime enterprise has continued to
decline.
Just to confirm, there is currently no requirement or any
percentage of U.S. commercial imports or exports other than
government-generated cargo that is required to be carried on
U.S.-built and U.S.-manned vessels. Is that correct?
Ms. Lessley. Yes. The cargo preference requirement applies
to the government-impelled cargos, you are correct.
Mrs. Luria. And so, if Congress implemented a law that
required a percentage of commercial maritime import and exports
to be carried on U.S.-built and flagged vessels, what effect
would that have on U.S. shipbuilding, the number of U.S.-
flagged vessels, the number of U.S. mariners?
Ms. Lessley. Yes, ma'am. I understand where you are going
with the question. And, obviously, for our commercial fleet,
cargo is king. So providing cargo will have the effect of
increasing the vessels under the U.S. flag.
And, to your point, obviously 46 U.S.C. [United States
Code] 5101 states as the purpose of having a merchant marine
both the national defense and the development of the domestic
and foreign commerce of the United States.
And as you know, as we have discussed, it also states that
a substantial part of the waterborne export and import foreign
commerce of the United States should be carried on U.S.-flagged
vessels. At the present time, it is MARAD's estimation, less
than 2 percent----
Mrs. Luria. So we have no policy, nothing that compels
commercial shippers to ship anything on U.S.-flagged vessels?
There are no requirements and, to my awareness, as mentioned,
no recommendations that have been made by the Department of
Transportation since the Coble Act was passed in 2014, which
called for recommendations from the Department of
Transportation?
Ms. Lessley. In the last administration the maritime
transportation strategy was released. Goal number one is to
strengthen U.S. maritime capabilities essential to national
security and economic prosperity.
Obviously, I have just come in, but I am reviewing the
strategy, and we are looking at prioritization of the goals and
objectives in the strategy, and also to ensure that they
comport with the administration's priorities.
Mrs. Luria. So basically I would just say that it feels
like we----
Mr. Garamendi. Mrs. Luria.
Mrs. Luria [continuing]. Just keep saying that there is--we
are waiting on a plan and we are waiting to refine the plan.
So I understand my time has expired, and I will yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mrs. Luria.
I want to refer you to the Energizing the American
Shipbuilding Act, which has been introduced repeatedly for the
last 6 or 7 years. It deals in part with your issue.
Here is the order, the gavel order, as it exists now:
Scott, Kahele, Bergman, Carl, Gallagher. If you are not here
when we call your name, we will get you back in the queue
immediately thereafter.
Mr. Scott, you are up.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as the other
members, I have been going back and forth between this
committee hearing and the floor, so if some of my questions
have been asked, I apologize.
But Mrs. Luria was talking somewhat about the Jones Act, I
believe, and the importance of it. And certainly I understand
that there may come emergency circumstances where we might need
a waiver. There was discussion of a waiver. I am from Georgia,
and so the Colonial Pipeline.
But I think we need to be very careful about waivers to the
Jones Act. I am not saying it could never be done, but just
saying it is something we need to defer on the side of caution
on that.
The other thing I think we need to be very much aware of as
we push through this next National Defense Authorization Act is
the increased costs of steel and raw materials and what it will
do to the cost of building ships. And interested in any
comments that the panel may have on that.
And the Coast Guard seems to do a better job of contracting
than we do through the naval services. Any comments on that I
would be interested in.
And then one final comment. Coming from Georgia, we have
got the John Lewis class of tankers and replenishment ships
that are coming out. When do we expect the first of those 20
ships to actually be christened? And how long will it take from
start to finish to get the first ship in the water on the John
Lewis-class of ships?
Those are my questions.
Mr. Garamendi. It appears as though our witnesses are
looking at each other.
The last question you had was the John Lewis ships, what is
the status of those, of that line of ships, and where are they?
Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.
General Lyons. Chairman, I would have to defer to the Navy
on that one. TRANSCOM doesn't have that equity.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
General Lyons. But--I'm sorry I can't answer that question.
Mr. Scott. All right. Let me ask you this.
General Lyons. I will say, sir, just on your comment about
the Jones Act, I completely agree with you. I think any waiver
in that space should be a rare exception. And I acknowledge and
agree with the importance of that.
You asked about materials. I can't talk from the industrial
base. From the service perspective, I can see in a limited view
what we see, and we do see increases in material costs we
acknowledge will drive certain costs in the contract.
And I cannot, sir, talk to the Coast Guard. Although I am a
huge fan of the United States Coast Guard, I just don't know
how they conduct their contracting.
I will defer to the acting administrator for any additional
comment.
Ms. Lessley. Thank you, sir.
And I will just pick up on the Jones Act and emphasize on
how the administration has made clear its support for the Jones
Act as part of the ``Made in America'' executive order, which
explicitly names the Jones Act.
And in the case of the waivers, I can only comment on
MARAD's role in the process is to determine whether there are
vessels available should a waiver request be presented.
Mr. Scott. Okay. The Merchant Marine Academy is under the
Department of Transportation. Is that correct? So that is not
under either one of you?
Ms. Lessley. No, that--the Merchant Marine Academy is under
the Maritime Administration within the DOT, yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. Okay. And as far as the accreditation of the
Merchant Marine Academy--just one suggestion with Merchant
Marine Academy. I think we should move it closer to the way our
other academies operate with regard to the way that students
are treated with regard to payment and healthcare.
I know there would be an increased cost to that, but I
think that would be a big plus to the Merchant Marine Academy,
which plays a valuable role obviously in TRANSCOM in making
sure that we have the professionals out there to get the
equipment that we need across the seas.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield with a thank you to the people
that are there on the panel.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
I see that Mr. Brown has returned, so he now moves ahead of
Mr. Kahele. And so here is the present order. It will be Mr.
Brown, Mr. Kahele, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Carl, and Mr. Gallagher
until somebody goes to vote, in which the dance will continue.
Ms. Speier. And Ms. Speier.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Brown, you are up.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
Mr. Garamendi. You are on.
Mr. Brown. Am I on?
Mr. Garamendi. Please continue. You are on, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Okay. Thanks.
General, my question is for you. The Chief of the Naval
Reserve, Vice Admiral Mustin, recently testified that his top
equipment priority is procurement of the C-130J to replace the
legacy KC-130T. I understand that the current KC-130T does not
have the capacity to meet wartime intra-theater logistics
requirements and unmet lift requests reflect a gap between
demand and capacity.
The question is, what is the recapitalization plan for the
KC-130T to ensure U.S. forces have the capability to meet the
rise in demand for airlift?
General Lyons. Representative Brown, thanks for the
question. That is a Navy-specific program. We do not have that
weapon system in our inventory. So I would have to defer to the
Navy on that particular question, sir.
Mr. Brown. Okay. The other question, which may have been
asked--I have been back and forth like so many members. I think
Mr. Lamborn was boasting about his time on the KC-46. I don't
know if he had to replace the boom operator and do some aerial
refueling himself, I don't know. But I too had an opportunity
to take a demonstration flight, and I was able to speak with
some of the boom operators and see the RVS issue for myself.
The question is, how confident are you that Boeing will be
able to deliver the RVS fix by 2023? And what impact, if any,
does the delay of the KC-46 have on the mobility enterprise?
General Lyons. Congressman, I will defer to the Air Force
program manager on the programmatics of potential delivery
timelines and delay. We are tracking against a fiscal year 2023
delivery of the RVS 2.0. Of course, that begins a fielding of
the next iteration of the KC-46, so that is just the beginning
of the process. There is a lot of retrofit that will have to
take place.
What I am really pleased about this year is the work the
Air Force has done to deliver interim capability, as well as
some decisions about the KC-10, as well as increase in Guard
and Reserve contributions to meet day-to-day and crisis
response kind of timelines.
So as we sit today we are in great alignment with the Air
Force. I would confess to you, my view from looking at this, I
think we have got a long way to go on the KC-46 with regard to
Boeing and the work that has to be done between now and 2023.
And we will continue to monitor that closely.
But the Air Force will be in a better place to answer that
question, sir.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
My last question, Mr. Chairman, again for the general, what
role does the Coast Guard play in the mobility enterprise? Do
they contribute assets to the sealift capability that we have?
General Lyons. Sir, they don't contribute in that sense
where they are contributing mobility assets, but they play an
incredibly important role in standards and safety and just a
wide range of activities regarding security, surveillance
across the globe that facilitate our mission.
So we have a very close working relationship with the Coast
Guard, and we actually have coastguardsmen that work inside of
our headquarters, a very close collaboration. But we don't rely
on the Coast Guard specifically for lift, if that helps.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, General.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Courtney [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
So, again, as the members are sort of coming in and going
off to vote, the latest revised list is Mr. Gallagher is up
next.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
Earlier this year, former INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific
Command] commander Admiral Davidson warned that the Chinese
Communist Party could take action against Taiwan within the
next 6 years. I am increasingly concerned that our
modernization plans, while well intentioned, do not reflect the
sense of urgency we need in order to be prepared, not for
conflict in 2045, but in 2025.
So with that in mind, looking across the maritime lift
enterprise, where does our--how does our current capacity stack
up against what we would need to fight and win if we had to go
to war in INDOPACOM tomorrow? I mean, what are the no-kidding,
most pressing gaps, and how can we quantify them?
General Lyons. Well, sir, thanks for the question.
We spend a lot of time working analysis on that particular
problem, all the, really, the problem sets, but you mentioned
specifically a China problem set.
Without getting into a classified venue, certainly there
are a number of challenges there. The great news is we move
across the globe every single day. Every single day, we are
moving forces around the globe. It is an incredible deterrent.
It is an incredible assurant factor for our allies and
partners.
I think we demonstrate quite clearly, just in the last year
or so, our ability to move with immediate force and follow with
a decisive force.
So I have great confidence in the mobility enterprise to do
anything that the President or Secretary asks us to do.
Having said that, we know, as we move into the future, the
environment is changing rapidly in front of us. We know that we
have to be able to operate under all-domain persistent attack.
And so in our mobility studies that we are working on now,
we have introduced that kind of aspect to a contested
environment, and how would that play out, and how would that
degrade our ability as a Nation to deliver the force?
So it is a great question, sir. We spend a lot of time on
that particular issue. And we are going to continue to evolve
as a command to ensure that we can maintain our ability to
project and sustain our force globally.
Mr. Gallagher. I mean, in a classified setting, I mean,
would we be able to kind of pull the string on that and get a
sense of--depending on what scenario you are playing out and
what assumptions you are making--what the points of failure
are?
General Lyons. Certainly, we can share that with you.
Mr. Gallagher. That would be great. I mean, I have been an
advocate of DOD--I know it is maybe above your pay grade--but
DOD inviting Congress into its war games so we can all just get
on the same page.
You don't need to respond to that lest you rankle some
people in the far side of the building.
But I guess I would ask, is America's present network of
bases and alliances in the Indo-Pacific optimized for our
maritime lift needs in support of both the contact and blunt
layers? In other words, what authorities or additional
facilities would you need to optimize that network for
conflict?
General Lyons. Well, that is a great question, and I am
sure that Admiral Davidson talked about this as well as the
current task force that is working on a China focus.
I think there is an effort and initiative to look at global
posture that is well needed and will be well received to
reorient our posture in the Pacific.
What is key in my view is that we have a global posture and
a regional posture that gives us a physical, psychological, and
temporal advantage over a potential adversary. So from our
perspective that means we can come and we will come at any time
that the President asks us to do so.
And so I think the reorientation is very helpful. I think
it will help us in the competitive phase. And it would
certainly facilitate a transition to conflict, which nobody
wants, but we need to be prepared to do.
Mr. Gallagher. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
General Lyons. Sir.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher.
General, just to follow up real quick on that, I mean
actually that was one of the driving forces of the Tanker
Sealift Security Program, which was to relatively quickly get
stipends out so that we are strengthening that fuel supply line
for places that are far away, like the Indo-Pacific. Isn't that
correct?
General Lyons. Sir, that is correct. I can think of any
number of scenarios, but what we want is the ability to rely on
U.S.-flag capability.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Speier is up next.
The floor is yours, Jackie.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question to you, General--let me just get to my--I
thought I was farther down at the line. Here I go. Okay.
General, one of the challenges that the Defense Personal
Property Program faces is a markedly low response rate to post-
move surveys. The data is essential for holding moving
companies accountable for their services to military families.
What is being done to assess the reason for such a low
response rate and take corrective action?
General Lyons. Ma'am, when we look at the survey
information that comes in, our estimate is about 30 percent of
the customers, so to speak, respond on surveys. And my guess is
we get both extremes. But we could do better in that
population.
We have taken initiative and have put a company under
contract to improve our survey process, and that is underway at
the moment, actually, to make sure it is more accurate, more
thorough, easy, and the analytics on the back end are more
meaningful to drive better business decisions.
So that is one of many initiatives in the area of Defense
Personal Property reform, so I really appreciate your continued
push on that and support on that.
Thank you.
Ms. Speier. And, General, I have one last question on that
issue.
The American Roll-On Roll-Off [Carrier] got the contract.
It was then challenged. It was determined that it was still
successful. It was regranted. And then GAO did an evaluation
and found that there were violations in 11 out of the 75
allegations that were made.
So I guess there is a new contract that is being crafted
now. Is that correct?
General Lyons. Yes, ma'am. That is correct. We anticipate
an award sometime this fall, in the September timeframe. Given
that timeline, we would want to implement that in the peak
season of 2022.
Ms. Speier. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Lessley, in addition to the Merchant Marine Academy and
the State maritime academies, what is MARAD doing to recruit
and train a diverse and robust maritime workforce?
Ms. Lessley. Thank you so much for that question.
As mentioned, we are carrying out the tasks that were
assigned to us in the 2021 NDAA, developing a strategy and also
looking at Federal assistance, and we hope to very soon name
the first centers of excellence in maritime education, another
task given to the Maritime Administration in a prior NDAA.
We are really excited about that program, because it will
obviously designate the schools that enable them to enter
partnerships with MARAD. And this could be the beginning of an
effort to expand MARAD's reach not only at the college level,
but at the community college level, and looking even lower, to
the high school level, to make people aware of the many well-
paying career opportunities that are available in the maritime
industry, and then to begin to recruit people into the
industry.
Ms. Speier. That is really very important, and I think
getting young people interested in high school is really key,
because many of them are looking for career tracks, and this is
one that can be very profitable.
And congratulations on your new post as well.
Finally, General Lyons, TRANSCOM cannot rely solely on
encrypted defense networks for communication, because you need
to communicate with the commercial sector. But what are you
doing to reduce the risk of intercept or other intrusions? What
steps would you like for the industry to take to make their
communications more secure?
General Lyons. Ma'am, we work very closely with industry on
this issue. This remains a top priority for the command.
So in the range of issues we have enacted contractual
language to improve cyber hygiene, as well as analysis that
follows their self-reporting. We have got a proof of principle
on the table to do third-party verification. We have got a
couple different initiatives with intelligence agencies to
share information with select service providers.
So there is a wide range of activities. Our assessments
that come back tell us that the fundamentals, the basics, basic
things like multifactor encryption and so forth, would go a
long way to protect our industry partners. And we know that
cyber vulnerabilities in our industry partners can very well
equate to cyber vulnerabilities in our national defense
infrastructure.
So the good news, as I've mentioned previously, though, the
C-suite executives, we are pushing on an open door. They get
it. They want to move in the right direction. And I think there
is a great deal of illumination ongoing.
Ms. Speier. Thank you. I am sure, with Colonial Pipeline,
we all recognize now that the vulnerabilities for contractors,
subcontractors is real, and we really need to address it.
So I thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Congresswoman Speier.
Next up is Mr. Kahele.
Mr. Kahele. Aloha, mahalo, Chairman
And aloha, General Lyons and the rest of our panel of
speakers today.
Sir, I am a strong supporter of the Pacific Deterrence
Initiative [PDI] established in the fiscal year 2021 NDAA
primarily to enhance the U.S. deterrence and defense posture in
the Indo-Pacific region.
Given what is happening--and I think my colleagues have
touched on Indo-Pacific and China throughout the course of this
briefing, especially in the South China Sea, the East China
Sea, and the Taiwan Strait regions, which are being
increasingly militarized and contested--I strongly support one
of the PDI's programs, which is a new multinational movement
coordination center in the Pacific.
The center would coordinate the movement of friendly
nations' military aircraft and vessels across the Indo-Pacific
region. My understanding is it is supposed to be located at
INDOPACOM.
Could you please, if you can, provide your views on how
this new center would potentially impact TRANSCOM?
General Lyons. Well, thanks, sir. I am a big advocate for
what they are doing.
To some degree, it mirrors what exists today in the ATARES
[Air Transport and Air-to-Air Refuelling and other Exchanges of
Services] program in EUCOM, but I think that they will probably
even take it to another level.
So very important from my view to be able to collaborate
with your allies and partners on all things, but particularly
also on movement.
So we see it as an advantage, as an enabler, and we are
happy to plug in with them.
Mr. Kahele. Okay.
In reading the testimony on Air Mobility Command [AMC], it
talks about the force structure of primarily our C-17, C-5
primary means of strategic airlift, and potential reductions in
the C-130 fleet, some of which is required by the previous
NDAAs and others because of aging aircraft.
And one of the statements in the testimony is that the C-
130 force structure may be a source of discussion in this NDAA,
whether that is TRANSCOM or AMC 130s or National Guard 130s.
Can you elaborate on that?
General Lyons. I can, sir.
You know, when we do the Mobility Capabilities Requirements
Study we look at the entire package of force elements, to
include theater airlift, most of which is assigned to TRANSCOM
and then allocated further to geographic combatant commands.
When we look at the future joint warfighting concept and
the associated supporting concepts, and when we look at some of
the war plans that are evolving right now, we see a much higher
demand on theater lift. Not just airlift. It could also be lift
in the littoral.
So we have got to think our way through how do we continue
to present multiple options and create multiple dilemmas for an
adversary, and you want to be able to come at them from any
direction.
So we are working very closely with the other combatant
commands as well as the Air Force to assess risk against the
program and the potential future plan reductions. Right now, I
think we are in a good place, but we are watching closely to
what that profile looks like and how much risk we are willing
to accept.
Mr. Kahele. Okay. Thank you.
And then last question relates to INDOPACOM and what is
happening in terms of China and Korea and TRANSCOM's role. I
know we exercise it through Ulchi Freedom Guardian annually, or
at least every few years. But that would be TRANSCOM's role in
NEO [noncombatant evacuation operations] operations off the pen
[peninsula], using gray tails [military transport aircraft] to
move American service members and their families to white-tail
[civilian] jets, probably in our bases in Japan, and then back
to the United States.
Have we looked at the amount of TRANSCOM assets that we
have, whether they are with ones assigned to PACAF [Pacific Air
Forces] or already out in the theater versus what we need to
bring in, and how quickly we would be able to do that if an
incident occurred on the Korean Peninsula?
General Lyons. We have, sir. We have looked at several
scenarios, both with USFK [U.S. Forces Korea] and INDOPACOM.
And the work we do to size the fleet is typically against the
highest, what we call the pacing, demand.
And then, for our other contingencies or branch plans--you
mentioned the potential NEO. It could be anywhere on the globe.
We do that analysis as well and look to see where they would
fit. It would be a function of priorities, of the temporal
nature, of how big the demand is.
But the great thing about the mobility enterprise is we are
extraordinarily flexible and resilient. So if the Secretary or
the President decide they want to shift strategic priorities to
a particular area, we can very, very rapidly shift to the
priority.
Mr. Kahele. Great. Well, thank you, sir. I look forward to
working with you and your team out in the Indo-Pacific.
General Lyons. Thank you.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you, Chair. I yield my time.
Mr. Garamendi [presiding]. Mr. Kahele, thank you.
Yes, it has been one of those days.
I believe we have some of the members that missed the first
round. I see a lot of blank screens.
The very last vote is up, and, since it includes about 15
bills en bloc, I would expect the members to return--some of
them to return, some of whom we missed in the first round
because of the votes taking place and the technical
difficulties.
I am going to--I have got a couple of questions of my own,
and then we will see if the members.
Mr. Courtney, thank you. I think you have completed your
questions.
So throughout this hearing it appears as though the effort
that has been made by MARAD, by TRANSCOM, and Navy, and by the
committee has not been successful. We have made a little bit of
progress here and there, but we really have not been able to
really put in place a comprehensive strategy and then carry it
out. We have had bits and pieces.
I want to thank the committee members past and some of whom
are still present for various votes and various efforts that
have been made. The Tanker Security Program, it is there. It is
a piece of the puzzle. The legislation this last year in the
NDAA that calls for all military cargo to be on American ships
and planes, that is another piece of the puzzle.
There are other efforts that have been made. The national
maritime--multipurpose--I guess this is for the various
maritime academies, those are now in process. I believe two or
three or four--oh, I love that number--four are actually
scheduled and I believe appropriated. Good.
And there is another--Vallejo and the California coming up.
All right. Good.
So these pieces of the puzzle are there. However, we still
lack a comprehensive program.
Mr. Tokarski, you talked about this. I want to go back and
plow that field again with you. Mr. Wittman expressed his
concerns about a comprehensive program.
Here is what I am proposing--then, Mr. Tokarski, I want to
go back and hit this again with you--is that we have a
roundtable. Invite members of the two committees, Mr.
Courtney's committee and my committee, to participate, staff
and members of the Maritime Committee of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
That sometime within the next month we sit down, invite
General Lyons or whomever you would like to send to that
meeting, and that we develop for this year's NDAA a strategy
that would provide over--both dealing with the immediate--
meaning now, this year, next year--appropriations as well as
the NDAA, and long-term.
Mr. Tokarski, you laid out a long-term strategy. Actually,
what is new is old. So we will go back at that old strategy and
look to see if we can develop a strategy that would be long-
term over the next decade, two decades, be as immediate as
possible, bringing on the two ships that are to come on board
and be repurposed.
I see some of my colleagues have returned.
I don't know if, Mr. Bergman, if you have had a--oh, my
goodness. Mr. Bergman is here.
I am going to finish my comment. I am going to lay it out
there.
Mr. Courtney and I, together with our ranking members, Mr.
Lamborn and Mr. Wittman, we are going to have a roundtable, and
we are going to see if we can lay out a strategy, get that
strategy into this year's NDAA, perhaps in the appropriation
process, and work on that.
We have about 2 months to do that before the NDAA, which I
now understand is in September timeframe. The appropriations
will precede it, so I want to be sure that we address that
along the way.
With that, I think I have given our witnesses a sense of
how we will call upon them to participate in that roundtable
and see if we can lay out a strategy, pulling together the
threads and the work that has been done into a comprehensive,
overarching strategy.
Mr. Bergman, thank you for returning. Thank you for your
willingness to be up and off and up and off. And now you are
on, so go for it.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am going to make just one comment, because what I
heard probably 45 minutes ago, the subject was we will do okay
with people. We can talk about ships. We can talk about
airplanes. We can talk about all sorts of things. You could
literally, as we did in World War II, build airplanes and ships
in an extremely brief period of time when you put the power of
the industrial base and the government behind it. But you can't
build an experienced mariner, let's put it this way, or
aviator, whatever. And specifically here on the MARAD side and,
you know, as a member of the Board of Visitors for the Merchant
Marine Academy, it is a too-well-kept secret.
But I would ask you to take for the record to have a--in
fact, part of our roundtable, I think, would be spectacular is
a plan to show over a generation time period the development of
educational and then post-educational opportunities, you know,
whether it is at sea, whether it is in the shipbuilding
industry, but a plan to bring young men and women into this
absolutely spectacular career.
So I would just ask you to consider that. If you already
have something, you know, of a background, send it to us, send
it to me, I would love to look at it. But it is all about the
ability to populate the systems that we will be using when we
need to use them.
So I just thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. And in the
interest of brevity, I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Bergman, thank you.
The comings and goings, the issue of mariners, the issue of
skill sets has been discussed, and your interest in it would be
to stay in touch and continue to work on that piece of it. I
don't think we have a particularly good strategy to fulfill all
the potential needs of the future.
Oh, my goodness, is that Mr. Carl I see? I do see him.
Mr. Carl, you have been in and out at least five times by
my count, and I have been gone, so perhaps six or seven, but
here you are. It is your turn, please.
Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly
appreciate your patience. It is just one of those days, a zig
and a zag.
As we all know, a majority of the Military Sealift Command
ships are very large vessels. These ships are unable to operate
in shallow waters and extreme environments. I know the Navy is
looking to purchase some used commercial vessels to rebuild its
sealift fleet. I am worried that the Navy will have more ships
that are unable to navigate in such areas as the South China
Sea.
General Lyons, my question is to you, sir. I know that
TRANSCOM is currently completing the mobile capability
requirement study required by the fiscal year 2020 NDAA. Can
the committee still count on receiving that result for the
study next month?
General Lyons. Yes, sir, you sure can.
Mr. Carl. All right. Thank you. And I look forward to
thoroughly reviewing that study.
General Lyons. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Carl.
I believe we seem to have no one else on the screen, and
only Mr. Lamborn and I are here in the hearing room.
And, Mr. Lamborn, if you have another question, it is your
turn. Otherwise, we are going to wrap this up.
I have one more issue, and that takes us back to the
household goods movement. We talked about that at the earlier
part of this hearing. There is a possibility, General Lyons,
that the strategy that you have in place may not work through
the years, something may go awry in one way or another. And my
question to you, and take this for the record, in the contract,
is there an opportunity for the government to modify, to
change, or to terminate the contract if there is a problem with
the implementation of the program? If you can answer it now,
fine. Otherwise, if you can for the record come back to us for
that.
The reason I am asking is that in the base housing program,
these are very, very long-term contracts, if I recall, 30
years, and I think one is actually 40 years. And through the
passage of time, problems have developed, and the government
has found it very difficult, in fact, in some cases impossible,
to renegotiate the contract. So heads up, if you can answer and
come back to us. If you want to take it up now, fine.
Otherwise, come back to us later.
General Lyons. Well, Chairman, I will just follow up with
you. But, I mean, I would just say there is always an option
for the government to terminate on the government's conditions.
I think you make an important point, though, sir, on the
housing analogy. This is part of precisely why we knew we
needed to get our arms around the household goods industry,
because we lacked clear accountability. So we have contracts
with, quite literally, dozens, probably 40, 50, 60 vendors. We
know--we do this professionally. We know how to write
contracts. We know how to hold vendors accountable.
But to your point, there is always a means for the
government to ensure accountability, and that is exactly why we
moved in this direction. And I think it was reinforced by the
Government Accounting Office and others who supported the
strategy. But I admit to you that we must deliver for military
families. That is the north star.
Mr. Garamendi. Indeed we must. The passage of time, things
don't always work out as planned and, therefore, the ability of
the government to modify, terminate, or otherwise deal with
whatever issue might arise. We have had a very, very bad
experience in housing, and I will let it go at that.
I believe we have run the course here. I don't see any more
members.
So, General Lyons, thank you so very much for your patience
and for the work, for your service over the many, many years.
And sometime in the next 30, 45 days, you or whomever you would
like to send, let's see if we can actually build a strategy and
a program to address the multiple pieces of this very complex
and very necessary program.
Ms. Lessley, thank you. Thank you for your service as
acting. I don't know what the future is going to hold for you,
but we know that you have served this House well in the past.
So thank you very much.
I am surely going to flub up your name again, Mr. Tokarski,
but--did I get it right? Practice makes perfect. With me it
takes a lot of practice. Thank you very much. I look forward to
working with you and putting together an overarching program to
deal with this complex sealift issue.
Thank you very much.
With that, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:09 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
May 18, 2021
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
May 18, 2021
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
May 18, 2021
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
Mr. Garamendi. General Lyons--how do you plan to oversee the Global
Household Goods contract such that it won't become another version of
the Privatized Housing? What is your escape plan in the event that the
prime contractor cannot meet contract performance metrics? In the event
that the contractor does not meet performance metrics, will we be able
to gracefully return to the old Defense Personal Property Program? Or
does the GHC create irreversible change that prevents us from returning
to the old system?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
Mr. Scott. When the GAO published their findings in November of
2020 and ruled in favor of the protests, TRANSCOM indicated they would
re-solicit the Global Household Goods Contract (GHC). It was projected
the GHC would be awarded in the Summer of 2021 and now we understand
the award is tentatively planned for September 2021. Will the GHC be
awarded in September of 2021, or do you expect additional delays?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. Is TRANSCOM able to leverage the computing power that
exists today? How does TRANSCOM intend to utilize artificial
intelligence and machine learning?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. Are you satisfied with the Navy's current convoy
procedures against modern threats in contested waters?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. If the United States is to prevail in a conventional war
against a peer competitor like Communist China, what should be the
minimum activation success rate for reduced operating status vessels?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. Does placing military equipment in the care of crews
with no allegiance to the United States invite the risk of sabotage,
theft, or the compromise of classified technology?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. How has TRANSCOM incorporated entrepreneurial innovation
and smaller private sector actors to promote agility?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. How do you currently utilize private sector input,
expertise, and technical capability in your mission?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. There have been reports of decreased readiness in the
U.S. Navy oiler fleet due to their increased use and tempo of
operations. With the slowdown in the introduction of John Lewis-class
oilers, will the Navy continually face issues similar to that on board
USNS Walter S. Diehl currently in Norfolk? If readiness issues continue
with Military Sealift Command oilers, should the Navy and DOD examine
the chartering and leasing of some additional commercial tankers to
supplement the oilers or be available in time of national emergency--
such as the closing of the pipeline--instead of having to waive the
Jones Act and utilize foreign tankers?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. How can TRANSCOM and MARAD better improve their
relations beyond commercial sector entities like the National Defense
Transportation Association and what can be done to educate the populace
in the role of the maritime sector?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. One of the critical issues facing sealift, beyond
recapitalization and aging fleet and mariners, is the Army's watercraft
program is divesting itself of vessels at the same time that the Marine
Corps are lobbying for their own version in the Light Amphibious
Warship. Why are all these sealift assets at odds and not under one
centralized authority and control?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. The recent infrastructure disasters (closing of Suez
Canal, Colonial Pipeline shutdown, and I-40 bridge shutting off the
Mississippi) have all showcased the vulnerability of the Nation's
commercial and military logistics. Why did DHS issue two waivers when
American Jones Act tankers were sitting in port and could have been
allocated/diverted to these lifts to alleviate the situation especially
if had they been part of the Voluntary Tanker Agreement.
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. What advice do you have for States that are considering
establishing their own State maritime academy?
Ms. Lessley. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Scott. How can TRANSCOM and MARAD better improve their
relations beyond commercial sector entities like the National Defense
Transportation Association and what can be done to educate the populace
in the role of the maritime sector?
Ms. Lessley. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MOORE
Mr. Moore. I had the privilege of seeing the remarkable work of Air
Mobility Command up close earlier this year on a KC-46 refueling
mission. Talking to the pilots and crew, I was surprised to learn just
how dated much of the technology was on the KC-135. Noting the gap
between the full fielding of the KC-46 and the retirement of legacy
tankers, would you support further modernization efforts of the KC-135?
Additionally, once the initial KC-46 buy is completed, what is the
long-term plan for recapitalization of the rest of the KC-135 fleet?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Moore. Do you have adequate aerial refueling capacity to allow
for retirement of legacy tankers? If so, what has changed from last
year?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. McCLAIN
Mrs. McClain. What steps has TRANSCOM been taking to ensure our
Armed Forces are prepared for any hot conflicts in the Arctic circle?
Has President Biden or Secretary Austin spoken to you or made any
indication they are focused specifically on the Arctic region?
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CARL
Mr. Carl. The pool of qualified U.S. merchant mariners is critical
to our national defense and every action should be taken, to include
bringing more ships under the U.S. flag, to minimize the predicted
shortfall of qualified mariners in a time of full Ready Reserve Force
and surge sealift fleet activation. Likewise, you stated during the
hearing that it's critical that the U.S. minimize dependence on
foreign-flag sealift sources, especially in the Indo-Pacific region.
Every effort should be made in order to ease the process for ships that
meet qualifications outlined in U.S. Transportation Command
Instructions to achieve expedited re-flag under the conditions of the
Maritime Security Program, however, I understand that there are cases
when ships are deemed military useful, per command policy, but then are
not considered ``suitable for use by the U.S. for national defense.''
Please outline this process and provide an explanation on how this may
be the case.
General Lyons. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
[all]