[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S3255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  SA 2351. Mr. WICKER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to 
amendment SA 2282 submitted by Mr. Inhofe (for himself and Mr. McCain) 
and intended to be proposed to the bill H.R. 5515, to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was 
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1018. BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS OF READY RESERVE FORCE 
                   RECAPITALIZATION OPTIONS.

       (a) Business Case Analysis Required.--Not later than 120 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Navy shall, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Maritime Administration and the 
     Commander of United States Transportation Command, submit to 
     he congressional defense committees a report setting forth a 
     business case analysis of recapitalization options for the 
     Ready Reserve Force (RRF).
       (b) Elements.--The business case analysis required by 
     subsection (a) shall include the following:
       (1) Each sealift capability area, and the associated 
     capacity, for which Ready Reserve Force vessels are required 
     to be recapitalized through fiscal year 2048.
       (2) The categories of vessels being considered in each area 
     specified pursuant to paragraph (1), including the following:
       (A) United States purpose-built vessels (such as Common 
     Hull Auxiliary Multi-mission Platform).
       (B) United States non-purpose built vessels (such as 
     vessels formerly engaged in Jones Act trade).
       (C) Foreign-built vessels that participated in the Maritime 
     Security Program.
       (D) Foreign-built vessels that did not participate in the 
     Maritime Security Program.
       (3) For each category of vessel specified pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), the following:
       (A) Anticipated availability of vessels within such 
     category in the timeframe needed to meet United States 
     Transportation Command sealift requirements.
       (B) Anticipated purchase price, if applicable.
       (C) Anticipated cost and scope of modernization.
       (D) Anticipated duration of modernization period.
       (E) Anticipated service life as a Ready Reserve Force 
     vessel.
       (F) Anticipated military utility.
       (G) Ability of one such vessel to replace more than one 
     existing Ready Reserve Force vessel.
       (4) A cost-benefit determination on the mix of capabilities 
     and vessels identified pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (3) 
     that could ensure United States Transportation Command 
     sealift requirements are met through fiscal year 2048, which 
     determination shall include a comparison of the useful 
     service life of each category of vessels specified pursuant 
     to paragraph (2) with the costs of such category of vessels.
                                 ______