[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]