U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

25–049 2018

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–17] 

THE CURRENT STATE OF THE U.S. NAVY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 16, 2017 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona, Vice Chair 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida 

RO KHANNA, California 

MARGARET DEAN, Professional Staff Member 

VICKIE PLUNKETT, Professional Staff Member 

JODI BRIGNOLA, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Cullom, VADM Philip H., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Fleet 

Readiness and Logistics ....................................................................................... 5 

McCollum, VADM Luke M., USN, Chief of Navy Reserve, Commander, Navy 

Reserve Force ....................................................................................................... 6 

Mulloy, VADM Joseph P., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Integration of Capabilities and Resources ................................................................ 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Mulloy, VADM Joseph P., joint with VADM Philip H. Cullom and VADM 

Luke M. McCollum ....................................................................................... 37 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 35 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 49 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 

(1) 

THE CURRENT STATE OF THE U.S. NAVY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, Washington, DC, Thursday, March 16, 2017. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8:05 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON READINESS 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, I call this hearing of the 

Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee 

to order. 

I am pleased to welcome everyone here today for an unclassified 

session on the current state of U.S. Navy readiness. It is particularly fitting, Admirals, for you to be here because the staff assistant, Margaret Dean, is one of your very prominent and really appreciated and competent members of the Navy Reserve. And so we 

are in good company. 

And of course, I am here, as I have indicated, as a very grateful 

and proud Navy dad. My wife has trained my number-two son well 

to be an orthopedic surgeon in U.S. Navy, formally Naples, Italy, 

now Beaufort, South Carolina. So we are very grateful for our family’s Navy participation. 

Over the past several weeks, both our full committee and subcommittee have received briefings and hearings from leading national security experts on the current threat assessment and state 

of the world. All of the service vice chiefs testified on the current 

state of the military. We heard from the Department on the quarterly readiness report to Congress. We heard from the Government 

Accountability Office on their assessment of the military’s readiness, recovery. And most recently, the United States Army outlined 

its current state of readiness. 

Each briefing and hearing further confirms that our services are 

indeed in a readiness crisis. I believe the first responsibility of the 

Federal Government is to provide for the security of its citizens. 

Therefore, it is our responsibility as members of this subcommittee 

to continue to better understand the readiness situation of the 

United States Navy and then for us to chart a course which best 

assists the Department of the Navy in correcting these deficiencies 

and shortfalls. 

We now ask the senior leaders of the U.S. Navy and Navy Reserves here with us today to provide and be candid in your best 
2 

military judgment advice on the current state of the U.S. Navy 

readiness and its efforts to rebuild where required. 

This morning we are honored to have with us Vice Admiral Joseph P. Mulloy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Integration 

of Capabilities and Resources; Vice Admiral Philip H. Cullom, the 

Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Fleet Readiness and Logistics; additionally, Vice Admiral Luke McCollum, Chief of Navy Reserve, Navy Reserve Force. We look forward to hearing from each 

of our witnesses as they highlight the current state of the Navy. 

And it is particularly fitting today that we have Admiral Mulloy 

and Admiral Cullom, both who are retiring in the next couple of 

months. I would like to thank each of you for your decades of service to our Nation, and I know I speak for Congresswoman Bordallo 

that we have extraordinary retirement opportunities in South Carolina and Guam. 

[Laughter.] 

And I would like now to turn to our ranking member, Madeleine 

Bordallo, for any remarks she may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE 

FROM GUAM, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You definitely are putting Guam on the map. And thank you for convening 

this important hearing. The chairman is a very good friend of mine. 

And this is the second in our series of subcommittee hearings examining the state of readiness of our military services. And I want 

to thank you Admiral Mulloy, Admiral Cullom, and Admiral 

McCollum for your service and your leadership and for being here 

today. 

And I stated in previous hearings I value the opportunity to 

hear, just not the Active, but also the Reserve Components as we 

seek to get a full picture of our military readiness. 

We find ourselves today in a familiar situation because of deferred investments resulting largely from sequestration and continuing resolutions, but also high operational tempos. Although it 

will take longer than a couple of years, I am encouraged that the 

Navy intends to commit itself with the FY [fiscal year] 2017 appropriations and presumably the FY 2018 budget to focus on fixing 

and then stabilizing readiness, especially back home. 

Although longer deployments and high demand and lower capacity have stressed our Navy’s readiness, we cannot build our way 

out of this problem, that is, its costly and unsustainable proportion. 

Future force structure growth must be balanced with substantial 

investments in both operational, but also facility readiness. And to 

that end, without robust shore infrastructure, which has been neglected in favor of fleet readiness, we will lose even more ships before that time. 

I will also note that I am pleased that the FY 2017 defense appropriations bill, in addition to FY 2017 NDAA [National Defense 

Authorization Act] that passed in December, included $9.5 million 

to enhance dry-docking capabilities in the Western Pacific. That 
3 

small amount of money will help the Navy to repair American 

while maintaining a forward presence in the region, and I look forward to working together effectively to ensure that these dollars 

are executed in a proper way. 

And I also understand that readiness challenges have been compounded by a strained civilian workforce, specifically resulting from 

hiring freezes, furloughs, and a government shutdown. Although 

the Navy may be able to withstand the current hiring freeze in the 

short term, I am concerned about how long-term consequences may 

affect your ability to build back readiness. 

So I do look forward to our discussion today and hearing specifically about not only how the Navy intends to recover readiness, but 

also what metrics and strategies are in place to ensure the longterm sustainability of these efforts. 

And I want to thank you again, the three admirals here as witnesses, for your time and your service to our country. 

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo. We now will 

begin with opening statements. 

Admiral Mulloy. 

STATEMENT OF VADM JOSEPH P. MULLOY, USN, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR INTEGRATION OF CAPABILITIES AND RESOURCES 

Admiral MULLOY. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we have submitted a joint written statement, but each one of us would prefer 

to also make a short opening statement. 

Mr. WILSON. Admiral, microphone. 

Admiral MULLOY. Oh, sorry. 

Mr. WILSON. We can’t wait to hear you. 

Admiral MULLOY. Okay. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 

Bordallo, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we have 

submitted one joint written statement, but each of us have a short 

opening oral statement; we would then like to get on to questions. 

And, sir, we would also like to thank you for your gracious meetings yesterday and also commend your son, or all three are serving 

the country, but in particular as a submariner, diving medical officers, undersea medical officers, which your son’s first qualifications 

were, are very warm to my heart for my entire career. 

I am honored to be here today to testify on the current state of 

Navy readiness. As I am sure the subcommittee knows, readiness 

recovery is currently the primary objective of both the Navy and 

the Secretary of Defense and we appreciate all the attention Congress is bringing to this issue and the action you have taken so far 

this year. 

To briefly explain readiness for the Navy, you have to look at 

how we employ our ships. Of the Navy’s current battle force, typically about one-third are deployed. This equates to about a hundred ships at any one time. The remaining two-thirds are either, 

one, in a dedicated maintenance period or, two, in a contingent response status, which is often called surge capacity. 

Most of the surge capacity would be ready to deploy on short notice to meet operational plans, but their condition determines their 
4 

readiness to respond. If you think of our forward deployed forces 

as our first team on the field, then our surge capacity can be 

thought of as our bench. And our readiness impacts the depth of 

the bench that we are ready to put on the field. 

The current state of our deployed forces is strong. Our first team 

has been operationally ready to respond to any challenge. They all 

have full-spectrum training and the resources they need to fight 

and win at any fight that might arise, from conducting airstrikes 

against ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] and terrorism, to 

keeping economic shipping lanes open across the globe, providing 

humanitarian aid after natural recoveries such as earthquakes and 

tsunamis. Your Navy remains the finest in the world. 

The readiness debt, however, has accrued from years of three 

items: one is high operational tempo for naval forces, previous 

funding reductions since 2013, and persistent budget uncertainty, 

which primarily impacts that bench depth. This includes our ability 

to fix our ships that come back from deployment, get aircraft ready 

to fly for the next deployment, and train our people to stay proficient in highly technical warfighting skills such as flying strike 

fighter aircraft or operating nuclear-powered submarines. 

It also includes maintaining our shore infrastructure, like piers, 

runways, and barracks, to ensure ships are not damaged while 

pier-side and aircraft are not damaged from foreign object ingestion 

on deteriorated runways. Loose debris can wreak havoc on an F– 

18 or other aircraft engines if they are sucked up. Thus, our primary focus for additional funding in 2017 is to improve our bench 

depth, which is the core of our Navy readiness, and our ready to 

surge. This includes ship readiness, aviation readiness, information 

and cyber warfare readiness, our people readiness, and key enablers to improving operational readiness. 

Your action to pass the conference report for this year’s Defense 

Appropriation Act has already helped us manage readiness under 

the current continuing resolution. Coupled with the 2017 National 

Defense Authorization Act and the President’s request for additional appropriations, which I believe has just been released, the 

House passage of this conference report provided us with more confidence that Congress may pass an appropriation act by the end of 

April and prevent a yearlong continuing resolution. 

Because of this, the Navy has delayed some CR [continuing resolution] mitigations in favor of more reversible mitigations, such as 

deferring ship operational spares and supply requisitions and reducing support for training ranges and schoolhouses. While these 

actions are less visible, they prudently help ensure the current CR 

mitigating actions does not create a larger, future readiness shortfall. 

However, if held to a full-year continuing resolution in the end, 

then the impact will be much more severe because we are not able 

to gradually draw down before the end of the fiscal year. 

To summarize, the current state in readiness is strong, our deployed forces are ready and responsive. However, if action is not 

taken now to improve warfighting readiness, then I remain concerned about the state of the future Navy. 

I can see the subcommittee recognizes this inflection point, and 

I remain optimistic that together we will find a resolution in 2017 
5 

and for the future years. Every investment in readiness will have 

an impact on making your Navy stronger. We stand ready to work 

with you on the path to recovery and sustaining readiness over the 

long term. 

I thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Admiral Mulloy, Admiral Cullom, and Admiral McCollum can be found in the Appendix on page 

37.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And Admiral Cullom. 

STATEMENT OF VADM PHILIP H. CULLOM, USN, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR FLEET READINESS AND 

LOGISTICS 

Admiral CULLOM. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, 

and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the state of Navy shore readiness. It is my 

honor and privilege to represent the thousands of Navy sailors and 

civilians who sustain operations at our 71 installations around the 

globe. 

The Navy shore readiness is a critical component in overall mission readiness. Today, many of the Navy’s platforms plan, train, 

and launch from the shore, and some even perform their entire 

mission from the shore. Despite this essential role, shore readiness 

has been and continues to be a bill-payer to sustain the operational 

fleet. This has been a conscious decision that, in the short term, 

made sense to meet immediate warfighting needs in the face of 

constrained budgets. However, consistent underfunding of shore 

readiness is unsustainable as a long-term strategy. 

As Admiral Moran testified in front of the full committee last 

month, we have repeatedly taken money from cash accounts that 

are the lifeblood of building long-term readiness in our Navy. To 

date, this strategy has culminated in a significant facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization backlog. And as we continue 

to defer these needed investments, our shore facilities degrade at 

an accelerated rate. 

The good news is that we know how and where the degradation 

manifests itself and we are able to focus with precision on facilities 

to ensure continuity of our primary operational missions. Unfortunately, our limited resourcing only allows us to address our most 

critical shipyard, nuclear, pier, and runway deficiencies and a limited portion of inadequate barracks for our junior sailors. Longterm underinvestment in facilities has had real consequences on 

our ability to man, train, and equip our forces. 

In this fiscally constrained environment, we have done our best 

to minimize adverse effects and target resourcing for maximum 

readiness impact. We are grateful to the Congress for your support 

of our military construction program, for the additional authority 

provided in the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization 

Act and appropriations provided in the fiscal year 2017 Military 

Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act to address 

where some of these shortfalls manifest themselves. 
6 

Thank you. For without this additional funding, the Navy’s military construction program would have been resourced at its lowest 

level since 1999. 

Shore readiness is a key enabler to our Navy’s warfighting readiness. The time is right to strengthen our foundation to fully support the toughness, reach, and responsiveness today’s Navy needs. 

On behalf of the sailors we represent, thank you for your continued support and for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward 

to your questions. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Admiral. 

Admiral McCollum. 

STATEMENT OF VADM LUKE M. McCOLLUM, USN, CHIEF OF 

NAVY RESERVE, COMMANDER, NAVY RESERVE FORCE 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Bordallo and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 

it is my distinct honor to testify this morning on the readiness of 

the Navy Reserve. 

In short, an effective Reserve Component must have the appropriate authority and funding available to train, to mobilize, and deploy and, ultimately, be available for major combat operations. Because the Navy Reserve is tightly integrated with the Active Component, the readiness shortfalls the Active Component experiences 

are closely mirrored in the Reserve Component to include operations, training, support, equipment, and facilities. 

The past 15 years of the Navy Reserve has been very busy. On 

any given day, on average, we have approximately 25 percent of 

the force performing operational support to the fleet and combatant 

commanders, and another 2,500 Reserve sailors, as of this morning, 

are mobilized to long-term Active Duty service across the entire 

spectrum of Navy mission sets. 

The sailors are getting the job done, but it is taking longer and 

getting more difficult to generate readiness and certification for the 

use of these forces. 

The funding that supports the Reserve unit warfighting readiness has been unpredictable and has been diminishing. In just the 

last 3 years alone, the operational support funding to the Navy Reserve has decreased 34 percent. With your help, we can address 

these challenges. 

Our ability to surge and respond on short notice, where and 

when needed, either as an individual sailor or an entire unit, is a 

key element of the Navy Reserve support to the total force. For example, during this past January and in direct support of the Navy’s 

forward-deployed ships and units, the Navy Reserve Fleet Logistic 

Support Wing flew nearly 2,500 hours and moved over 1.7 million 

pounds of cargo flying the C–130, the C–40, and the C–20. 

On the water, the Navy Reserve Coastal Riverine Squadrons, 

which form the backbone of the Navy’s maritime afloat security, 

conducted over 622 escort missions at strategic ports. While these 

missions have been highly effective, they have come at the expense 

of other fleet-essential missions. Investments in aging Reserve 

Component tactical aircraft equipment is critical in ensuring interoperability with the Active Component and, similar to the Active 
7 

Component, aviation depot-level maintenance has, as well, been 

backlogged. 

Our military construction and facility sustainment and modernization funding has not been adequate to keep up with our aging 

infrastructure at our Navy Reserve centers. Modern and efficient 

facilities are necessary to keep our sailors safe, trained, and ready 

to mobilize and deploy forward. While the readiness challenges 

ahead of us are significant, I am proud of our sailors’ dedication, 

professionalism, and the sacrifice as they toggle between their civilian jobs and their military careers. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and 

I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. Thank you, Admiral. 

As we are here today, we will begin. And so my above-repute 

commander, Margaret Dean, is going to keep the time on each one 

of us so that each one has 5 minutes to proceed. And she is a stickler for being correct, so this is good. 

As I am here this morning, too, looking at a portrait of the late 

Chairman Floyd Spence, I just really cherish, as his former campaign manager, a reason he was elected. And you can go ahead and 

begin. And a reason he was elected is because he was the commander of the Navy Reserve unit of Columbia, South Carolina. And 

wherever we went, some of the most capable, competent, and patriotic people that we would run into who just meant so much. The 

credibility of my predecessor was indeed enhanced and reinforced 

because of his association with the Navy Reserve. So I know the 

side consequence of your service and what a difference you have 

made. 

And for each of you, last month in testimony before the full committee of the Armed Services Committee, the Vice Chief of Naval 

Operations, Admiral Bill Moran, stated, quote, ‘‘Within a month we 

are going to have to shut down air wings, we are going to have to 

defer maintenance on several availabilities for our surface ships 

and submarine maintenance facilities,’’ end of quote. 

For each of you, is the Navy shutting down air wings? Are you 

deferring maintenance? If not, what has been adjusted? 

Admiral MULLOY. Congressman, thank you very much for the 

question. To put it in context, at that time there was not an appropriation act passed by the House and the President’s amended 

budget, which now is called the Readiness Appropriation Act, had 

not been totally gelled. 

So at this point in time, we have not taken those overt actions 

to shut down air wings. We have looked at deferring maintenance, 

but no availabilities have been canceled. You alluded to approximately 14 ships; those that can slide later in the year have been 

adjusted with the dates, working with the companies. That is still 

a Sword of Damocles overhanging our head right now. 

But based upon the process and the motion we saw on the Hill, 

the services working with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary 

of the Navy, have elected to say is we believe that there is action 

on the Hill to actually avert that massive item. Because what happens if air wings actually shut down, instead of taking a month to 

get back flying, it would take months, so the impacts will ripple to 

the end of 2017, but also into a significant part of 2018. 
8 

So as we watch what happens on the Hill between now and the 

end of April, I would say is those are on hold. We are deferring 

some spares for ships that haven’t deployed yet. Every deployed 

ship has got everything they need. In fact, Admiral Whitesell, the 

battle group commander of the George Bush in the Middle East 

right now, was just interviewed and reported that he has never 

been more ready, he has every part he needs as he is about to 

steam into the Middle East. 

So I think we have put these on hold, but if you come to the end 

of April, the mitigations will be what you saw, probably even larger. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, again, thank you for the leadership. And indeed, it is incumbent on us to back you up, and I am confident we 

will be bipartisan. Any other comment? 

Admiral CULLOM. Sir, I would only add that we know that the 

costs, once we do start taking those actions, will go up. They get 

worse with time. And so trying to be able to wait until we absolutely positively have to take those actions, I think, is in the best 

interest of all. But at some point, then those actions will have to 

be taken. 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, only other thing I would 

add is, as I mentioned earlier, because the Reserve Component is 

integrated and tightly aligned, the decisions that the Active Duty 

Component make, we behave accordingly in how we adjust our 

funding and our operations. So as Admiral Mulloy said, we are encouraged by the momentum that we see. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. And I have been impressed about the 

Navy Reserve units. They are, with the MILCON [military construction] there in the district I represent, really positive developments, and then next door in Charleston at the Nuclear Power 

School, this is being addressed. 

And for each of you, in the summer of 2016 issue of Surface Warfare magazine, Jeff Bauer from the U.S. Fleet Forces Command is 

quoted saying that the minimum standard for maintenance completion under the planned maintenance system, PMS, is 80 percent. 

Yet in the same article—and it should be 100 percent—it states 

that the preventive maintenance requirement derive when a, quote, 

‘‘Real risk of failure has been determined and that the failure has 

consequences that are unacceptable,’’ end of quote. 

When did the minimum standard become reduced to 80 percent? 

Could this result in unacceptable safety and operational capabilities of the Navy system? 

Admiral MULLOY. Sir, I am going to have to take that question 

for the record because I have not seen that article. I don’t know of 

a reduction of PMS. 

Having served at all levels in the Navy, from being a division officer 37 years ago on a submarine, until my current status, avoiding PMS and deferring PMS is always hazardous, it will add to the 

future failure of items on board the ship. There may be short times 

where it is deferred due to operational commitments, or it may be 

you are waiting for some spare, but I have not seen anything in 

writing that says the Navy will reduce 80 percent, but I will owe 

you an answer back on that, sir. 
9 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 49.] 

Mr. WILSON. And, Admiral, we would be happy get the article to 

you and look forward to your response. 

And in conformity with the 5-minute rule, I now defer to Congresswoman Bordallo of the territory of Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Mulloy, I have a question for you. You place much emphasis on how the high operational tempo has stressed the current 

readiness levels for the Navy. What are some steps you are taking 

to ensure the Navy is meeting combatant commander requirements 

amidst a strained fiscal environment? 

In other words, how are you ensuring the Navy is where it needs 

to be with the fleet and the sailors it has? 

Admiral MULLOY. Yes, ma’am. We are doing that through a couple ways. The most important one is the Optimal Fleet Response 

Plan [OFRP] where we have actually now laid in opportunities for 

each ship that focus on maintenance first, prepares the battle 

group as an organized group, they get underway for sails, then 

group sails such that they are fully combat-ready when they arrive. 

And that is now being spread through every class of ship. 

Most of them are on that 32-month cycle, some are on a different 

based upon the class. So that is first, where we put the ships in 

an organized plan. 

The second is constantly refining, what is the training required 

for those areas where they go? I will tell you is, we cannot meet 

every demand of the combatant commanders based on the size of 

the Navy. We have a standing average, about 40 percent of their 

needs are met. The most critical ones are then sourced through the 

Joint Staff, working with the Secretary of Defense to meet Presidential needs around the country. That’s the focus, what you have 

probably heard called the ribbon charts, that we lay out battle 

groups and amphibious readiness group deployments. And then we 

have below that are ballistic missile defense requirements and submarine requirements. 

There are tremendous demands for security around the world 

that have only gone up over time. As I look back on the last 5 

years, Russia resurgent, China has quadrupled their force in the 

last 17 years, the Russians have doubled their budget in the last 

15, 16 years, and ISIS has appeared, and Iran has continued to be 

the actor there in the Middle East, and obviously, North Korea has 

set off more nuclear weapons than his two predecessors and more 

rockets. 

So the stress on our force is there. We are optimizing what we 

can and we are deploying about one-third of our ships. We used to 

deploy about a fourth of them. We need the readiness dollars to 

come back to allow us to maintain it. 

That is where I view us purchasing Hornets as, you know, we 

support that Congress greatly put in the bill a significant number 

of Hornets. That I don’t view is growing force structure, that is actually a readiness issue. We are flying our Hornets 35 hours a 

month vice 25, and we have never stopped since 2011. There has 

been no, quote, ‘‘peace dividend’’ for the United States Navy. Our 

air force is flying in the Middle East off both amphibious ready 
10 

groups and primarily on carriers, we are wearing the planes out. 

So that is why I view buying more, but it takes a concerted effort 

across the board to make the Navy ready. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Admiral. And it is amazing, with all 

the challenges that we are facing, that we can still continue to keep 

things in order. 

Admiral MULLOY. Yes, ma’am. It is based upon the dedication of 

the military and the civilians and the support from Congress that 

we are able to keep the wheels on this bus called the Navy. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Admiral Cullom, I have a question for you. Can you address how 

the Navy plans to support a proposed larger fleet? As we have 

heard earlier, the Navy is unable to repair and return fleets to 

service per the current OFRP. 

So please detail to us, as quickly as you can, how the Navy is 

planning to invest in shore infrastructure and depot capabilities to 

ensure parts and facilities are ready for ship maintenance. Without 

this investment in infrastructure and depot capabilities, I truly am 

concerned that we could have a larger Navy that is less ready than 

our current fleet. 

Admiral CULLOM. Yes, ma’am. To address how and where we are 

putting our funding and what we are trying to focus on and 

prioritize, we have prioritized life and safety-related issues, the repairs to critical components, because we know that if we don’t repair those, then the cost of being able to fix those later is just going 

to grow increasingly. So it is very important that we address those. 

Additionally, the mission-critical facilities, piers, runways, and 

things like that, are evermore important. And frankly, a lot of our 

operations are changing in nature in that we see the importance 

that our information systems have. 

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the fact that we are 

doing many more of our operations from the shore means that 

those are important. So we have prioritized our funding to address 

by looking at the facility condition index of the specific components, 

whether it is the windows, the doors, the HVAC [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning] systems and things like that, or the utility systems, to ensure that we fund those properly and have put 

the focus there. 

Now, as the fleet grows, we will certainly reassess where we are 

going to continue to put things, but it is right now about making 

sure that we are focusing on the shore that we have, the shore infrastructure, from the 34,000 buildings and 29,000 structures 

across those 71 installations and 700,000 acres of land—a little bit 

less than Rhode Island, but it is a lot of land. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Admiral. My time is up and I would 

like a second round. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you so much, Congresswoman Bordallo. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott, of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Mulloy, you mention the Optimized Fleet Response 

Plan. The Government Accountability Office [GAO] analysis is fairly critical of that plan for years 2011 to 2014. 

Can you explain the differences in the Optimized Fleet Response 

Plan and the old maintenance schedule plan and how it will im-
11 

prove maintenance long term and how we intend to address the 

issue of what the GAO would simply refer to as the shortcomings? 

Admiral MULLOY. Sir, I have seen a classified GAO report on this 

and even there they admitted they had some data from 2015 that 

was not actually properly analyzed properly. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Admiral MULLOY. And we can respond to that in writing because 

it was classified. I would tell you that the Optimized Fleet Response Plan didn’t exist in that period of time. We were in FRP 

[Fleet Response Plan]. We created it because we used to be focused 

on the deployment cycle and then maintenance would be at the 

end. 

By shifting the whole cycle around to being the maintenance is 

the primary component at the beginning, it ensures that the ships 

actually have the time, and it has actually resulted in, in some 

cases, where we now wait before we deploy a whole group, that the 

ships all have to be repaired. The most recent example is the Bush, 

where the battle group deployed a short period later than expected, 

but it was also every ship was done. 

So I think there actually is a point where we find the OFRP 

brings a discipline to the fleet and to us to respond even to the 

Joint Staff and national command authorities is, you will deploy 

when you are warfighting ready, and warfighting ready depends 

upon your maintenance. 

So three battle groups are in it. We have a total of 10, so there 

are 7 to go over the next 5 years. We actually see the metrics that 

it is forcing us in terms of manning to bring the ships to the right 

level of manning. It is bringing us to the right in terms of spares 

when they deploy and that we can actually get out there. 

Last summer we actually had four aircraft carriers fully operational and deployed at one point in time because they happened 

to be coming and going from deployments. 

So we know we can get the forces there, but we do is have to 

clear this backlog of all the ship maintenance we have. And we 

view that we think that this plan has been the third cycle of fleet 

response programs over the years, that we now think we have 

tuned this to the proper level. 

Mr. SCOTT. I have the privilege of representing Robins Air Force 

Base, which is obviously a large depot. I see the criticism of some 

of our facilities, and it is not lost on me that continuing resolutions, 

furloughs, hiring freezes, and other things, in the end, created a lot 

of the problems. 

So I hope that you will continue to press for a budget or an appropriations act, I should say, instead of the continuing resolutions 

that we have had in the past. 

And I look forward to having a more aggressive leadership in the 

DOD [Department of Defense]. I don’t think we have to worry 

about the current Secretary of Defense letting Congress—— 

Admiral MULLOY. No, sir, Secretary Mattis has made it very 

clear that restoring readiness is a goal in 2017 and 2018, maintain 

before we buy any more force structure. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. 

Admiral MULLOY. And absolutely, the support of this committee, 

having the hearing today on readiness, bringing a focus on exactly 
12 

what you talked about, having regular appropriations, which you 

have already taken action on, and then addressing what Secretary 

Mattis will send over today with his advance appropriations, again, 

for 2017 to give us the amended budget to restore what we need. 

And also, appreciate the support to be able to say that the hiring 

of civilians and recognizing in 2013 the shutdowns and furloughs 

were remarkably painful across the board. 

Mr. SCOTT. Given the high demand for carrier presence, what efforts is the Navy taking to assist the shipyards in completing the 

maintenance availabilities of these teams on time? 

Admiral MULLOY. First off was, on this hiring freeze, the Navy 

has issued 22,000 waivers to bring people back on and we have 

hired now 2,800 people within the Navy since January, so we are 

not completely on track with where we should be. 

Across the board, efforts start from the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] and Admiral Moore visiting naval shipyards in Norfolk. 

I went out to Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and looked at the level 

of what do we have to have in terms of trainers, materials, and 

equipment and to do there. 

Part of that also comes back to—Admiral Cullom can talk more 

about the shore side—you also have to put some money and investment in the actual shore infrastructure of the cranes, the dry 

docks, and other equipment. We have made modest investments 

there because we are also tied to the 6 percent depot rule. So at 

least our depots have got some minimal amount, air and ship depots have. This continued focus will be more and training the people we have brought on. 

We have hired over half of the shipyard employees, there are 

32,000 going to 33,000 with the support of Congress. Half of those 

people have less than 5 years of work in a shipyard. We need to 

basically hold the line on doing the training and getting those people on board because we have aged out that workforce. 

Mr. SCOTT. Gentlemen, thank you for your service. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Scott. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Anthony Brown, of Maryland. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Maryland is the home to several military installations, and we 

are proud to host Naval Air Station Patuxent River. In the Fourth 

Congressional District we are home to Joint Base Andrews where 

we have a strong Navy presence. So I am certainly delighted that 

you are here today to talk to us about Navy readiness. 

My question goes to life-cycle management and reliability analysis. So it is my understanding that the Navy and the Marine 

Corps are operating at about 63 percent of the O&M [operations & 

maintenance] budget that you would actually need to fully fund the 

operations. And obviously, that impacts readiness. 

So my questions are, you know, to what extent do you embrace 

reliability analysis? Are you incorporating that? Are there challenges in incorporating that? What are you learning from reliability 

analysis? Does the budget constraints impact your ability to implement reliability analysis? And if you could just shed some light on 

that for me and the committee, that would be helpful. 
13 

Admiral CULLOM. Yes, sir. We are debating the piece as to who 

would address which part of it because encompassed in that, in 

terms of the life-cycle management, there is a piece of that that is 

clearly on the shore side of the house and a lot of that is also in 

the operational sustainment accounts that are the operational fleet 

part of it. 

Collectively, together, they are absolutely essential for being able 

to see us through the life cycle of a given ship, plane, submarine, 

or even tactical vehicle and some of those things are even repairs 

of the runways, repairs of dry docks to make sure that we can sustain those ships. So there is a very clear shore component of it. 

That is why we have focused on the shore side very heavily on 

the things that are operationally related to the sustainment of the 

Navy that we have today, even as we are building a Navy of the 

future. 

Operationally, there is another piece of this, too, on the contractual side of sustainability. And maybe Admiral Mulloy can mention 

about that. 

Admiral MULLOY. Sir, we absolutely look in reliability maintenance. My whole career has been spent looking at evaluation of 

what is a condition of a ship, a product. You are in the shipyard, 

I have had the new construction engineer of a boat, I was the overhaul as junior officer, I have operated. Also, working with people 

down in NAVAIR [Naval Air Systems Command]. Everything is 

based upon what we hope is life-cycle maintenance. You don’t always understand everything until you actually get it to sea or fly 

it, and then you get feedback. 

For a period of time, the Navy in downsizing in the late 1990s 

took away what is called, you know, the SURFMEPP [Surface 

Maintenance Engineering Planning Program], surface examination 

group for surface ships. And we kind of suspended that view. We 

did not stop PERA–CV [Planning and Engineering for Repairs and 

Alterations—Carriers] for the carriers or SUBMEPP [Submarine 

Maintenance, Engineering, Planning and Procurement] for the submarines. But the surface ships were like, okay, we can manage 

this. 

We realized that was a mistake, we needed to bring back that 

life-cycle management on the surface ships to be able to have that 

long-term view of the health of the boats. 

We had life-cycle plans, but they weren’t as religiously brought 

together. So we restarted SURFMEPP, brought back the surface 

maintenance engineering groups. And that has been a real focus to 

bring the surface ship readiness back up to a level. 

We are always looking for future diagnostic tools or other plans. 

But everything we do is focused on long-term maintenance. But as 

you point out, the shortage of O&M can drive us to questions of, 

can we afford it now? You defer it later and when you defer something you pay more for that later. If you can’t fix your roof this 

year, you fix it next year. That is, you know, symbolically on a ship 

or on a building, in many cases you pay the price later. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Admiral CULLOM. Sir, I would add one more thing. That in addition to just the normal repairs that we have to do, there is also the 

piece to be able to keep the ships for 40 years, you have to do mid-
14 

life upgrades to them. And for aircraft, you have to SLEP [Service 

Life Extension Program] those to be able to ensure that you will 

get 10,000 flight hours out of an F–18. 

So those are an essential part of that life-cycle cost as well. And 

we do look at those very closely as an integrated package of how 

we get those things to get the full utility for the American taxpayer. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Brown. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, of Missouri. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And appreciate your comments, Admiral, about the F–18, the 

need to recapitalize that. That is just a very important aircraft and 

it has certainly been doing its job in the fight against ISIS and 

wearing out as it is doing it, so appreciate that. 

Vice Admiral McCollum, I wanted to ask you about the Reserves 

a little bit because you have had a very heavy operational use 

tempo over the past 16 years. And so, do you see this as a new normal for the Navy Reserve? Or do you see the Navy Reserve returning to their traditional strategic role in the future? 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Congresswoman, thank you for that question. When we reflect on the Navy Reserve and understand how it 

was designed, it was designed for a strategic capability, strategic 

depth. But since 9/11 and in the use, it has become operational by 

necessity. 

And as we look at the capability that the Navy Reserve provides 

to the Active Component to surge specific skill sets, to surge specific unit capability, under the current demand signal we know the 

world is a busy place. And as we look at the expansion of our operations and maintaining our operations of support, we do see a 

steady demand signal in place. 

Now, as we chart the path forward and work our strategy with 

the broader Navy capability, you know, we will land in the right 

place, but the current construct and demand signals certainly suggest a sustained demand signal for operational support that the 

Navy Reserve provides to the Active Component. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. How would you assess the morale of the reservists and their resilience with this high tempo? 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Congresswoman, you can probably understand, when we leave the Pentagon and go out and visit our troops 

operational, our troops in training, that is certainly a highlight, 

and we are very inspired. And it is primarily because of the resilience, the enthusiasm, and dedication that we see with the Reserve 

sailors. 

And these sailors are the ones that are managing two pieces of 

their life, one is with their civilian employer, the other one was 

their commitment to serve in the Navy. It is very inspiring to see 

that. 

The ability to generate wins to make that lifestyle easier and 

more efficient continues to support the high morale. Their hearts 

are so dedicated and so willing to serve. It is, that is as I mentioned, the inspiring piece of this. 

When we have issues with predictability, that is where we meet 

our challenges because what is important to a Reserve sailor is pre-
15 

dictability and access to their requirement in the military, but 

being able to be predictable so they can schedule their obligations. 

And the way that our funding works in CRs and things like that, 

it makes it less predictable. But net/net I would say it is very inspirational, morale is very high. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. That is great, that is great. Well, I appreciate 

what they do, it is a lot to juggle. 

Admiral Cullom, I want ask you about shipyards. What actions 

is the Navy taking to address challenges in public and private shipyards that can affect the Navy’s ability to complete ship maintenance on schedule? 

Admiral CULLOM. Ma’am, we have done a great deal to focus on, 

and with the Congress’ help and the legislation that requires us to 

look at how much we invest in those shipyards, and shipyards and 

FRCs [Fleet Readiness Centers] collectively together, you can’t 

really do one without also working the other. Because when we deploy a carrier, it deploys as a carrier strike group, so it is aviation 

maintenance as much as it also is the shipyard maintenance. 

We have worked very hard to try to improve the throughput of 

those shipyards to ensure that they have what they need in terms 

of utility upgrades. We have focused very keenly on looking at the 

specific facility condition of various components. And that is really 

the piers, the wharves, the dry docks in particular, because those 

are all—cranes, those are all things that can become limiting components to being able to get the work done within the shipyards. 

And to the best of our ability, we have devoted the resources to 

those and we are going to continue to look at the ways we can look 

at the shipyards of the future and putting them in a position to be 

able to support the work that we anticipate. 

There is a lot of creative thought out there by folks that do that 

for a living on the engineering duty side of the house, and we are 

excited about. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Hartzler. 

We now proceed to Congressman Joe Courtney, of Connecticut. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

the witnesses. 

As we are sitting here, actually the news is starting to unfold 

about what Admiral Mulloy referenced, that, again the supplemental request is now unfolding. And it appears that about 80 percent of the supplemental is going to be in the base budget, which 

automatically takes it above the BCA [Budget Control Act] caps 

which, you know, that adds to the degree of difficulty in terms of 

what the Senate is going to have to contend with and, you know, 

the clock is ticking, as we all know. 

So, I guess, you know, I think for clarity’s sake, if one of two scenarios happens, one is that they do pass the funding level, but not 

lift the BCA caps and, thus, that funding gets sequestered or, (b), 

they just, you know, kind of punt and go to a CR. 

I mean, what does that mean in terms of the air wings and the 

availabilities that, again, kind of hinged on the fact that we would 

have a positive outcome at the end of April? 

Admiral MULLOY. Sir, as to how the OMB [Office of Management 

and Budget] is financing it, that is a separate discussion. As to the 
16 

risk we now take, yes, my opening comment was prefaced upon motion ahead—— 

Mr. COURTNEY. Right. 

Admiral MULLOY [continuing]. And then the specifics are there, 

as you brought out. We certainly have seen, you know, potentially 

up to five different scenarios of a yearlong CR. It is larger in OCO 

[Overseas Contingency Operations] so it doesn’t count against the 

caps, it is a mix in between. We only get the readiness dollars, not 

the procurement side of it. There are a bunch of scenarios. 

I will tell you, if we don’t get the readiness dollars, the stipulations the Vice Chief of Naval Operations told you of five air wings 

or more shutting, combination shutdown and tactical hard deck on 

14 ship availabilities, will be the minimum. And we have not developed those specifics, but we will relay those to Congress in a classified document later that says, hey, these are those impacts. It will 

be that or more and will very likely be more depending upon the 

date that that kicks in. 

But that is not action we are taking right now, we really want 

to see how this plays out over here. But it would have a dramatic 

impact. And much of it would actually be in the 2018 time. When 

you get to fiscal year 2018, that would be the ships and squadrons 

not working up or maintaining now would be they would not deploy 

in 2018. 

You would start seeing the same carrier gaps, you would start 

seeing other impacts around the world. But largely, it would be in 

2018, not as much in 2017, because you keep the deployed forces 

as ready, as was discussed, sir. But the specifics, we would have 

to see the timing and money. 

Mr. COURTNEY. And, again, thank you for that answer. I really 

think, you know, sometimes, you know, the narrative or the talk 

down here gets sort of lost in sort of, you know, very abstract language about CRs and sequester. 

I mean, what I think really clarifies is really talking about, you 

know, sort of real-life impacts, so hopefully we will get some more 

of those specifics as, again, the choices start to become clearer for 

both chambers. 

So, you know, just want to go back to a question Mrs. Hartzler 

raised about the public and private shipyards. Again, when Admiral Moran was here, again, he was clear that, yes, there has been 

backups caused by, you know, the inconsistent funding that Congress has unfortunately produced over the last few years, but that 

there has also been other sort of problems in the shipyards in 

terms of getting the work done, partly because the deployments 

have worsened the condition of ships and subs that are coming in 

for repairs. 

But clearly, I mean, even with, you know, healthy funding, there 

is still going to be a backlog at the public yards. I mean, you know, 

it is what it is. And I guess the question is, are you looking at, 

again, using private yards as an option to sort of, again, get this 

backlog addressed? 

Admiral MULLOY. Yes, sir. Since 2012, six submarine availabilities have been put in the private yards. I think three or four at 

Electric Boat and a couple at HII [Huntington Ingalls Industries]. 

We are now—currently the USS Columbus is out for bid for this 
17 

year. And there are two more that will come over in the 2018 budget that we are now examining as we explore 2018 that would now 

once again help the workload. 

Because the naval shipyard workload, number one, is SSBNs 

[ballistic missile submarines], getting those refueled and back out 

is a national priority. Number two is aircraft carriers, so the SSNs 

[attack submarines] end up being the ones who have been behind 

since we have had 53-month overhaul on the Connecticut, 48 

months on another SSN that was too long in there. So we are and 

we will reexamine in the future. 

But right now, like I said, there is one, Columbus, in this year 

and at least two more the next budget. And it will make a total 

of nine since 2012, potentially, would have been outside because we 

need to get the boats done and we recognize the quality of work 

at HII and Electric Boat as well. 

Mr. COURTNEY. And again, I think that will be a good bridge in 

terms of, you know, the other challenge the Navy has, which is the 

Force Structure Assessment, which again, I think smoothing out 

the workforce will get us in a better position to take on that added 

work. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Courtney. 

We now proceed to Congressman Mike Gallagher, of Wisconsin. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank 

you for your time today. 

To what extent are you incorporating cyber readiness into your 

assessments? And take me through the methodology through which 

you do so. 

Admiral MULLOY. Sir, cyber plays a direct part in two areas, one 

is the defensive network operations and then offensive cyber. That 

is directly involved, and a lot more specifics would have to be in 

a classified discussion, but unclassified discussion would be is that 

it is no longer a secondary thought when we build this budget. 

Admiral Jan Tighe, the Director of Naval Intelligence and also 

the DCNO [Deputy Chief of Naval Operations] for Communications, Capabilities and Networks, and she and I talk frequently, is 

that she is now a warfighting role along with Admiral Manazir and 

others with the DCNOs with the CNO, so that we look at it as, do 

I want to use what is called soft kill versus hard kill analysis? Do 

I have to have a weapon on a weapon? Should I take it out with 

a cyber? 

So that concept of soft kill or what we call left-of-launch is in all 

of our focus. It just ends up being much of that area remains highly 

classified where we are. But there is significant focus on it. 

Hence, we are looking at how the continuing resolutions affect 

the workforce, affect the contracts we are able to make. What can 

I do within the Naval Warfare Development Group? There is a 

whole development group just for cyber items that we use, that are 

highly classified also. So these items are affected by the same O&M 

shortfalls. 

On the other side is, CRs can affect us because we need money 

to eliminate software that is old. We still have Windows 10. We 

have other distributions out there. We have what we call Windows 

10 eradication program that is critically dependent upon operation 
18 

and maintenance and procurement dollars that are in our budget. 

They may look buried, but that is a critical infrastructure for our 

defense that we worry about. So that is areas that we want in this 

budget. And there are cyber-related items woven throughout it, sir. 

Admiral CULLOM. And, sir, I would also add that cyber truly is 

its own domain, as Admiral Mulloy is kind of suggesting, and much 

of those cyber capabilities actually involve the shore infrastructure. 

And increasingly, we look at that and the utilities that are associated with it. The entire backbone for cyber is not at sea, but 

ashore. 

So collectively, that has to support a domain of warfare that is 

essential to the integrated part of what the Navy does. 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. And, Congressman, I might add the cyber 

capability that Admiral Cullom stated, this is one of the areas that 

the Navy Reserve is able to contribute, considering the experience 

that a lot of our sailors have in their civilian experience. So that 

is an area where we are tightly integrated. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. That is an interesting point. I was just up in 

Rhode Island and Connecticut. And we saw some of the amazing 

things that the Reserve is doing in terms of, well, and also Active, 

in terms of distance learning. So cyber certainly opens up opportunities. I mean, what are we doing or what are you doing in the 

Navy to sort of capitalize on that, and how has that impacted Reserve training and operations, if that makes sense? 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Well, certainly in the unclassified domain, 

there are certain training methodologies and capabilities that the 

Navy Reserve can undertake. We can take advantage of both hardware and software in our training. A reservist having access to 

their training is a key enabler. 

I did bring this morning a device which reads our ID [identification] card, and this can plug into a sailor’s personal iPhone or Android or whatever their smartphone device is, insert their ID card 

and still provide two-factor authentication to identify a secure place 

where they can do their training. 

Obviously, if it becomes in a more classified context, that will 

draw them closer to the facility where they would work or where 

they would train, but it has really opened up the ability for the reservists to gain access to programs and tailored training to make 

them more ready in that support. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Sure. Well, as a millennial, I would say the less 

of Windows 10 we do and the more of things like that, the better 

off we will be in terms of recruiting people. Thank you. 

I yield, Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Gallagher. 

We now proceed to Congressman Don McEachin of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, gentlemen, 

thank you all for your service. 

We tend to talk to you about, when we speak in terms of readiness, repairing our ships and repairing our planes and that sort of 

thing, all of which are incredibly important. But I would like for 

you all to comment a little bit about morale, and in particular 

about dwell time and whether or not you all consider that as part 
19 

of your analysis of readiness. And if so, what can we do to improve 

dwell time among our sailors? 

Admiral MULLOY. Sir, thank you for the question. And clearly, 

morale and the ability of our sailors to be part of the fight are the 

most important item. The strength of the service is the sailor. And 

where we look at that in terms of what can be done is, in the request for additional appropriations is additional money for PCS 

[permanent change of station], moving people, because getting families to move as a group in the time that is appropriate for them, 

for their ships, helps the ship and helps the family have long-term 

planning. 

Based upon shortfalls this year, which are going to be asked for 

here is, we can get ourselves backed up in many months. I will tell 

you that all the time I see is many cases, that is some of the biggest stress on a family is the move. When can I move, when will 

I get authority? We are down to about 1- or 2-month lead time, vice 

normally like to be 6 months. That is a single-biggest item that 

would be funding in this appropriation coming up, and then, once 

again, getting that actually out so that we are not in a CR. 

Beyond that, we look across the board in terms of the pay, allowances and items, but when you come to dwell, the single-biggest 

area in dwell is actually getting on the OFRP for the Reserves and 

for the Active. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. I am going to interrupt you, Admiral. Tell me 

what those initials stand for? 

Admiral MULLOY. Oh, I am sorry, Optimized Fleet Response 

Plan. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Thank you. 

Admiral MULLOY. As earlier we were discussing, sir, was getting 

the ships on a known maintenance cycle, then their operational 

cycle is all tied to that, that they then know what their future path 

is. I am going to be in a shipyard for 4 months, when I come out 

I will then do my battle group workup, and when I get done with 

that I will deploy on this date and 7 months later I will be back. 

That provides a tremendous amount of focus for the sailors’ mental well-being. They know their qualifications and their families are 

comfortable, they are taken care of, and the whole family infrastructure then revolves around that. 

That same concept applies to the Reserves, too, as they know 

when they are mobilizing, they know when they are coming back. 

So, clearly, morale is a significant focus, it just ends up being is, 

the interstitials are the operation and maintenance dollars for the 

fleet and for the aircraft as well as the personnel manpower dollars 

are critical to that. 

I think Admiral Cullom may have more in terms of our shore 

side about that, too. 

Admiral CULLOM. Yes sir. I would like to add to what Admiral 

Mulloy mentioned. What he is talking about with the fleet response 

plan, what that really gives us—and when I look at morale, what 

affects morale the most for our sailors, it is predictability, it is certainty and it is quality of life and quality of service. If we can give 

them those things, they will go to the ends of the earth for us. 

And what we are working on very hard with that fleet response 

plan is that predictability and certainty so that they can be able 
20 

to have a pretty stable environment for their workup cycles and for 

their deployments, so that they have stability with their families 

at home. 

The quality of service piece, that kind of falls back onto the shore 

side of the house, that is housing, it is those PCS moves, the permanent change of station, moving from halfway around the world 

in some cases. I just had a family come in the other day of a gentlemen that used to work for me many years ago, and his five children and his wife will be moving to Japan. He is a great officer, 

but they are trying to figure out and time when they move to 

Japan. 

Those things are very important to the morale of our families, as 

much as the morale of the sailors themselves. And we all know, if 

your family is not happy then you are probably not happy as a 

service member. 

The other piece is child development centers and things like that, 

absolutely critical for those that are either single parents or those 

that need to have that because you have two working parents. So 

those are all part of that quality of service piece that is also essential. 

Thank you, sir. 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. And, Congressman, I would just add, in our 

Reserve centers, when a Navy Reserve sailor comes back from their 

deployment and goes into what we call dwell, for the Reserve sailor, the importance of having a facility, a Reserve center or training 

site that is well-maintained and secure provides support for that 

quality of service that Admiral Cullom was referring to. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman McEachin. 

We now proceed to Congressman Trent Kelly, of Mississippi. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank the witnesses 

for being here. 

Just a brief point, real quick. I actually talked to some people 

this morning and we were talking about readiness and how important a family and the family structure is to that readiness. And so 

in a readiness standpoint, the hiring freeze on places like the commissary and the PX [post exchange] and I think daycare is exempted, but many of those jobs are filled by service members’ spouses 

or children and those are secondary or third measures of income 

that are important. 

And a sound financial mind and a sound security mind for those 

families makes it easier for those sailors to deploy. Would you 

agree with that assessment, any of you gentlemen? 

Admiral MULLOY. Yes, sir, I would, and I know that Secretary 

Stackley, Acting Secretary of the Navy, has been leaning forward 

on trying to get what are those impacts. And, as I have said, we 

have had 22,000 waivers approved and his staff is geared up to 

within 5 days of any budget-submitting officer, any admiral in command out in the fleet coming back, they will then process those 

waivers and they are moving into what we call the Class B and C. 

So it is really a matter of finding out who needs to hire when 

and get those back up. But absolutely Mr. Stackley—and I will tell 

you is that the support structure of families drive directly to readi-
21 

ness and morale and, therefore, he is also looking at how many different waivers we can approve as he is looking within the guidelines given. 

Mr. KELLY. And that is quite frequent because when a soldier or 

a sailor—I am a soldier—but when a sailor PCSs from one station 

to the other, that family moves, which means they are a new hire 

and maybe a different job, because they are more customer-service 

related and not necessarily skilled labor where they transfer from 

one place to the next. Would that be correct, Admiral? 

Admiral MULLOY. Yes, sir, absolutely. And it is a significant part 

of a lot of the family moves is where can they go, what is the timing of that and then how can they get the other spouse either immediate employment and working with us? As you point out, a significant number work within the base structure, within the military depot structure and as well as jobs in town. And we have programs on all the bases that focus on that. And any hiring freeze 

across the board anywhere affects professional men and women 

that are the spouses. 

Mr. KELLY. And just so you gentlemen know, you admirals, it 

amazes me that we are arguing over the negative effects of the 

BCA. It is detrimental, it is extremely risky, it is possibly dangerous to not repeal the BCA. 

Congress has one primary duty, in my opinion, and that is to 

provide for the defense of this nation. And there is no way that the 

BCA in any way helps this nation provide for the defense. That 

being said, personally, the Navy has not yet recovered from the 

readiness impacts caused by sequestration and more than a decade 

of continuous combat operations. My deputy chief of staff is the 

wife of a marine. He was getting ready to deploy from Norfolk and 

their ship broke down so often that it interfered with both the 

training and the deployment dates. And I think actually it got 

called back one time. 

Please discuss the risks posed by the magnitude of the surface 

fleet’s deferred maintenance on its ability to achieve the CNO’s 

goals of operational availability. 

Admiral MULLOY. Sir, thank you for the question. I don’t know 

the specific ship involved, and we can research that one, but I will 

tell you, your first point about the Budget Control Act and its impact, I have been in Navy finance jobs for almost 8 years now in 

this time in DC and I will tell you the single most painful year was 

2013. But since then, every year, I will still stand back and tell 

you, as a chief financial officer in the Navy we are down in the 

Navy $30 billion, which is a mix of procurement and operations 

and maintenance across the board—$30 billion over 5 years short 

based upon that law. 

Only the action of Congress to give us bipartisan budget acts re- stored some of that money. Otherwise, I would be down almost $50 

to $60 billion. Making that balance across the Navy to keep the 

Navy readiness and still support deployed operations is tremendous. 

As I have said, we saw some of the degradations in the surface 

ship maintenance even as far back starting with INSURV reports, 

you know, Board of Inspection and Survey. In the 2008 and 2009 

period, we saw that the amphibs first and other surface ships were 
22 

starting to degrade, were not aging gracefully, let us say, because 

they were the oldest ships, many of the oldest ships we had. 

So we needed a combination of restoring the planning and 

thought behind that. And then once we get on that recovery, unfortunately, since 2013 we have been dealing with getting back to the 

people that we planned to hire in the shipyards and then having 

furloughs. 

So getting ourselves and our fiscal house within the country in 

order is important to maintain that. I would say is we are aggressively following, and I would say the condition of every class of ship 

is up on all the INSURV boards, and we have had tremendous support from Congress to put money, hundreds of millions of dollars 

every year through reprogrammings into ship operations. But largely, a big chunk of it is ship maintenance. Almost $700 

million a year have gone to ship maintenance, even at a time of 

shortfalls. So we will keep that up as we go. And that is one reason 

why Secretary Mattis has said current readiness is the most important thing over growing the size of the force. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Kelly. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, of Hawaii. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen, thank you for your service. 

Vice Admiral Mulloy, you talked a little bit about some of the 

major infrastructure needs at our shipyards and your recent visit 

to Pearl Harbor. I just met with some of the managers yesterday 

from the shipyard who also reiterated that the ailing state of infrastructure at the shipyards and the impact on readiness. 

They spoke specifically about Dry Dock 3 there at Pearl Harbor 

and basically if action is not taken immediately and prioritized, 

then the dry dock will no longer be able to be used, period, in the 

coming few years. 

I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about how you are 

prioritizing the shipyard infrastructure needs, especially with the 

budget that we are about to see, and how long you think it will 

take in order to get our shipyards back into the right place? 

Admiral MULLOY. Ma’am, I will have to give you back an answer 

for the total time, a detailed response on the maintenance plans. 

When I was at Pearl Harbor, I saw the condition of the well of the 

dry dock and we talked about that as a priority. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Admiral MULLOY. Each of the yards, under the depot law, about 

6 percent of all the maintenance money must go back in repairs, 

and we have looked at what is the best order of events to flow 

through, and we are working our way through the yards. 

Part of it comes back to being as working through the requirements of each base is different. The shipyard at Pearl has some 

other historical factors they have to take into account. I actually 

walked through a building, they basically want to build a building 

in a building, so it looks like it was in 1941, but it will be a modern 

shop inside. 

That doesn’t add that much, but it still comes back to being you 

have to get through the environmental wickets on that one. So 
23 

there are a number of projects to where Pearl Harbor wants to follow what Portsmouth Naval Shipyard did, which was actually 

move the shops out around and have a flow through the yard, such 

that when things come off the boat, they go up, they are getting 

repaired, they are sequenced properly, and they flow back down. 

And that flow and sequence really depends upon the express intelligence of the leadership and the workforce of what is the best one. 

Pearl Harbor has laid out a number of ideas that we will be looking at in the next few years to move their basically shop around 

the yard and take advantage of some of those buildings. The dry 

dock is clearly one that there is a combination of fixing where the 

caisson goes for the well deck, and then they are actually looking 

at a combination of perhaps extending that dry dock as well. Both 

those are in the Navy review process right now and competing well. 

I can’t tell you where they are at right now, but I saw both those, 

and saw the diagrams when I walked around with the shipyard 

commander and the workforce. I also saw a number of the young 

interns that were just, or not interns, apprentices hired, and talked 

to 14 of them as well. And their focus to the group that was asking 

about civilian careers, they have been hired. Of the 14, only two 

were fresh out of high school, the others had multiple jobs they 

have had before, but they are trying to find. And one man said I 

need a career that I can properly, you know, get paid, I will work 

hard and take care of my family. 

So the real focus was on excellence and their desire to work hard, 

and they had been on that side, have now been hired. We need to 

keep that going. 

Ms. GABBARD. Yes, thank you very much. And whether for you 

or either of your colleagues, if you can comment how the Federal 

hiring freeze has impacted shipyards generally and their ability to 

continue to deliver with the workload. 

Admiral MULLOY. What has been a slowdown has been the shipyard workers themselves on the wharf were immediately waiver 

given. The follow-on has been now working through the interstitials of, okay, I need human resource people to hire the next new 

person, I need to have certain planners done, I need to have what 

you call the backroom operations of the shipyard, which are extensive. 

And those really came to the fore, some of the members may remember, during the sequester period and then the follow-on furlough. Congress and the President gave a waiver to production activities. But very quickly, if you don’t have the security guard or 

the crane operator, you can have all the mechanics you want, but 

you don’t get productive work done. 

So they are kind of almost a living organization, having spent 

multiple times in my life in a shipyard, it is a living organization 

and so now we are working our way through the next level. But 

we identified what I would call the second and third levels of shipyard performance and those now waivers are coming in for that. 

But we are probably about 200 people behind what we were in our 

hiring plan to grow to the 33,000 authorized by Congress. 

Ms. GABBARD. There was one other issue that was brought up 

yesterday with regards to this topic, which is, even though the 

waiver was given for, I believe, the priority A, for the supervisors 
24 

who have retired or who have left the force, even for internal transfers, the waiver does not apply, so they are having a problem with 

a shortage of supervisors even though they are able to hire, continue hiring, the supervisor positions are not even able to be filled 

internally. 

Admiral MULLOY. Yes, ma’am, I had not heard that, I appreciate 

your comment, I will go back and take that right back. 

Ms. GABBARD. Appreciate it. Look forward to working with you 

on that. 

Admiral MULLOY. We need the resources today because I am 

very interested with a particular love and having actually worked 

at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard as an ensign, and my in-laws did 

and my wife did as well. I completely understand that, and I will 

take that right back. 

Ms. GABBARD. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you very much, Congresswoman Gabbard. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Martha McSally, of Arizona. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen 

for your testimony. I was Air Force so I will try and speak in your 

language here in my questioning. 

We had a briefing from the GAO last month saying that less 

than 30 percent of the ships made it through their maintenance 

schedules on time. So that sounds to me like you might need a new 

time schedule for those going into maintenance if more than 70 

percent, once they get in there, you are finding deeper problems 

and they are taking longer to go through their maintenance schedule. 

A concern in general, I echo concerns and frustrations about sequestration and the impact that it has had on you. 

As we are talking to different services, you know, the Air Force 

has come forward with a plan that is going to take until 2028 to 

turn some of their readiness around. And I think their assumptions 

are actually a little too optimistic. 

Other than the OFRP, are you developing a detailed plan to address your way to get out of this readiness crisis, those are my 

words, that you are in? And when can we expect to see that plan? 

And the plan needs to based on good assumptions. Assumptions, 

again, that 70 percent of your ships are coming out late for scheduled maintenance, you know, there needs to be some new assumptions there. So is there a plan being developed to get you out of this 

hole? And is it based on realistic assumptions? And when do you 

think—I mean, we have heard you say after the FYDP [Future 

Years Defense Program], well, that could be, like, 2080. Like, what 

is the window, and when will we see a detailed plan? 

Admiral MULLOY. Ma’am, there are two parts. I would say is we 

are currently in a 60-day readiness review with the Secretary of 

Defense and part of that will actually be related to the PB, the 

President’s budget 2018, that will be coming over probably in the 

May, June timeframe, it will lay out a lot more of the specifics that 

include our, do we need to hire more people at the shipyards? Do 

we need to adjust various items and, once again, along these readiness items? And then, where do we stand on aircraft? 
25 

So that will be within the 2018 budget we will have the specifics 

of what we can do with the financing, the resources that we will 

have in 2018 and what arrives. 

I would comment on the GAO report is that, unfortunately, ships 

take a while when they go in. It would take us about 8 years to 

get through the whole fleet, so we know some ships are late, there 

are some plans available, but every ship also ages differently. 

So, you know, I have not seen the number 70, I know a significant number. Although I would say, in this past year, a larger 

number of ships in the 2017, so far in 2017 as we ended 2018, the 

number was closer to more than 50 percent were actually now coming on time because we have taken the support of Congress, rolled 

the money back into some of the planning purposes, that the 2017 

and 2018 projections are no longer based upon, I would say, an assumption back in 2013 when those maintenance plans were developed. 

They are now better prepared. And let’s say it was an average 

of 100,000 man-days for a ship to be done and we now took it, took 

130,000, and we are now planning for in 2017, 2018, 130,000 mandays. So I think we are better able to estimate the conditions of 

the ships, but it will take us 8 years to get through the cycle of 

seeing every ship that we have done. That is why with the Navy 

with our one-third always deployed and a third ready to surge, you 

just can’t get all the ships in. 

And we don’t have the dry docks and the capacity to take every 

ship apart. It is a little bit different when we send airplanes off to 

depots. They can be gapped, whereas a fleet is that is who that 

asset is. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great, thanks. Just to clarify, though, aside from 

the OFRP and your inputs to the budget about dealing with the 

short-term readiness issues within the FYDP, are you developing 

a separate plan specifically to turn the readiness situation around, 

and how many years is it going to take and what the assumptions 

are? 

Admiral MULLOY. Ma’am, there is not another separate plan. We 

would be able to come over and talk about our real basis is OFRP. 

But then each area within NAVSEA [Naval Sea Systems Command] and NAVAIR have their long-term goals to get airplanes on 

the line or get the ships out. 

But the Navy readiness plan is based upon OFRP in all of our 

classes and getting those out there. There will not be a separate 

plan. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

Admiral MULLOY. We are eyeing on the readiness of the fleet to 

be just beyond this FYDP if we get the money expected in this next 

5-year plan. Those dollars, except for ordnance, which is going to 

take a while, which is a collective Army, Navy, Air Force item of 

building ordnance, we expect to have shortly outside the FYDP, if 

the funds are there, to be able to restore to full readiness for the 

number of ships we have to have to be responsive, not just to meet 

the deployment plans. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay, thanks. I want to, I only have a little bit 

of time left, but talk about aviation readiness. You know, I was a 

pilot myself. I am concerned about the push-pull factors. We are 
26 

seeing it in all the services. Airlines are hiring, our Active Duty pilots are not flying that much. I have seen media reports saying you 

had up to 30 percent turning down department heads. These are 

some of the leading indicators that you are going to start having 

a problem, Class A mishaps. Can you just speak about your concerns or our way ahead related to the pilot readiness? 

Admiral MULLOY. Yes, ma’am. As our vice chief talked here in 

a hearing with the entire committee a month and a half ago, we 

have not seen quite the same number as the Air Force. But clearly, 

there are leading indicators out there. 

As he pointed was, pilots also join, and I am a submariner, so 

I can’t tell you that, but I assume it was the same with you is, you 

are in this to fly to fly. We need to have the hours back and have 

the restoration of flying hours in the airplane so that pilots can. A 

commanding officer squadron who should have 12 airplanes typically does not get 12 airplanes until he goes to, as we call, Fallon, 

to start his pre-deployment training. 

We need to be able to bring that to the left to get the planes and 

get them the flying hours. That is why the readiness dollars are 

the most important. And we are very, very aware and looking at 

those indicators and very concerned. And the vice chief is an aviator and he personally is, day in and day out, working with the 

aviation enterprise on that one. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great, thanks. I am over my time. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Congresswoman McSally. 

And as an indication of how much we appreciate you being here 

today and your service, we will have a second round. 

And I share the concerns of Congressman Kelly and Congresswoman McSally about the Budget Control Act, sequestration of 

2013. How has the Navy adjusted to these irresponsible reductions? 

And can you provide, again, specific examples, such as number of 

ships, personnel? 

And each of you are invited to comment. 

Admiral MULLOY. Sir, I will start as an overarching one, being 

the arc between Department of the Navy budget officer, now the 

N–8. We laid in that $30 billion, which each year was a different 

number, which provides, as everyone has talked about, unpredictability, is, you don’t know the number until Congress—well, the sequester happened and we lost $13 billion. 

Each of the 4 years since has been a number rolls out from Congress for Department of Defense and there is a ripple down to the 

Navy. I will tell you, in the current 2017 budget, a year and 4 

months ago, in December of 2015, we had approximately 3 weeks 

to cut out $6.5 billion out of the Department of the Navy, $4.5 billion out of the Navy, of which $2 billion was out of readiness. 

So there is an example of, in the matter of 3 weeks, adjusting 

to a number that is now provided by Congress is that is your 2017, 

going in and then we will adjust it when we look on the Hill about 

what happens. 

We appreciate there is some stability. We actually had a number 

of items getting sequestered, but cutting $6.5 billion out of the Department of Navy in a matter of weeks causes some very hard 
27 

choices. That is one example compared to, you know, 2017 was basically slightly down. 

So where do we go on that one? And the Navy has been—we give 

a gold star to our shore guys. We have stressed shore because of 

the areas is shore has the longest term buildup to buy it back 

again, but it can also sustain compared to aircraft, submarines, 

which are the most sensitive to life and safety, surface ships, and 

then you build into shore. 

So when you have a 50-year life cycle on infrastructure, that is 

where you are going. So they were brought to the minimum possible. We looked at, in terms of aviation, maintaining what we had, 

but we also brought aircraft procurement down, we brought weapons procurement down. We slowed research and development. That 

would be like an 8 or 9 percent cut to the Navy, research and development would be cut by 8 or 9 percent, other procurement Navy. 

So you phase in and you put the critical lines in, like the SSBN 

replacement program. The strategic missile program, that did not 

get any cuts in research and development or other procurement 

and planning. So you protect certain areas that you have to protect, 

but the bottom line is you are in a difficult issue where everyone 

has to step up and each group in the Navy would come up with 

I have to come up with some shortfall or we basically apply shortfalls to them and then work through those interstitials. 

So then in the end was, since shipbuilding was an area that we 

are already going down, we were approaching 271 back then, we 

weren’t going to go any lower, so that is the one area in the budget 

that we said was the Navy has been through that cycle in the 

1990s, and in the 2000s, we also gave up ships and came down to 

four a year. What that got us is 41 submarines in my future. 

If you gave me a trillion dollars right now, I cannot restore the 

submarine force to the size it should be. If we don’t take action 

over the next 6 years, we will have a larger and deeper bathtub 

in large surface combatants than the submarine force had, because 

shipbuilding takes a while to build, so we did preserve it. 

Now, as we are looking now at this point at this juncture, Secretary Mattis has said readiness is the most important item; we 

are not growing more ships, but we are probably not going to cut 

any more either because that is a long-term investment. 

I would like to turn over to my two compatriots to talk about 

their areas. But as a global scale, that is how we balance, sir. 

Admiral CULLOM. Sir, I would add that, as we did that in FY 

2013, we went through the sequestration, it showed up in a number of different areas. And I was monitoring this as we went 

through it, and, frankly, warned about some of these things back 

a couple years ago. 

But, for instance, aircraft, and the FRCs, the backlog of aircraft 

that grew during that period of time was pretty significant, and the 

work in process that we had, we brought things, we inducted engines and airframes into the FRCs, and then we had to let them 

sit because of the furlough. 

We eventually have been chewing through those things. And as 

Admiral Mulloy mentioned, everyone paid at the bank, and the 

shore certainly paid because we could afford to take that risk at 

that time there with less potential near-term impact on it. 
28 

But additionally, even for the ships, the availabilities, and we 

talked about availabilities for ships and how those were impacted 

and the readiness of those ships that we have been using very 

hard, they didn’t get everything done. When we brought those 

availabilities back, they didn’t get a lot of things done that they 

should have gotten done. Well, that means that that next time they 

go in for that overhaul, that dry docking 8 years later, that is when 

the rest of that work has to be done. 

So that is part of the divots and the deficits that, to really get 

to reset, that we have had to go through. 

And then there is also a training deficit because we didn’t fly. 

Well, the pilots didn’t get their flight hours, and so that is a divot 

in their experience that we are trying to make up for as much as 

we can. And we owe it to them to do that if they are going to go 

out there on the pointy end of the spear. 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. And, Mr. Chairman, as Admiral Mulloy 

said about hard choices, and certainly the Reserve Component 

there have been some hard choices in terms of Reserve Component 

being a bill-payer in order to support the higher priorities and initiatives. I talked to most fleet commanders in the last 30 days and 

every one of them has asked the Reserve Component to do more 

or to sustain current operations. 

And currently, we are only meeting about 31 percent of the demand signal of those fleet commanders, so that has sort of been a 

rolled-up net effect on the operational Reserve support. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you. 

And, in fact, Admiral McCollum, I want to congratulate Task 

Force Marshall, which is training at Fort Jackson, and these are 

reservists who volunteer for ground duty around the world in combat zones, and it is a real reflection on the professionalism of the 

Navy Reserve. 

And my time is up, so I have got to proceed, of course, to Congresswoman Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral McCollum, I have a question that has to do with the Reserves. How is Active/Reserve integration facilitated to ensure that, 

as an operational Reserve, you are able to call upon your sailors 

to meet requirements where gaps exist? 

Now, I was concerned because I was reading your testimony, you 

mentioned that this Reserve force is often relegated to training and 

operating with obsolete equipment and they cannot succeed under 

current conditions. You also further stated they are often underserved by the lack of resources available to them. 

So my question to you is, where are we today under those circumstances and how is the morale? 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Congresswoman, thank you for that question. As we look at the demand signal that the Active Duty places 

upon us, we decide, do we have the capability, depending on what 

the specific demand is, to send trained and certified sailors to that 

specific location or to that unit? We are an integrated force, as I 

mentioned. 

Then we look at, what does it take for an individual to be trained 

and certified? Sometimes it is the predictability of when they go 

and it is on a glide slope that makes it very visible. And we ramp 
29 

up the training that goes to that sailor to be on a consistent level 

of readiness that, when they arrive, they are at their max readiness. 

Other times, there is the surge, the request to respond on short 

notice. That is where we feel pressure because to be able to do that 

we have to maintain our sailors at a level of readiness, whether it 

is qualifications in weapons, whether it is coxswains on small boats 

who are trained to do that, they have to have proficiency to be able 

to do that. And that level of readiness requires funding to generate 

that capability to be able to respond when needed. 

And you put these two components together, then we make 

choices to say we are not at a state to respond, and then the Active 

Component makes the decision to figure out how we can find more 

funds to generate that response. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And, Admiral, under those conditions, how is the 

morale then? 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Despite those conditions, ma’am—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. It is good? 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. I would say it is outstanding. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Good. 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. And like I mentioned earlier, the sailors are 

an inspiration. Sometimes it is near eye-watering to see them fight 

through the adversity of the strain of trying to achieve the level of 

readiness. But the morale is very high. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is good to hear. And hopefully the future is 

going to be much better. 

Admiral Mulloy, or no, it is for Admiral Cullom, I have a question. I understand that the Navy’s OFRP does not take the maintenance cycles of supply ships into consideration. Now, how do you 

coordinate and synchronize the repair needs of these ships in order 

to ensure that the Navy can call upon them at a moment’s notice? 

Admiral CULLOM. Yes, ma’am, thank you for the question. A part 

of the fleet response plan that we are working through is incorporating our auxiliary ships, all of the ships that are in the CLF 

[Combat Logistics Force] force into that process, so that they will 

deploy with the units, that they will train with the units that they 

will actually deploy with. And the maintenance will be a part of 

that. 

Now, the maintenance requirements for those ships is a bit different than it is for the USS [United States Ship] ships by virtue 

of sometimes the operations that those ships do, they are out at sea 

for over 200 days a year in many case. 

And also the nature of some of the newer ships that we are 

bringing into that auxiliary force, the EPFs [Expeditionary Fast 

Transports] for instance, those new joint, high-speed vessels, as we 

used to call them, because their maintenance cycle is a bit different 

because of the nature of the hull and the fact that they have to go 

in for a dry-docking period every year. 

So fundamentally, there is a little bit of a difference with regard 

to that, but we are incorporating those things in and that is a part 

that the fleet commanders are actively looking at with the Military 

Sealift Command. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have just one statement to make, not a question. 
30 

And that is for Admiral Mulloy. I stated in my opening state- ment about the FY 2017 NDAA passed in December included $9.5 

million to enhance the dry-docking capabilities in the Western Pacific. 

So again, it is a small amount of money that will help the Navy 

to repair America while maintaining a forward presence in the Pacific region. So I am hoping that the three of you will keep us in 

mind and help us out in this situation. I think it is very important. 

Admiral MULLOY. Yes, ma’am. As we discussed in your office, if 

it is in the authorization act, as we look at the appropriations, if 

we are not in a yearlong CR, we will honestly take a very hard look 

at the direction of Congress as we always do, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. And I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo. 

And indeed, as we conclude, this is a special time to thank Admiral Cullom, Admiral Mulloy for your service. You will be able to 

look back, you were part of victory in the Cold War, peace through 

strength. Tens of millions of people in dozens of countries today are 

free that were not when you began your service. 

And we have had an opportunity to see the Baltic republics of 

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, to Slovakia, to Bulgaria, to countries 

that Congresswoman Bordallo and I visited, and Uzbekistan and 

Kyrgyzstan, the ‘‘stans,’’ all of these now have opportunities for 

persons to have fulfilling lives, that simply did not exist and even 

an opportunity for reform in Russia itself, for the people there to 

ultimately establish a free market democracy. So congratulations 

on your service. 

And then, Admiral McCollum, we were grateful to have your wife 

Leanna here, so she has certainly added to your service. 

And again, military families, what an exciting time hopefully 

that, as Congresswoman Bordallo pointed out, can be made positive 

for our Navy personnel. 

With that, I want to conclude. And I want to thank Ms. Dean, 

Commander Dean, for her service. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 9:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 16, 2017 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 16, 2017 

(35) 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 16, 2017 

(49) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Admiral MULLOY, Admiral CULLOM, and Admiral MCCOLLUM. The Navy minimum 

standard for on-time accomplishment of organizational level planned maintenance, 

performed by the individual ship or shore command’s organic personnel, has been 

80 percent since program inception circa 1963. On-time accomplishment is one of 

many attributes used to assess the effectiveness of Navy commands’ planned maintenance programs. The standard was set at 80 percent in recognition of ship’s operations occasionally precluding planned maintenance accomplishment within its 

given periodicity, making 100 percent on-time accomplishment nearly impossible. 

The stated goal of Navy’s planned maintenance system is to complete all planned 

maintenance on time as operational conditions permit to maintain the fleet at the 

highest possible level of operational readiness and safety. [See page 9.] 

Æ