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 

20–061 2016

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–109] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING 

ON

THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 READINESS POSTURE 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 15, 2016 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York, Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

MARGARET DEAN, Professional Staff Member 

VICKIE PLUNKETT, Professional Staff Member 

KATHERINE REMBER, 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 

Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia, Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

McDew, Gen Darren W., Commander, USAF, United States Transportation 

Command .............................................................................................................. 2 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

McDew, Gen Darren W. ................................................................................... 22 

Wittman, Hon. Robert J. .................................................................................. 21 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Hunter ........................................................................................................ 43 

Mr. Wittman ..................................................................................................... 43 

(1) 

THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND FISCAL YEAR 

2017 READINESS POSTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 15, 2016. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert J. Wittman 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON READINESS 

Mr. WITTMAN. I will call to order the Subcommittee on Readiness 

of the House Armed Services Committee. 

I want to welcome everybody and thank you for being here today 

with us for the Readiness hearing on the U.S. Transportation Command [TRANSCOM] fiscal year 2017 readiness posture. 

This is the only hearing in front of this committee by 

TRANSCOM and it has been 2 years since we have had the opportunity for the Transportation Command to present its readiness 

posture. 

In the past 3 months, the services testified on increased readiness risks due to reduced investments in installation infrastructure, training, and equipment. Today I look forward to hearing how 

the Transportation Command’s budget request enables a readiness 

recovery plan and where we continue to take risk. 

I would like to welcome all of our members and our distinguished 

Air Force expert. This morning we have with us General Darren 

McDew, U.S. Air Force, Commander, United States Transportation 

Command, distinguished VMI [Virginia Military Institute] graduate. 

Thank you for testifying today. We look forward to your thoughts 

and insights on these important issues. The purpose of this hearing 

is to clarify Transportation Command’s posture to address readiness priorities, mitigation strategies, and to gather more detail on 

the current and future impacts of these decisions on operations and 

training. 

Once again, I want to thank our witness for participating in our 

hearing today, and I look forward to discussing these important 

topics. 

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

Bordallo, for any remarks that she might have upon her return 

from Guam. 
2 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 21.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE 

FROM GUAM, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

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

this hearing today and, General McDew, I welcome you and your 

entourage. 

I am glad that we are able to hold this meeting, and I thank you 

for being here and for your service to our Nation. 

Transportation Command as a functional combatant command 

plays an integral role in the central planning and the execution for 

the movement of our forces and their equipment. As the only command with operational requirements on each of the seven continents, TRANSCOM is asked to carry out land, sea, and air mobility missions around the world. It enables our military to project 

force in a timely and an efficient manner in response to both 

planned and unforeseen contingency operations. 

We have heard from several of the services and combatant commands [COCOMs] already this year about the funding unpredictability levied by sequestration and years of continuing resolutions 

[CRs]. So I hope that you help us better understand how these fiscal conditions have affected readiness within TRANSCOM, and 

where our committee in Congress, as a whole, can stop the damage 

and begin to repair our force. 

I thank you again for being here today, General, and we look forward to hearing from you. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. 

General McDew, we will go to you for your opening statement 

and want you to know, too, that your written statement will be entered into the record. 

STATEMENT OF GEN DARREN W. McDEW, COMMANDER, USAF, 

UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION COMMAND 

General MCDEW. Thank you, Chairman Wittman, and since you 

opened it up, a hearty, ‘‘Rah Virginia Mil!’’ 

Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Bordallo—I hope I didn’t 

butcher that, ma’am—and distinguished members of this committee, it is an honor to be with you today representing the men 

and women of the United States Transportation Command. I would 

like to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee and 

I would like to thank you for the unwavering support you give to 

the men and women who serve this mighty Nation. 

I value the time I get to speak to you, and I would like to start 

by highlighting a true American hero with whom I have had the 

pleasure to serve, my senior enlisted leader, Chief Master Sergeant 

William W. Turner. Bill enlisted in July of 1986 in Shelbyville, 

Tennessee, and after 30 years of faithful service, this impeccable 

leader, this airman, his wife, Stacey, and his children, Regan, 

Tyler, Haley, and Jacey, are retiring in May. It is a tough, tough 

thing for him to do. 
3 

Chief Turner is a true American hero who has served with distinction, participating in contingency operations around the globe, 

including nine deployments in support of Operations Enduring 

Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. He deserves all the respect and appreciation our Nation can possibly bestow and he is emblematic of 

those men and women I represent today. But Bill Turner will be 

sorely missed. And he stands right behind me. 

As I appear before you today, I assure you that those men and 

women that he represents in U.S. Transportation Command stand 

ready to deliver this Nation’s objectives anywhere at any time. I 

am in awe every day of what its members are capable of, and I am 

proud to serve next to them. 

I am confident our organization is ready to respond when our 

Nation calls. However, there are several trends that concern me. 

First, the current pace of today’s operations requires the full effort 

of our non-mobilized air refueling and airlift fleets. Should the need 

arise to respond elsewhere in the world, the mobility resources required could exceed existing capacity. 

Additionally, I am concerned about our ability to operate in increasingly contested environments, including the cyber domain 

where nearly 90 percent of our traffic flows on unclassified networks to and from our commercial providers. 

Finally, we must remain vigilant and meet the long-term recapitalization needs of tomorrow. Highest among these priorities are 

the development of a viable, strategic sealift recapitalization plan 

and the on-time delivery of the KC–46 Alpha. 

To address these concerns, I have established the following priorities for the command. Ensuring today’s readiness while advocating 

for tomorrow’s capabilities, advancing our cyber domain capabilities, evolving to remain relevant in tomorrow’s world, and championing an innovative workforce. These priorities balance today’s 

readiness while ensuring our focus remains clearly on the future. 

In closing, I am committed to working closely with Congress and 

the services to retain the flexibility we require while partnering in 

and out of DOD [Department of Defense] to ensure we are always 

ready to deliver the Nation’s objectives in time of need. 

Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Bordallo, and distinguished members of this committee, thank you again for your time 

and your support to U.S. Transportation Command and our total 

force, and I stand ready for your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General McDew can be found in the 

Appendix on page 22.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, General McDew. I appreciate your 

opening statement and your perspective on both the opportunities 

and challenges there before TRANSCOM. 

I want to begin by exploring the challenges that TRANSCOM 

faces in the cyber realm. And you spoke to those and that you were 

in the unique situation versus other COCOMs and even other elements of our Nation’s military and the interconnectivity between 

your systems and systems of the industry and systems of customers 

and how that has to be addressed, obviously, in today’s threat 

world. 

Give us your perspective on what, first of all, TRANSCOM is 

doing in addressing those threats. 
4 

And then secondly, what type of support are you getting from 

U.S. Cyber Command? And more specifically, do they understand 

the variety of threats that you face because of the uniqueness of 

your systems, and are they, number one, cognizant of that? And 

number two, are they allowing you the flexibility you need to make 

sure that you are properly defending TRANSCOM’s digital systems? 

General MCDEW. Thank you, Chairman. 

On the first, on what is U.S. Transportation Command doing, the 

cyber threat—I believe we are in our infancy as a nation in dealing 

with the cyber threat. All of us would probably agree that we 

couldn’t foretell where we would be today with a cyber threat 

versus where we were just 10 years ago. And I am concerned, as 

will all of us—where we will be 10 years from now. 

U.S. Transportation Command is doing an exceptional job of defending our own network and our enclave. As we talked earlier this 

morning, we have some great cyber professionals who won awards 

in how well we defend our network. 

On the periphery of that defense though lies 90 percent of what 

we do, which is on the unclassified commercial networks and outside of that we have commercial providers that are under attack 

every single day. So you might not necessarily have to attack my 

strong position inside USTRANSCOM, but go after someone who 

provides us a service. 

With that I am concerned about some definitions that we need 

to get after and that is when I defend my network, how far out can 

I defend? What constitutes an attack on a commercial provider? 

What do they have to report as an attack, because the definition 

may be not as clear with every single person. Those are just a few. 

Because of that I believe we are uniquely postured as U.S. 

Transportation Command to work both inside the military and outside with Homeland Security in bridging the gap between military 

capabilities and commercial capabilities. 

And that is where Cyber Command squarely fits. And Admiral 

Rogers and I, the Cyber commander, are tied at the hip. He fully 

understands our dilemma. His team is completely linked with ours 

and they are great supporters. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. I know that it certainly provides you 

a number of challenges that you must deal with and we want to 

make sure that Cyber Command is cognizant of those and is there 

to help you. I think yours is a unique situation and one that we 

want to make sure that you have the tools necessary to defend your 

systems as well as understanding where the threats are from your 

customers and also from the industry that you work with. 

Let me talk about the Maritime Security Program [MSP]. And I 

want to go to the Merchant Marine Act and the U.S. policy there 

states that the vessels of the Merchant Marine shall be operated 

by highly trained and efficient citizens in the United States. 

And I understand that as you implement the Maritime Security 

Program, there are about 60 ships there of the 78 total that are 

available to provide that sealift, to provide that ability for us to 

move things around as necessary to preposition supplies. All those 

things are extraordinary critical and I can go through the numbers 

of what was moved during the conflicts in the Middle East. And it 
5 

is mind-boggling what has been done there, the logistics of what 

you all have done both in Iraq and especially in Afghanistan with 

sometimes challenges to the lines of communication and trying to 

get our military hardware to ports in places like Karachi and others. 

A couple of questions that I have is concerning the MSP. To what 

extent are you looking at the program—not just today in the capability but what the program needs to provide in the future, understanding the challenges that the industry faces both with capacity 

that is in the ships but also capability and that is in the merchant 

mariners that run those ships? 

Give me your perspective on where you see us today but also 

what TRANSCOM needs to do to make sure the future is such that 

both the capacity and capability are there in necessary quantities 

to meet United States military needs. 

General MCDEW. Yes, Chairman. The Nation is still a maritime 

nation. And our reliance on the maritime force to deliver what we 

call a decisive force. I can deliver an immediate force anywhere on 

the planet tonight. But to deliver a decisive force it takes a fully 

fledged, competent, maritime fleet. And that is what the MSP provides us. 

And in the future of the program, in the number of ships and in 

mariners both are concerns. First with ships. The 60 ships of the 

78 is telling because we only have 78 in the entire international 

market for the United States—a maritime nation. That is, I believe, a challenge. We ought to have a dialogue about how important is a U.S. international fleet to the United States of America. 

I believe it is vital to moving military goods and hardware. 

And as you articulated quite well, we could not have done the 

last wars we had without that decisive force being delivered by our 

maritime partners. As a matter of fact as an airman, as a career 

airman it kind of daunts me to tell you that it is the maritime force 

that provides that decisive army to provide force around the world. 

And we are working very closely with the Department of the 

Navy to come up with a balanced program that will get after ship 

recapitalization and whether or not and how we recapitalize those 

ships and how long it will take. What we don’t want to do is take 

away from the building of other ships. And so we got to have some 

leverage. Is there a part of it that will be—maybe we buy some foreign-built ships to bridge the gap? Do we build new ships? All of 

it has to be factored in to what the U.S. Navy is doing as well. 

On the mariners—without mariners we don’t have a capability. 

And I believe that U.S. credentialed mariners is important too. So 

I have been visiting some of the maritime colleges to ensure that 

those young men and women understand how much we need them, 

how much we value their credentials they come out of college with 

and we need them to go to sea. And we need them to stay with us. 

And so it is important that we keep about 11,000 plus is what 

MARAD [U.S. Maritime Administration] tells me, mariners in the 

fleet. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. Well thanks for your perspective on 

where we are today but also what we need to do in the future and 

I agree with you, we need to have some soul-searching conversations about what—both capacity and capability we need to build for 
6 

the future. We know today it seems to be in somewhat a state of 

atrophy, and we need to make sure we are anticipating the needs 

in the future. 

So General McDew thank you so much. And Chief Turner thank 

you, thanks for your service to our Nation. Thanks for all that you 

have done. We wish you all the best in your retirement. Please give 

our best to your wonderful family. I know they sacrifice as you 

serve. Please thank them. We know that service to our Nation is 

indeed a family affair and we appreciate your stellar performance 

and your dedication to this Nation. Thank you. 

Now we will go to Ms. Bordallo. 

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

McDew, every service that has come before our committee has 

talked about the delicate balance between readiness and modernization in today’s atmosphere of fiscal constraint. 

What primary, secondary, or other affects have fiscal constraints 

put on TRANSCOM readiness, whether in terms of personnel or 

equipment? 

General MCDEW. Ms. Bordallo, the services have a daunting 

challenge. The first, which—our Secretary of Defense has laid out 

some priorities of what the challenges are that face this Nation. I 

would put at the top of the list—fiscal. 

The threat of sequestration threatens directly the services, which 

directly threatens every single—every single combatant command 

because we are organized, trained, and equipped by the services. 

We have great partnership with the services. But their ability to 

modernize and project that modernization forward and plan forward has been challenged by the up and down of the fiscal environment. I will put it that way. 

So going forward, we have got to provide a stable budget, then 

we work on the size of that budget. But a stable budget, a predictable budget, is very, very, very important. 

I am concerned that if they have to make tough choices, ma’am— 

honestly—a tough choice between a new aircraft carrier or a new 

sealift vessel—that is going to be an interesting challenge that will 

impact our ability to transport. 

They understand how important what we do here at the Transportation Command is, but they have to make some tough choices, 

and I don’t want to have to pit one against the other. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Your command, General, has experienced a decreased OPSTEMPO [operations tempo] from the height 

of the war in Afghanistan. Now if the demand for global transportation does continue to decline, how will the reduced workload affect overall readiness in TRANSCOM and will our forces benefit 

from increased time to recover in time or will the reduced contributions to the Transportation Working Capital Fund adversely affect 

readiness? 

General MCDEW. Yes and no. The decreased OPSTEMPO can’t 

be felt across the entire enterprise. I will tell you that we have 

some areas that are still hitting a high OPTEMPO and that is our 

tanker fleet. Our KC–135 and KC–10 refueling fleet is stressed at 

a point that—near bending. 
7 

And I am concerned our ability to flex that force to another region of the world if we needed to. So that is still at a very, very 

high OPTEMPO, as are some other smaller areas in the command. 

There have been a decrease of cargo flow throughout the enterprise and that has been documented. And I am concerned that we 

need to have enough cargo flow to ensure that our airlift industry, 

our gray-tailed—both gray-tail and gray-hulled fleet that we own 

inside the services, and our maritime fleet have enough business 

to keep the capacity we will need in the next conflict. 

Because as you know the world is more volatile and we are going 

to have a conflict somewhere and we just need to make sure we can 

have that capacity that we will need and I am concerned that too 

low a flow on the cargo will keep us from keeping that at capacity. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is right. All right and I have a third question. As we continue the Pacific rebalance strategy, what opportunities does this provide to broaden the skills and experience of our 

mobility force? Will the increase in transportation need throughout 

the Pacific provide any additional challenges to TRANSCOM? 

And lastly, does TRANSCOM foresee the need for any increased 

infrastructure or capabilities in the region to help facilitate transportation operations? 

General MCDEW. You earlier acknowledged that the fact that 

U.S. Transportation Command is a functional component command. I sometimes like to play with the words a little bit. We are 

a functional command, yes, but we have a global responsibility and 

global reach. And we are already in the Pacific. And we are working very closely with U.S. Pacific Command [USPACOM]. 

We know that there are challenges with distance and time in 

that region. We know that we have some volatile actors in that region so we are very, very closely aligned with USPACOM and what 

they are trying to do in the region. 

There are some challenges there but I believe the PACOM team 

is doing some amazing things in the region with partners and allies 

to give us bed-down options and access to ports. 

The challenges of cyber and the challenges of a malign actor forcing attrition upon us are sums that we have to continue to concern 

ourselves with but I will tell you, U.S. Transportation Command is 

already in the Pacific and we understand the region and our crews 

are ready to operate there. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I am pleased to hear that. Thank you. 

And I, too, would like to go on record as wishing Chief Turner 

the best in the future. Thank you for your service. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. 

And now I go to Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, thanks to you and your team for the outstanding work 

and service to our country. As you can tell probably from some of 

the questions from the chairman and ranking member that the 

Maritime Security Program is something on our minds, very keen 

that many of us are concerned that if we don’t pay attention to this 

program, not something that probably a lot of people in America 

know much about, probably don’t care much about. But if the 

wrong thing happens and some conflict breaks out and we don’t 
8 

have the proper infrastructure, we are in pretty serious—pretty serious problems. 

So you have talked a little bit about it, you have answered some 

of the chairman and the ranking member’s questions, but is there 

anything else you can suggest that we can do to ensure the health 

of the Maritime Security Program while right now not a lot of people are paying a lot of attention to it? 

General MCDEW. Congressman, I believe that MARAD, the 

MARAD administration probably summed up the Maritime Security Program and the interest in the fleet best when he refers to 

it as a three-legged stool. And there are three things that really 

can strengthen and underpin our maritime force. 

One is the stipend, the MSP that we are talking about. One is 

cargo preference, and we have seen some things over the last few 

years that have decreased the amount of cargo preference some of 

these industries have had. And the other is a robust international 

trade. 

The problem we have is, from my perspective, the only lever we 

have in the Department and inside of MARAD is the stipend. That 

is the only lever that we can actually control. And so right now 

that stipend of $3.1 million which we ought to look at increasing 

over time is keeping 60 ships of only 78 with us. And I am behind 

anything that further increases our ability to make sure that we 

have the capacity we need to go to war. 

And I think that is a leg of the stool that we have got to continue 

to keep an eye on. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo. 

And I go to Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, General, thank you 

for being here and your staff and to the Chief Master Sergeant, 

congrats. It is a good feeling when you know you are going to retire. This is my last year, too, so it is a good thing. 

And I think you hit on it particularly, you know, we talk about 

the rebalance to the Pacific but right now what is going on in Europe and we are looking at, you know, prepositioning forces there 

but trying to surge people there. You know, without maritime lift 

capacity, my sons that are all in the Army are going to be kind of 

hard-pressed just because you can’t put a Paladin or an Abrams— 

you can’t carry very many on an aircraft. But you sure as heck can 

on a ship. 

You mentioned 78 ships. What do you think the realistic—or 

what numbers should we really be striving to get to to be able to 

meet the surge command, you know, possibilities that we may have 

to face in the future? 

General MCDEW. You are right, Congressman Nugent. 

On the ability to provide that decisive force, your sons in the 

Army want ships to be able to do that. The 60 ships that we have 

in the Maritime Security Program provide us that ability to have 

capacity in the time of need. 

What we owe is a continual look at what those numbers look 

like, and we work with MARAD who really runs that program for 

us to see what the industry will allow and what portion of the industry we can have in the program. 
9 

Will we need all the ships in the program? Maybe not. But we 

need enough in the program to move those critical pieces of equipment. There are some that believe that we can rely on nations 

around the world to help us. And maybe we can, but history has 

shown us that—and the law tells us—that we must be able to move 

those critical components with our own indigenous forces. And so 

that is what the 60 gives us and I am willing to continue to work 

with MARAD and the services to ensure that we have what—the 

right capacity going forward. 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay, so you really didn’t answer the question. I 

am sorry, General, but I was trying to get at, what do you think 

the force should look at? I understand, you know, the 60 and the 

78, but where do you think we should be striving to get to as we 

look forward in regards for this committee and regards to appropriations in the future? 

General MCDEW. Sorry for—— 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay. 

General MCDEW [continuing]. Kind of skating a little. 

I don’t have an actual number in mind but the team right now 

is—we got—we have a mobility review coming up in the fall that 

will try to get after those numbers. I am concerned that we may 

need additional numbers only because we have had free movement 

through the oceans for the last few conflicts. We have not had to 

worry about attrition and we have not had to worry about access 

to ports and those threats that now can put the 60 ships in jeopardy. 

So 60, although provides the amount of capacity we will need, 

will also provide the insurance against attrition. 

Mr. NUGENT. Right. 

General MCDEW. And so those—that study—that exercise we are 

going to do in the fall is going to try to get after some of those 

numbers. I don’t have an actual number—— 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay, I appreciate your candor on that. 

We talk about sealift but then we also need to talk about the 

ability to get our troops into theater, and I know the Air Force has 

limited capacity and so we rely upon our civilian fleet to do that. 

My concern is that we are starting—correct me if I am wrong— 

that we have started to depend upon foreign aircraft or transportation for our troops and, you know, my kids have flown on a number of different service-provided aircraft to get to Afghanistan and 

to Iraq. 

Is that true that we are having to rely upon foreign aircraft carriers or aircraft? 

General MCDEW. I would never say never but we have a very robust Civil Reserve Air Fleet—— 

Mr. NUGENT. Right. 

General MCDEW [continuing]. That is U.S. air carriers. 

Mr. NUGENT. Right. 

General MCDEW. A very robust industry and we have been using 

them to the max extent possible. There are some probably subcontracts that may be going on out there inside of the CRAF [Civil 

Reserve Air Fleet] program—— 

Mr. NUGENT. Right. 
10 

General MCDEW [continuing]. That we may be using to augment 

that capability. But I don’t believe that there is any lack of capacity 

in our craft program right now that we ought to be concerned 

about. 

Mr. NUGENT. So is that a problem for us, so if they subcontract— 

if an American carrier subcontracts to a non-U.S. carrier that is 

not certified as CRAF. 

General MCDEW. They will not necessarily be certified as CRAF 

but they have their own certifications in order to be part of our program. In order to be used by that as a subcontractor, they have to 

meet certain criteria. I don’t have it off the top of my head right 

now but I am not concerned about the carriers that are being used 

in the system today. 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay, because I do—like I said, I have three sons 

that are in the military, in the Army, and I want to make sure that 

when they are transported—not my sons, alone—but all of our sons 

and daughters that get put in a theater that we make sure that 

their ride there is as risk-free as possible. So I appreciate it. 

General MCDEW. The vast majority is done—— 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay. 

General MCDEW [continuing]. On U.S. carriers as part of our 

CRAF program. And it is rare that we will use otherwise. And so 

I would have to look at those circumstances. 

Mr. NUGENT. I appreciate that, General, and Mr. Chairman, 

thank you very much. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nugent. 

Mrs. Hartzler. Okay, all right. 

General McDew, I wanted to drill down a little bit about some 

of the comments that you made talking about capacity, we talk 

about the 78 ships, 60 of which are obligated to TRANSCOM in the 

efforts that they have going forward. 

You spoke about the possibility if the need was there for the use 

of foreign ships. I want you to elaborate on that a little bit. Obviously, knowing that they would have to be manned by U.S. merchant mariners, citizens of the United States, and so I want to get 

your perspective on how MSP would work if you were to—I am assuming contract with foreign ships. 

Give us your perspective, too, on the Jones Act. There is many 

times there is discussion about the Jones Act, whether it should 

stay in place or whether it should not. I think the Jones Act has 

a tremendous amount of utility, especially in situations as we face 

potentially with capacity within our sealift ability. 

So give me your perspective there on foreign ships versus U.S.- 

flag ships, the Jones Act, and then how do you manage within that 

realm, again, merchant mariners with—to establish that capability? 

General MCDEW. I may have been a little unclear—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Sure. 

General MCDEW [continuing]. What I first transmitted. 

In the MSP it is all U.S. flag—U.S. crewed ships. I posited that 

we ought to have a conversation as a country about whether or not 

we believe that is the way to go forward. I am not advocating. But 

if we don’t keep an eye on our capability and our capacity, we may 

find ourselves there by default. And I am not advocating that ei-
11 

ther. But I mentioned that as something we ought to be concerned 

about as a nation—a maritime nation. 

So thank you for letting me clarify that a little bit. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Sure. 

General MCDEW. I am not advocating—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Got you. 

General MCDEW [continuing]. That at all. 

I am advocating potentially as a bridge to capacity and the ships 

that we have in some of our gray-hull fleet and how we recapitalize 

some of those ships is—maybe we can have some foreign-built capacity in those ships as we work—these are the ones we keep in 

reserve, our Ready Reserve Force. Can we have foreign-built ships? 

The stipend, as we have talked about before, provides our maritime industry a little bit of defraying of the cost of the difference 

between what it costs to run a U.S. flag organization versus a foreign flag. And the numbers that MARAD tells me recently—I don’t 

want to be completely quoted—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Sure. 

General MCDEW [continuing]. But the $3.1 [million] just defrays 

the cost of that difference, it doesn’t cover the cost of that difference. And some would say that that difference is upwards of $5 

million today. And it may be going up to $6 million, $7 million, $8 

million in the out-years, that difference in costs. 

And so that is where the true conversation about MSP and the 

stipend gets to. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well, thanks for clarifying that because I do think 

it is a discussion we need to have concerning how do we make sure 

we have that capacity. How do we make sure too that we have the 

capacity going in the future, obviously—aging fleet, as you spoke 

of the capability there to make sure we have U.S. merchant mariners to man those ships. I think it is extraordinarily important, so 

definitely an issue we have to talk about. 

We put a lot of focus now on amphibious lift, sealift as an important component—in fact there is an element of amphibious lift that 

is indeed a sealift component, although it is a military ship, per se, 

it assumes the same role as a sealift ship would be in prepositioning supplies and making sure that we can move things in the right 

way in the timely ways that we need to. 

So I agree, I think that your perspective there is extraordinarily 

important and one that we need to address on the House Armed 

Services Committee. 

Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you Mr. Chairman. General McDew, question for you. 

TRANSCOM recently released the CRAF Report in response to 

the fiscal year 2016 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act]. 

Can you relate how TRANSCOM engaged with industry in developing the inputs in this report to Congress? And was there agreement generally or are there still areas of disagreement? 

General MCDEW. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about 

that a little bit, the CRAF report. 

If I may step back just a second and talk about the industry, I 

believe that U.S. Transportation Command and our international, 

our commercial aircraft industry in this country have a good rela-
12 

tionship. There is no universal agreement in that industry about 

anything. 

However, I believe—I am being a bit facetious, but if you get 20- 

some-odd carriers in a room you may get a little bit of disagreement. So I don’t believe we have universal agreement but I think 

we have good agreement that the report addresses their concerns. 

I think that we can always improve communication. The disagreement we had going into—that caused us to have to do the report in the first place, I think, was purely a lack of communication, 

a lack of understanding about terms. 

In the report, we talk about block hours, and that is what the 

commercial industry uses to do their training, do a lot of the financing—we don’t typically use that term in our business. So we 

may have been talking past each other when we talk about readiness of that fleet compared to the readiness of our Air Force fleet 

and the fleets we use. 

So we did engage heavily with industry, we let them see the advance reports, which I think upset a few. We then changed the report and modified it to address some of their concerns. And I believe the final report we included letters from many of the carriers. 

A couple of them still disagree with what is in the report but many 

of them are supportive. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well thank you. That is good news. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. We will now go to Mrs. 

Hartzler. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you Mr. Chairman. General, it is nice to 

meet you. I feel like fellow neighbor, here, being from Missouri, and 

appreciate what you do. Of course we are very proud of Rosecrans 

there, and the C–130s and the airlift they provide there. I hope 

some day to get over and see your base personally and tour it. But 

appreciate what you do. 

I guess my question is, as it relates to the planned Air Mobility 

Command airlift force structure, what is your greatest concern in 

providing airlift capabilities to support the Defense Strategic Guidance and contingency operations to other combatant commanders? 

General MCDEW. First, you are welcome to visit anytime. I have 

had a chance to go to Rosecrans on a number of occasions. The 

amount of training, the professionalism, and what they bring back 

to—particularly the C–130 fleet—is remarkable. There have been 

many folks that have said that the training they have gotten there 

is the best training they have ever received in their entire careers. 

So please come out and visit us in the cornfields of Illinois anytime. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. I will pass that on. Thank you. 

General MCDEW. The Air Mobility Command force structure is of 

concern in a couple of regards, and I am a little bit removed from 

my last job as Air Mobility Command commander, but the capacity 

for the C–17, which has been a remarkable weapons system, the 

C–130, but more importantly I believe the tanker refueling fleet is 

where our greatest need is. 

That airplane is 50-plus years old, the KC–135. It was old when 

I flew it, three decades ago, so it is a bit older now. We will be flying it for several more decades. We built 700 of those airplanes be-
13 

tween 1957 and 1964. It is going to take us till the mid- to late1920s to build the next 179. So that recapitalization effort must 

stay on track, and at the rate they are doing it we are going to 

have to fly the current fleet of KC–135s 30 more years. So that is 

a potential problem. 

On the airlift fleet, I believe that our capacity is adequate, and 

we are just below what we need in capacity-wise by about a few 

airplanes. The Air Force is partnering with us to buy back some 

additional airplanes that they put in backup inventory, to bring 

them back to active inventory. We believe that will get us back to 

the numbers we think we will need in most contingencies. 

Of course as an aviator and a commander I can use as many as 

I can get my hands on, but I think that capacity will be sufficient 

with a manageable amount of risk. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. It is very, very important, what you do to support the other aircraft and the missions being carried out. How has 

sequestration and future defense budget uncertainty affected 

MSC’s [Military Sealift Command’s] commercial partners if they 

are needed for a contingency or surge? 

General MCDEW. I believe sequestration impacts all of us. The 

biggest concern for sequestration is on, for me, it does impact MSC, 

it does impact most of our command, but mostly because it impacts 

the services. We rely on the services to organize, train, and equip 

the forces that we will need, all the combatant commanders will 

need in time of war. 

Anything that provides the services with unpredictable budgets, 

anything that decreases their ability to modernize, decreases their 

ability to plan for a new C–17 replacement, to keep the KC–46 on 

track, any of those things adversely impacts not only me, but then 

through me all of the combatant commands. So sequestration is not 

our friend. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Absolutely. I am a member of the Budget Committee as well as, and we are working very hard to try to make 

sure that you have what you need and that we make sure and replace the defense cuts that were scheduled a few years ago. 

Thank you very much for your service. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Hartzler. 

Now we will go to Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And General, thank you very much for your leadership. Congratulations and thank you for your service, sacrifices of your family, and I also see your hardworking staff behind you, and I appreciate them as well. 

A couple of questions in terms of this budget. I’m interested to 

know the commitment from the command in terms of revitalizing 

the Global Response Force [GRF], and then if you could also talk 

to the European Reassurance Initiative, concerns you have with regard to your command’s responsibilities thereof. 

General MCDEW. I just have to scramble to write because I have 

no memory any more. First note, hardworking staff, they are more 

than hardworking, they are brilliant, and they underpin anything 

I am able to do. There are some great men and women at U.S. 

Transportation Command that underpin, I think, the power of this 
14 

Nation and I always will take an opportunity to brag about them 

when I get a chance. So thank you. 

Revitalizing the Global Response Force—it is something that concerns me because I have told my other combatant commander 

friends, whatever they do is what we do. And how they do it, how 

they plan for it, impacts what we can help them with. 

If they go into a cloak-filled room to provide a Global Response 

Force but can’t make sure it is transportation feasible, then we 

don’t have a Global Response Force. Our ability to project an immediate force tonight and a decisive force tomorrow is underpinned in 

the cornfields of Illinois, in this country. 

I think all of them understand that, and we are working very 

closely with each and every one of them to do it, including my 

friend at European Command [EUCOM]. That initiative is going to 

be transportation-heavy to be able to move back and forth the 

forces we will need to provide reassurance to our allies and we are 

ready to do it. 

I think we will also provide some cargo capacity to keep capacity 

in our maritime fleet, which is also important to this Nation. 

Mr. GIBSON. Just to follow up, in terms of the rotating armored 

brigade combat team, do you feel you have good numbers now in 

terms of what impact that is gonna be, how that is gonna affect 

your ability to accomplish your worldwide mission in view of this 

new requirement? 

General MCDEW. I don’t believe we have all of the numbers that 

we will need until we fully understand the size, scope, and periodicity of those rotations. I do believe we have the capacity to take 

care of it and the rest of the world but it depends on what the rest 

of the world looks like. If the rest of the world stays relatively 

calm, and we are not putting large troop rotations through another 

region of the world, yes. If we have the capacity we have right now 

in the Middle East and we had to swing to another massive thing 

while doing those troop rotations we would just have to make sure 

that we time it appropriately and see where we might assume 

some risk with some limited assets. 

The first one that will come to be a limiting factor is our air refueling fleet. That fleet will be a lim fac [limiting factor] very, very 

quickly if we are swinging from one region of the world to the 

other, because we are using it so heavily right now in the Central 

Command [CENTCOM] region. 

Mr. GIBSON. I am not surprised. I expected that and I appreciate 

the comment very much. I think that is really where the risk is. 

I support where we are heading on this. I think it is important for 

the reassurance, but when you consider the other requirements 

that we have from the other combatant commanders, and the uncertain environment, the volatile and uncertain environment, I am 

concerned as far as commitments we are making, and then if we 

should have to do something in the Pacific that is rather significant, would we still be able to accomplish our reassurance in Europe. 

Some of this we probably don’t want to go into now, it would 

rather be classified, but just know that this committee from a readiness standpoint, that is one of the issue areas and concerns we 
15 

have and so we very much look to you and your staff to give that 

fine-point analysis on this going forward. 

Anything else, sir, that you wanted to mention? 

General MCDEW. No, it is something that my staff back at Scott 

[Air Force Base] works on almost daily. We are in constant contact 

with each of the combatant commands. We have asked, though, 

that we look at some of the timing to ensure that we don’t try to 

put all of it out all at once. If we can smooth flow it out and at 

least be as predictable as we can, I believe that we can accomplish 

most of what the European Reassurance Initiative will get for us 

and still underpin the deployments around the world. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you very much, General. 

And with that, Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibson. 

Why don’t I go to Mr. Peters. 

Okay, thank you. 

General, I wanted to talk a little bit about the DP3 [Defense Personal Property] program as we had spoken at a little bit earlier. 

I know the transition from the previous contractor to the new 

contractor didn’t get off on the best foot. We got a lot of calls, as 

well as others, about personal property and the timeliness of it getting back stateside or even getting to forward-deployed areas wherever those folks may be. 

Can you give us an up-to-date perspective on where the DP3 program is now with current carrier, the timeliness, the performance 

standards that are required on the contract, and how this contractor is performing? 

General MCDEW. Our global privately owned vehicle contract, the 

GPC–3, was something that I had to learn quickly about when I 

took command of U.S. Transportation Command because as I tell 

my staff—you move goods and services for the military all the time 

but when you move a family, that is something that really is extremely emotional and we all understand it because we all have 

families who have moved around the world. 

And so this particular contract did not get off to a good start. But 

the movement from a vendor who had it for 15 years, transitioning 

to a new one is always going to have some challenges. But there 

was also a period of time where the new contractor wasn’t allowed 

to get started because of a protest. So that further hampered their 

ability. 

And there is no other way to describe it but abysmal is how it 

started. 

But last year, this contractor moved 72,000-plus vehicles. They 

had four quarters of work. Their lowest quarter of on-time delivery 

was 86 percent. They had two quarters above 99 percent. I believe 

they have turned the corner. 

I have challenged my staff to say one day we will recompete this 

contract. We don’t want to have this happen again. So we are—I 

am taking a briefing every single peak season, I will take a briefing. We should never be surprised that the peak season for moving 

people is the summertime. And surprisingly, Christmas happens on 

the 25th of December. We shouldn’t be shocked by that at any time 

in the future. And I don’t think we will be. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, General McDew. 
16 

Are there any other questions? Mr. Peters. 

Mr. PETERS. I want to thank you, General. I apologize. They 

scheduled two hearings at the same time for me so I am trying to 

run between both. 

And what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, if it is all right, I 

have a couple questions having to do with strategic ports and the 

use of them that I will submit for the record. And I appreciate, Mr. 

Chairman, your having this hearing. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Peters. We will gladly do that. 

Any other questions that you might have, General McDew will 

submit them for the record, and as well as any other committee 

members. 

So if there are no further questions before this hearing, I will adjourn. 

General McDew, thank you very much. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 15, 2016 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 15, 2016 

(21) 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 15, 2016 

(43) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN 

Mr. WITTMAN. Do you agree that the 60 Maritime Security Program ships provide 

USTRANSCOM with assured access to an effective, national defense sealift capability? 

General MCDEW. Yes, the capacity and vast intermodal capabilities offered by 

Maritime Security Program (MSP), and assured through our Voluntary Intermodal 

Sealift Agreement Contingency Contracts, enable USTRANSCOM to project and 

sustain forces across the globe and meet the most demanding wartime requirements. The MSP ships provide approximately 20% of our entire force projection capacity and almost all of our sustainment capacity. Additionally, MSP provides over 

2,400 mariners that contribute to the current pool of 11,280 mariners that presently 

crew both the government-owned and commercial ships. 

Mr. WITTMAN. If the Maritime Security Program’s effectiveness is minimized and 

U.S. flag is reduced, what would be the impact on our military’s ability to fully activate, deploy and sustain forces? 

General MCDEW. Reductions to the number of vessels participating in Maritime 

Security Program (MSP) would result in USTRANSCOM’s inability to fully activate, 

deploy and sustain forces across the globe. The pool of U.S. mariners need to crew 

the U.S. flag commercial fleet as well as the government-owned surge fleet is at a 

point where additional vessel losses will jeopardize our ability to project power to 

meet wartime requirements. 

Today there are 78 U.S. flag ships trading internationally of which 60 participate 

in the MSP program and receive a stipend to offset the cost of operating a U.S. flag 

vessel. Reductions to government impelled and commercial cargo would likely result 

in losses to MSP vessels and other U.S. flag ships trading internationally. These reductions would further degrade USTRANSCOM’s ability to crew the surge fleet 

upon activation. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HUNTER 

Mr. HUNTER. I reviewed with great interest the report prepared by the U.S. 

Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) in response to section 1085 of the FY 2016 

NDAA (hereinafter, ‘‘the Report’’). The purpose of the Report is to foster a data-driven process for determining the level of peacetime airlift augmentation necessary to 

ensure CRAF readiness and interoperability. I recognize that TRANSCOM currently 

projects relatively high levels of CRAF airlift augmentation due to current world 

events, but we have seen CRAF augmentation fluctuate in the past (e.g., following 

the post-OIF/OEF drawdown). Would you agree that it is important for TRANSCOM 

to develop a systematic process for determining the level of airlift augmentation necessary to maintain CRAF readiness and interoperability? 

General MCDEW. CRAF is an exceptionally important part of the National Defense transportation capacity. We depend on our CRAF partners to routinely augment airlift especially if we need to mobilize for war. We agree that it is important 

that USTRANSCOM maintains a systematic process to ensure CRAF carriers are 

able to operate within the military airlift system. We believe USTRANSCOM’s current plans and our forecasted workload over the next several years will be sufficient 

to maintain interoperability throughout the airlift system. 

USTRANSCOM defines CRAF readiness and interoperability as the ability for 

CRAF carriers to operate within the military airlift system. In the Report, USTRANSCOM, using a systematic process, defined the minimum level of airlift augmentation as a combination of flying, and particularly ground activities, which preserve CRAF readiness and interoperability. 

USTRANSCOM previously employed, and continues to employ, a systematic process for determining the level of commercial airlift augmentation, as required by the 

National Airlift Policy, which it shares during executive engagements with industry 

throughout the year, and which was affirmed by the CRAF Study, Phase II Report, 

in 2014. 

Mr. HUNTER. I was struck by the Report’s assertions that: (i) ‘‘ground activities 

and engagements,’’ such as board meetings and industry group gatherings, are suffi-
44 

cient to maintain interoperability between CRAF carriers and the military airlift 

system; and (ii) that there is ‘‘little correlation between hours flown by CRAF participants on DOD missions and their ability to operate within DOD networks.’’ The 

National Airlift Policy, signed by President Reagan and still in force today, requires 

DOD to ‘‘establish appropriate levels for peacetime cargo airlift augmentation in 

order to promote the effectiveness of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet and provide training within the military airlift system.’’ Please explain how TRANSCOM’s reliance 

on ground activities is consistent with the National Airlift Policy’s directive to ensure CRAF readiness and interoperability by ‘‘establish[ing] appropriate levels for 

peacetime cargo airlift augmentation’’? 

General MCDEW. USTRANSCOM defines CRAF readiness and interoperability as 

the ability for CRAF carriers to operate within the military airlift system. This includes the ability of the carriers to successfully interface with DOD’s command and 

control activities as well as the ability of commercial crews to safely operate at military airfields. In the report, USTRANSCOM, using a systematic process, established 

an appropriate level of airlift augmentation which accounted for the military airlift 

system training provided by ground activities. 

Ground activities and engagements alone are not sufficient to ensure readiness 

and interoperability. It also requires an appropriate number of touch points between 

commercial aircraft and military aerial port personnel which occur when CRAF participants operate DOD missions. However, it is the number of these touch points 

versus the number of hours flown that are important when determining the minimum level of airlift augmentation required to meet National Airlift Policy objectives. For example, a greater contribution to CRAF readiness and interoperability 

is achieved by two CRAF cargo flights originating at Dover AFB and flying five 

hours to Keflavik, Iceland, than a single flight flying 20 hours to Al Udeid AB, 

Qatar. Although the ‘‘block hours’’ are half as much for the two flights to Keflavik, 

arguably twice as much experience is gained by both DOD and the carriers on those 

two flights compared to the single flight to Al Udeid. The National Airlift Policy requires the DOD to (1) promote the effectiveness of the CRAF and (2) provide training within the military airlift system. USTRANSCOM accomplishes the first task 

via CRAF/commercial augmentation contracts and accomplishes the second task 

through systemic ground-based activities/engagements and aerial port touch points. 

Mr. HUNTER. All DOD assets (e.g., aircraft, ground vehicles, ships, submarines, 

and weapons) are required to be exercised within a military operating environment. 

The Report suggests that CRAF is an exception because pilots are already routinely 

flying in commercial activities. Would you agree that strategic airlift readiness requires exercising the entire network and enterprise (including military ground personnel), not just pilots? If so, how does TRANSCOM ensure the readiness and interoperability of the entire network with such low levels of peacetime airlift augmentation? 

General MCDEW. USTRANSCOM ensures the readiness of CRAF participants 

with respect to interoperability within the military airlift system in accordance with 

the guidance in the NAP. There is a corresponding spectrum of activities and engagements that provide the touch points necessary for CRAF participants to successfully operate within DOD networks. These include a minimum level of commercial aircraft activity at AMC aerial ports, certifications and CRAF participant inspections, table-top CRAF activation exercises and key leader interfacing between 

the military and industry at various echelons. 

USTRANSCOM’s assessment determined there is little correlation between increased hours known by CRAF participants on DOD missions and their ability to 

operate within DOD networks. Pilot seasoning is a responsibility of the airline and 

a prerequisite for participation in the CRAF program. Interoperability between carriers and the military airlift system is a function of aerial port activity, exercises, 

inspections, and interface at various echelons. 

Æ