U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

86–971 2014

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–81] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

THE POSTURE OF THE U.S. SPECIAL 

OPERATIONS COMMAND AND 

U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California, Chairman 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

PETER VILLANO, Professional Staff Member 

MICHAEL CASEY, Professional Staff Member 

JULIE HERBERT, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2014 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, February 27, 2014, The Posture of the U.S. Special Operations 

Command and U.S. Transportation Command ................................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, February 27, 2014 ................................................................................. 43 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

THE POSTURE OF THE U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND AND 

U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative from California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services .................................................................. 1 

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Fraser, Gen William M., III, USAF, Commander, U.S. Transportation Command ..................................................................................................................... 5 

McRaven, ADM William H., USN, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command ..................................................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Fraser, Gen William M., III ............................................................................. 61 

McRaven, ADM William H. ............................................................................. 47 

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. Bridenstine ................................................................................................. 97 

Mr. Garamendi ................................................................................................. 92 

Ms. Hanabusa ................................................................................................... 92 

Mr. Hunter ........................................................................................................ 93 

Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 91 

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... 93 

Mr. Peters ......................................................................................................... 95 

Mr. Runyan ....................................................................................................... 94 

(1) 

THE POSTURE OF THE U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS 

COMMAND AND U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Thursday, February 27, 2014. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 

Good morning. 

The committee meets today to receive testimony on the posture 

of U.S. Special Operations Command [USSOCOM] and U.S. Transportation Command [USTRANSCOM]. 

Today we have with us Admiral William H. McRaven, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, and General William 

M. Fraser III, Commander, U.S. Transportation Command. 

Thank you both for your many years of service and for joining 

us here today. 

With the budget release delayed until next week, we are at a disadvantage in discussing the details of the budget and whether your 

priorities and requirements are addressed therein. To this end, I 

have requested a list of unfunded requirements from each of your 

commands. However, I would imagine that you can discuss the implications of the key decisions that Secretary Hagel unveiled in his 

budget preview on Monday. 

It is clear that continued cuts to defense are driving cuts in personnel, readiness, and modernization. These have real consequences in your areas of responsibility that I hope you will discuss here with us today. 

SOCOM continues to play a critical role in the areas of 

counterterrorism, unconventional warfare, and countering weapons 

of mass destruction. However, I am concerned the cuts to defense 

across each of the services may doubly impact our special operations forces as most special operations require critical conventional force assistance. To draw down one inevitably hurts the 

other. 

U.S. Transportation Command is a critical enabler, executing the 

logistical requirements for ongoing U.S. military efforts across the 

globe for the movement of cargo as well as personnel. The challenges TRANSCOM faces continue to grow as retrograde from Afghanistan continues and the military rebalances to the Asia- 
2 

Pacific. We must remain ready to respond to contingencies elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa. 

In light of persisting budget constraints, the military is challenged to maintain its readiness posture, being forced to shed force 

structure, curtail flying hours, and return ships to port, reducing 

the availability of every lift capability upon which TRANSCOM 

relies. 

In short, SOCOM and TRANSCOM continue to execute vital 

military missions across the globe. 

Gentlemen, I look forward to your testimony. We are extremely 

grateful, as I said, for your service to our Nation. 

I also want to congratulate General Fraser on his upcoming retirement, what will have been more than 40 years of dedicated 

service to our Nation. 

We were just talking in the other room. I asked him what he was 

going to do on his retirement and he said, ‘‘Well, I am going to 

move into a new home.’’ And his wife is down there today receiving 

the furniture, while he is sitting here carrying out his duties. She 

once again has to sacrifice on behalf of our Nation. And thank you, 

thank you very much. 

Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome to our two distinguished guests, Admiral McRaven 

and General Fraser. It is good to see you. 

General Fraser, I share the chairman’s remarks and congratulate 

you on a tremendous career in great service to your country, and 

wish you well in your retirement. 

And you are in charge of two of the more critical commands that 

make our military work. Certainly, TRANSCOM has performed 

some just unbelievable feats over the course of both the Iraq and 

Afghanistan war, and with all the challenges that come with moving the men and equipment and everything that goes into making 

sure that our warfighters have what they need, when they need it, 

in some very difficult environments where, you know, the typical 

areas where you could transport shifted, depending on our alliances 

and how we were doing with various countries. 

Every time I am in Afghanistan, I am overwhelmed by the job 

that you do. Last time we were there, they were showing us an 

area where we were sort of pulling all the stuff out, and all the 

stuff that was involved there, and the logistical challenge of getting 

it out in a responsible and an efficient way. I think you are doing 

a tremendous job. 

You know, one of the things we will really be interested in hearing from you this morning, of course, is as we go forward in Afghanistan, that the great unanswered question is: Do we get a bilateral security agreement [BSA]? And if so, when? And how does 

that affect our ability to pull out of Afghanistan responsibly? 

You know, are we in a position to wait until July or August to 

get that BSA signed and still be able to, if it doesn’t get signed, 

make the transportation and the movements that are necessary to 
3 

get our troops and equipment out. So I would be very interested 

in that piece. 

And Admiral McRaven, I think some of the most fun I have had 

in Congress was when I got to chair the subcommittee that had jurisdiction over the Special Operations Command. What you guys 

are able to accomplish and do is truly remarkable and amazing. It 

is an incredibly talented group of people that you work with and 

I know you know that. 

It is not just, you know, what we see in the movies and everything. You know, obviously, getting Bin Laden was, you know, 

right at the top of the list. But what I see every day is the understanding that the special operators have of what it truly means to 

secure a dangerous place: that it is not just a matter of killing the 

bad guys. It is learning how to prepare the environment so that the 

good guys are in a better position. It is training and equipping our 

allies and our partners. You know, it is building up the necessary 

infrastructure so that the government has the support it needs. 

You know, there is a wealth of skill in the Special Operations 

Command that is just, you know, the great pride of our Nation. 

And as we go forward, you know, that is going to be a critical piece 

of the fight. When you look at the biggest challenge we face right 

now is, I believe, the metastasization of Al Qaeda and their ideology. They are no longer conveniently in one or two places plotting 

and planning against us where we can target them. That ideology 

has spread. 

Will we face threats to the homeland from places like Syria, 

where new Al Qaeda affiliates are growing? Or Iraq, where they 

are back? Or Mali? It is hard to say. And the ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] that SOCOM is able to provide and 

the ability to give us that analysis of what the threat environment 

looks like is going to be critical—that asymmetrical warfare is 

going to be the number one thing we need to protect ourselves. 

I am pleased that SOCOM, you know, continues to do relatively 

well in the budget. I say ‘‘relatively well’’ because I will close by 

echoing the chairman’s comments, you know, that our greatest 

challenge remains the budget uncertainty. And it is great that we 

have got, you know, sort of 2 years of relative peace. Those are still 

a tough 2 years. 

The top-line number is not what I think anyone on this committee would like it to be. We have to live within it, but the truly 

scary fact is that top-line number may look like a walk in the park 

compared to 8 more years of sequestration if we don’t do something 

about it. 

And I really want to emphasize that point for members of the 

committee. I think there is a certain sort of sigh of relief over the 

budget agreement. That is only 2 years. If we don’t do something 

to deal with sequestration, the impact on our national security, I 

believe, will be devastating. And it is not that I don’t think the Defense Department can take cuts. They can, but sequestration is 

going beyond taking cuts and doing deep, deep, devastating cuts. 

And all I will say is, you know, there is no cause for optimism 

about our likelihood of dealing with sequestration. In fact, just 2 

weeks ago, we actually added an eighth year of sequestration to try 

to pay for the short-term concern over the COLA [cost-of-living ad-
4 

justment] cut for military retirees. I voted against that. I think it 

was a terrible choice to put another year on top of sequestration. 

But that is where we are at politically. 

So, I will urge my colleagues to take a long, hard look at sequestration if you are concerned about our national security. You know, 

every time one of these budget items comes up in the next couple 

of months, where you say, ‘‘Gosh, we can’t cut, you know, pay and 

benefits for our military; we can’t cut the Guard; we can’t cut the 

A–10; we can’t cut 12 cruisers’’—11 cruisers, sorry. 

Every time you say that, I hope that what you will do is you will 

go back and say, ‘‘You know what we have got to do? We have got 

to get rid of sequestration so that we can have the budget that we 

need.’’ 

With that, I yield back. And again, I thank our witnesses for 

being here and for their service. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Admiral McRaven. 

STATEMENT OF ADM WILLIAM H. MCRAVEN, USN, 

COMMANDER, U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Well, good morning. Chairman McKeon, 

Ranking Member Smith, distinguished members of the committee, 

thank you again for giving me the opportunity to address you 

today, the third time in my tenure as the commander of the U.S. 

Special Operations Command. 

I would also like to recognize my good friend Will Fraser for the 

tremendous work he has done as the commander of Transportation 

Command. There is an old saying in the military that amateurs 

talk tactics and professionals talk logistics. I can guarantee you 

that without the incredible support all the warfighters receive from 

TRANSCOM, none of us, absolutely none of us would be able to 

complete the missions needed for the safety and security of this nation. Will, it has been my honor to have served with you, and I do 

look forward to seeing you in Texas soon. 

General FRASER. Thank you. 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say that since 

my last posture hearing SOCOM has made great strides in dealing 

with the current conflicts, preparing for the future conflicts, and 

most importantly, taking care of our people. None of this would 

have been possible without the support we receive from this committee, and I am indeed grateful. 

SOCOM continues to provide the world’s finest warriors to the 

fight in Afghanistan. As we approach the end of 2014, your special 

operations forces will be ready to adjust to whatever decisions are 

made regarding our future employment in that country. 

Globally, we are developing plans to better serve the geographic 

combatant commanders who, owing to the past 12 years of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, have gone under-resourced with 

special operations forces [SOF]. 

SOCOM is the Department of Defense’s [DOD] synchronizer for 

the planning on the war on terrorism. It is also working hard to 

help better coordinate our activities locally, regionally, and globally, with both the geographic combatant commanders and the U.S. 

ambassadors. 
5 

I believe the future of special operations will be in helping to 

build partner capacity with those willing nations who share our interests. This will mean strengthening our existing allied relationships and building new ones. No nation alone can stem the rise of 

extremism. We need our friends and allies more now than ever before. 

Our future as a special operations force is also inextricably 

linked to the general purpose force in the interagency. The past 12 

years have shown us that a whole-of-government effort is required 

to be successful, and in special operations, we have always known 

that without our fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, we 

are destined to fail. 

Finally, with the help of this committee, we have gone to great 

lengths to take care of our most precious resource: our people. The 

Preservation of the Force and Families, or the POTFF, has already 

seen a marked improvement in the morale and the well-being of 

those who serve in SOF. While we still suffer from the tragedy of 

high suicide rates, I believe that we have laid the foundation for 

keeping our force and their families strong and resilient into the 

future. 

Once again, thank you for your interests, and your unwavering 

support for the men and women in the special operations community. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral McRaven can be found in 

the Appendix on page 47.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. General. 

STATEMENT OF GEN WILLIAM M. FRASER III, USAF, 

COMMANDER, U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND 

General FRASER. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, 

and distinguished members of this committee, it is indeed an honor 

to be here with you today, representing the men and women of the 

United States Transportation Command. 

Our total force team of men and women, military and civilian, is 

dedicated to providing reliable and seamless logistical support to 

our warfighters and their families around the world. I am proud to 

report that they have performed admirably since I met with you 

last year. Our Active Duty members, National Guard, Reserve, civil 

servants, merchant mariners, and commercial partners have met 

the challenges of the past year while maintaining a high operations 

tempo, supporting combat operations, sustainment efforts, humanitarian relief, and crisis action responses. 

From supporting relief efforts following Typhoon Haiyan in the 

Philippines, to continuing development of innovative ways to maximize throughput into and out of Afghanistan, to meeting the directed 34,000 troop reduction level by February of 2014, United 

States Transportation Command team committed themselves to ensuring our joint force maintains global logistic superiority. 

I have had the opportunity to observe firsthand during my travels throughout Europe, central Asia, and the Pacific, the support 

these world-class professionals continue to provide, and can tell 

you, they are doing the nation’s business magnificently, without 

fanfare, and often under stressful conditions. I cannot be prouder 

of this team. 
6 

United States Transportation Command continues to support our 

force reductions in Afghanistan through our close working relationships with the geographic combatant commanders, other Federal 

agencies, and our commercial partners in various host nations. We 

are postured to achieve the President’s directed reduction in Afghanistan by December 2014. 

While Transportation Command team remains fully committed to 

our number one priority is supporting our forces overseas and executing the redeployment from Afghanistan. We are looking towards 

the future, and we are preparing for a different operating environment. Declining Department of Defense business for our industry 

partners requires careful consideration of how we ensure readiness 

of our organic and commercial air, sea, and surface capabilities into 

the future. The critical balance between organic and commercial capacity requires the analysis of readiness requirements, the capabilities required for all levels of response, and an understanding of 

economic factors affecting the industry’s ability to meet the Department of Defense requirements in the future. We will continue to 

work with Congress, the Department of Defense, the interagency, 

and our commercial partners to find that right balance. 

As the global distribution synchronizer, United States Transportation Command depends on a worldwide, multimodal network of 

military and commercial infrastructure to ensure the rapid delivery 

of forces and sustainment for both humanitarian and contingency 

operations. This global network provides the strategic reach necessary for any contingency, and highlights the need for assured access and delivery capabilities. 

In order to support any worldwide contingency or humanitarian 

event, it is essential to preserve and improve our partnerships with 

our allied nations, maintain our en route infrastructure, and to 

continue to strengthen our commercial partnerships. The United 

States Transportation Command team is committed to working on 

these relationships and seeking innovative solutions to support our 

forces around the world. 

Chairman McKeon, during your time in Congress, you have 

championed our warfighters. You have championed their families 

by providing them resources and support necessary to successfully 

complete their missions and then return home. So, I want to personally thank you on behalf of all the men and women in the 

United States Transportation Command for your steadfast leadership as a member of the Armed Services Committee, and for your 

4 years as the chairman. Godspeed in your future endeavors sir, 

and thank you. 

I would also like to thank Congressman Runyan and Congressman McIntyre for your unwavering support for the men and 

women in the United States Transportation Command. We value 

your leadership and wish you the best as you leave Congress later 

this year. 

Bill, I also want to thank you for your many years of service, and 

I do look forward to being with you in the great State of Texas. 

Ranking Member Smith, and to all the members of this committee, I want to thank you personally for your continued support 

of USTRANSCOM and all of our men and women, military and civilian. 
7 

I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before the committee 

today, and I ask that my written statement be submitted for the 

record, and I very much look forward to your questions. Thank you, 

Chairman. 

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

Appendix on page 61.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. No objection, both of your complete 

statements will be put into the record. So ordered. Thank you for 

your testimony, and now we will get to the questions. 

On Monday, Secretary Hagel announced an updated defense 

strategy that builds on the President’s 2012 Defense Strategic 

Guidance contained in the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review 

[QDR]. I recognize you are not at liberty yet to discuss the specifics 

of the budget, but it is my expectation that all combatant commanders, including functional combatant commands such as 

SOCOM and TRANSCOM, have been active participants in both 

the QDR and the budget process. 

With that in mind, I would like to ask, how will this updated defense strategy affect your areas of responsibility and priorities and 

requirements? 

How are your recommendations for the budget reflected in Secretary Hagel’s recommendations that he previewed on Monday? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You know, as we 

have gone through the last 6 or 7 months of the Strategic Capabilities Management Review, the SCMR process, we in the U.S. Special Operations Command have been intimately involved with all 

of the recommendations and the arguments that had to be made 

about how we need to go forward with U.S. special operations in 

the future, and I am pleased to say that that process that was run 

by both the Joint Staff and OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense], served us well. 

And I am very appreciative of the Secretary’s decision to level us 

at the fiscal year 2014 levels. I think that puts us in a very good 

position in terms of meeting our priorities and our goals for the future. So the process for USSOCOM, sir, worked well. Again, I am 

very appreciative of the Secretary’s decision, and I think we are 

well-positioned to move forward. 

General FRASER. Chairman, thank you. And I, too, was deeply involved as we went through the SCMR [Strategic Choices and Management Review] process and also through the QDR. I have been 

very appreciative of the fact that it has been a very open and very 

candid dialog as we went through that process. We were never 

without a voice there at the table and so I believe everything has 

certainly been considered as they went forward with that. In fact, 

the other day, we had the opportunity to review some of the final 

documents, and I had no red lines associated with that final review. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. On Tuesday, the President announced 

that the United States is moving forward with contingency planning for full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end 

of the year, should the United States not achieve a signed bilateral 

security agreement with the government of Afghanistan. At the 

same time, he left open the possibility of continuing to train and 

assist the counterterrorism mission there. 
8 

Just this week, I gave a speech outlining my concerns that the 

cost of abandoning our national security interests in Afghanistan 

is much higher than the cost of staying. Even with the difficulties 

an enduring mission will face, I still maintain that a safe and secure Afghanistan is within our grasp and we should not let that 

slip away at this critical time. 

Admiral McRaven, how would your global counterterrorism mission be impacted by our complete withdrawal from Afghanistan? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, thank you. We have been planning a 

number of options over the course of the last year as we looked at 

the potential for not getting a BSA or for the President’s decision 

to accept numbers that were in various categories, shall we say. 

The fact of the matter is, sir, we have a plan to deal with every 

contingency. However, if we do go to zero, and there is no special 

operations component left in Afghanistan, it will certainly make it 

more difficult to be able to deal with the threat that we know is 

inherent within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and in 

the northern part of Afghanistan, in Kunar and Nuristan, and the 

potential resurgence of Al Qaeda in the area. 

So, it is a concern, but I know the President has had an opportunity to look at all our options. And we expect that he will make 

a decision when he has an opportunity to sit down and talk to 

President Karzai and how we are going to move forward with this. 

So, we have good options, sir, but if we go to zero, it will make 

things difficult. There is no question about that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

General Fraser, how does the uncertainty about the size of our 

presence in Afghanistan create risk in your mission? 

General FRASER. Thank you, Chairman. 

And as we have been directly engaged not only with the Central 

Command, but with the theater, we, too, have developed a number 

of options in order to meet whatever the final decision is. Whether 

there is a bilateral security agreement with a final number, or if 

there is not. 

We have sufficient capacity. We have sufficient capability 

through both organic and commercial capabilities to meet whatever 

decision is made. 

I believe also that we have continued to maintain the relationship that we have options, options in the sense that we can travel 

via ground through the Northern Distribution Network. We have 

recently opened up and got agreement again for another year of a 

number of those transit agreements, as well as overflight agreements, which we have been able to maintain because of the strong 

relationship that we have with a number of the countries. 

We have also been able to work with multimodal locations. And 

so, getting those agreements done again is giving us options, 

whereby we can go and fly things out of the theater, fly to another 

location, and then onward move it back to the United States via 

sea. 

Other options that we have, of course, is air direct, and, of 

course, through Pakistan, which is—our most cost-effective route is 

through Pakistan. 

We have incurred some challenges recently, but I will tell you 

that the southern port is working very well, and we continue to 
9 

move goods both out of and into Afghanistan through the southern 

port of Chaman. 

So, we have options, we have capacity and we have capability, 

and we developed all of this in order to respond whatever the decision is. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I know when I was in Afghanistan last year, Secretary Hagel 

was there at the same time. And we both talked to General 

Dunford. And I left that visit thinking it was very important that 

we get that bilateral security agreement signed as soon as possible. 

I was hoping, like, 6, 8, 10 months ago. But I know that you have 

all these options available that you worked on. And I know General 

Dunford has said that he will be down to about 10,000 troops there 

by the end of August. So, we have actually between now and then 

before a final decision really needs to be made. 

I know they are scheduled for elections over there in April. And 

most of the candidates—11 of them—have stated publicly that they 

will sign the agreement. The Loya Jirga overwhelmingly supported; 

70 percent of Afghans by polls indicate they want us to stay. 

So, I am hopeful that we won’t pin our future and our security 

interests there on one person who is leaving office in April. So, 

hopefully, that this will get worked out, and we will be able to have 

a security force remaining behind to continue the mission of training until the Afghans are totally able to sustain themselves. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The chairman asked the question of—excuse me—for 

TRANSCOM, General Fraser, so I will let that go. 

General McRaven, talk to me—or—sorry—Admiral McRaven, 

talk to me about some of the training that you do. I know one of 

the things that you encounter is the Leahy law about human rights 

violations. And part of your effort, I know, is to train our—you 

know, hopefully, our partners so that they reduce human rights 

violations. So that they learn how to do police work and, you know, 

military work the correct way. Can you give us some examples of 

where you think you have been successful in that? Not just in effectively training a security force in a foreign country, but where you 

have improved their human rights practices. 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Thank you, sir. 

First, I am a full supporter of the Leahy Amendment. I think 

there has been some mischaracterization over the last couple years 

about my position on Leahy, and I want to make it very clear that, 

you know, none of us in the military want to support anybody who 

has committed gross human rights violations. 

Having said that, the process in terms of within DOD and State 

Department has been a little slow in terms of how we vet these 

particular units to allow us to begin to train them again if they 

have been deemed, or if there have been allegations against them 

for human rights violations. 

We have a number of success stories, sir, but I will start with 

Colombia, which is probably one of our best success stories. Really, 

Plan Colombia, which I think probably initiated in the late 1990s, 

but we really got going with it in the early 2000s. And it was a 
10 

whole-of-government look at improving Colombian security and 

putting them in a position to put the FARC [Revolutionary Armed 

Forces of Colombia] on the defensive. 

In the course of the last, really, 10 to 12 years, and working with 

the Colombian police, the Colombian military, and training them in 

what is appropriate human rights understanding. Every single 

time we do a program of instruction, one of the first blocks of instruction is about civilian control in the military, understanding 

what we think are the appropriate universal values—that is part 

and parcel to everything we do with every unit we work with. 

The Colombians were particularly receptive. We have a great relationship with the Colombians for decades. But really, as we 

began go build both the police force and the special forces in the 

military writ large, you began to see the Colombians gain the trust 

of the Colombian people, they began to push the FARC back. And 

now, of course, the FARC are on the brink. And while they are still 

a threat, they are—as you know, there are peace talks going on 

now between the FARC and the government of Colombia. 

Probably more importantly, the government of Colombia is now 

exporting security. So, when we started 10, 12 years ago with 

them, they were struggling to beat back a serious narco-threat; 

now they have, in fact, pushed that threat back. They have built 

a phenomenal military and police force. And now, they are exporting to other Latin American countries. We think that is a—— 

Mr. SMITH. Just so I am clear on that example, part—you know, 

Colombia, obviously, has a significant security problem, but part of 

the problem also was that their security forces were perceived to 

not be respectful of human rights when you guys went down there. 

And that was one of the things you worked on to try to correct. 

I know you have done similar work in the Philippines. And is 

that a similar story? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, again, each country differs a little bit in 

terms of how we felt their support of or their violation of human 

rights played out. There were elements within the Colombian military that had some human rights vetting issues. We worked 

through that. And generally, we run into that most places we go. 

We follow the letter of the law. We make sure that we are in 

compliance with the Leahy before we can do any training under 

our [Section] 1206 or 1207 authorities. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you very much. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just a note on Colombia. Some of us went there 

last week, and they took us out into the field and showed us the 

actual training that they do on human rights, based on what you 

have taught them. In fact, they made the comment that they are 

spending—or our people over there—that they are spending more 

time on human rights training now than we do. So, I commend 

you. That has been a fantastic success. 

This was a nation that, 10 years ago, everybody was saying it 

was a failed nation, and they have totally turned that around. And 

they are having great economic progress, as well as all these other 

things. And that is the preemption of taking care of a lot of these 

things, and the sustainability. We need to stay there and keep on 

top of these things so they don’t slip. 
11 

The last time I was in South America many years ago on our 

trip, we were able to go to Venezuela and Argentina, which we 

couldn’t go to this time because they have had reversals. And Colombia, we couldn’t go to last time, and now, is a fantastic success 

story. 

So, that is really much to be attributed to the special forces, and 

to the people of Colombia that demonstrated the will to stand up 

to those drug dealers. So, that—a great story. 

Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, thank you for your service and for being here today. 

Every once in a while, we just need to get touchstones of where 

we are. If you looked around the globe today and we used the term 

‘‘terrorist’’ or—I don’t mind if you want to use a different term— 

‘‘extremist’’ or whatever—that we would want to call them today— 

in your best professional military judgment, take a snapshot. You 

pick the number here. So, let’s say the last 5 years. Have we seen 

those groups getting markedly stronger, markedly weaker, or staying substantially the same? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, I think we have to look at the totality. 

And I will talk about Al Qaeda as our greatest terrorist threat 

right now. 

So, core Al Qaeda has gotten markedly weaker. The threat that 

was emanating out of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas 

with the support of other government agencies and the support of 

the Pakistanis—we have really decimated the core Al Qaeda. So, 

I would tell you that threat is significantly decreased. 

But, of course, what we have seen is the franchise elements 

begin to pop up. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaeda in 

the Islamic Lands—in Maghreb [AQIM]. We are seeing resurgence, 

of course, of Al Qaeda in Iraq, that is now morphing into Al Qaeda 

in Iraq and Syria. 

So, these franchises are beginning to grow up. However, having 

said that, I think what we see is a broader threat. But the highend piece that we saw from core Al Qaeda is not as prevalent as 

it used to be. So, the threat is metastasizing. It is much broader. 

But I would tell you that the threat to the homeland, with one or 

two exceptions, is less today than it was certainly, you know, 5 or 

10 years ago, when core Al Qaeda was stronger. 

Mr. FORBES. And I know you mentioned—and we know this is a 

holistic approach that we have to use—but if you had to give us 

again your best advice on our most effective asset, most effective 

resource that we can be utilizing to continue to reduce that threat 

around the globe, what would you say that would be? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, this is a key component of a proposal 

that I am making to the Secretary, is, I feel it is about how we 

build other partner capacities. And the case of Colombia is instructive. And the case in the Philippines. 

So, with a small group of—a relatively small group of special operations forces, along with support from the State Department and 

the other agencies—you know, in Colombia, we were able to provide support to the Colombians, they, and as the chairman pointed 

out, because of their strong will, they were really able to kind of 

beat back the FARC. I think this is a good model as we look at 
12 

threats in other places like Yemen, like Libya, across some of the 

other components in North Africa. 

So, how do we help build partner capacity so that the host nation 

can take care of its own problem? This is a—it is a long process. 

We need to be prepared to conduct direct action when those threats 

have a clear and present danger to the United States or to our interest. So, I think we always have to be postured to react or in 

some cases, to be preemptive in taking care of the barbarians that 

are at our gate. 

Having said that, we have to have a plan for a long-term, persistent engagement with our partners who really need to build the 

capabilities so they can handle the threat that is in their borders. 

Mr. FORBES. And General, thank you so much for your service. 

One of the things I think oftentimes we don’t give enough credit 

to is our Military Sealift Command [MSC], and what they do. Can 

you tell us just a little bit of an overview of how important they 

are, and what is the thing you worry most about with our Military 

Sealift Command. Is it our industrial base, number of ships we 

have, the right mix, manpower, what would your assessment be 

there? 

General FRASER. Thank you, sir. And the military sealift obviously is a critical component of what we do and our ability to reach 

around the globe to move cargo in a very timely manner. It is a 

very efficient way in which we are able to provide support in the 

theater right now into Afghanistan, but also for the retrograde. 

It is also a critical component as we look forward to the Pacific. 

So, Military Sealift Command is around the globe, they are engaged, they are supporting other agencies, and doing a marvelous 

job. If I might, I would give one example of a Military Sealift Command working with us, working with the Department of Transportation MARAD [Maritime Administration], and this has to do with 

the Cape Ray. Getting this ship ready, out of the Ready Reserve 

Fleet, to be prepared to destroy the chemicals that will be coming 

out of Syria. 

This is a mission that has never ever been done before, so having 

that capacity and that capability of that type of ship to take a field 

deployable hydrolysis system, modify that to put it aboard the ship, 

and then train to the standards that are necessary to ensure the 

safe and effective destruction of those chemicals as they come out 

is an example of the flexibility that we have within Military Sealift 

Command within our Ready Reserve Fleet. 

And so, I think it is very important, as we look forward to the 

future, that we understand the capacity, the capabilities that our 

sealift provide for us. I would also comment on how important the 

Maritime Security Program is to us. And those 60 ships that have 

signed up to be a part for the next 10 years to 2025 and recommitted themselves to be a part of our commercial capabilities that are 

available to us is important to us because of also, the merchant 

mariners that are involved. 

So, there are a number of things that are involved with sealift 

that are critical to our future. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Bordallo. 
13 

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

would like to take this opportunity to thank General Fraser and 

Admiral McRaven for their leadership and service to our great 

country. 

I have a question for you, General Fraser. I would like to get 

your take on the need for a robust depot-level ship repair capability 

on Guam. As you know, we have a number of Military Sealift Command in pre-positioned fleet off the Marianas, and it would seem 

necessary that having a robust capability with a dry dock is necessary to meet emergent repairs and general availabilities for that 

fleet. 

And further, can I get your assurance that MSC will do a better 

job in following section 7310 of title 10, which requires ships to be 

repaired in America? We see an increasing number of these ships 

still being repaired in foreign countries. 

General FRASER. Thank you, Ma’am. And as you know, we work 

very closely with the Navy and in a holistic manner to ensure that 

we have the capacity, that we have the capability necessary in 

order to meet the mission going forward into the future. And having the ability to have ships ready, repaired, and underway is critical to what we do. We work that not only directly with the Navy, 

but of course, through our Military Sealift Command. We will continue to engage them to assure—to make sure that we have the capacity and the capability to meet the demands in the future. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And the dry dock is necessary. 

General FRASER. Ma’am, I am not at that level of detail to be 

quite honest with you, but we will certainly take a look and work 

with the Navy. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, General. And my second question is 

also for you. Military Ocean Terminal Concord [MOTCO] is the 

main strategic seaport for shipping ammunition to the Pacific area 

of responsibility, the AOR, yet requires substantial improvements 

over the next several years. What is the timeline for these improvements, and how is the condition and the operating status of 

MOTCO affecting your readiness? 

General FRASER. Thank you, Ma’am. And Military Ocean Terminal Concord is a critical component of our support to the Pacific, 

and as we saw in the budget last year, the Army had laid in the 

necessary resources to ensure the viability of that port. One of the 

things though, that we have done, in between, is the continued assessment of the pier three itself, as well as looking at pier two and 

what we need to do in the future. 

We are working with the State of California right now through 

the environmental impact study. We have also modified the procedures to ensure the viability of pier three going forward in the future. And what I am talking about there is because of the analysis 

that we have been able to do on the pier, and the rate at which 

it is degrading, changing the operations procedures to only move 

trucks out there, to only move them across the rail line area, which 

has increased a little bit stronger than the other areas, as opposed 

to turning around on the pier and doing other types of things in 

order to meet the throughput that is necessary. 

So, we think we have a plan. We think the resources were laid 

in by the Army last year as we saw it in the budget, but we are 
14 

on a timeline right now, and it is the EIS [environmental impact 

statement] is the next step in that process, as well as another fall 

engagement with our engineers to do some more boring on some of 

the piers to check for further degradation. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, thank you. And General Fraser, I 

would like, in closing, to thank you and your staff for working with 

the Guam Guard and Anderson Air Force Base to address an issue 

of travel for spouses who have loved ones at the Warrior Transition 

Unit in Hawaii. This is critically important for our Guam Guard, 

and I appreciate the very quick work to address this important 

issue. And I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you gentlemen, 

both, for your service. Probably the most pressing question I have 

is why Texas and not Florida? What? I am sorry man. 

As you may or may not be aware, the committee is undertaking 

a comprehensive defense reform effort, and it includes examination 

of the organization and management of defense acquisition, the 

regulations, and in the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] 

it requires SECDEF [Secretary of Defense] to develop a plan for 

streamlining Department of Defense [DOD] management headquarters. So what I would like to know from each of you, from your 

perspective, where do you think the committee could focus its efforts better, and where do you see opportunities for reducing bureaucracy and enhancing COCOM [combatant command] effectiveness and efficiency without resorting to across-the-board reductions? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, several years ago, we did go through a 

SECDEF 20 percent reduction, efficiency reduction at USSOCOM, 

and of course, now we are looking at another 20 percent efficiency 

reduction. And frankly I am perfectly okay with that. I think that 

over the course of the last 10 years, speaking for USSOCOM, we 

grew the staff in order to address the problems that we were dealing with in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think we have figured out how 

to do business a little bit better, and frankly, some of these cuts 

make good sense to me, and I would even offer that I think there 

is additional manpower that could come out of USSOCOM. 

I would offer, however, that as we are trying to build up our capability in the theater special operation commands, some of what 

I have tried to do is migrate some of my manpower on the headquarters staff in Tampa out to the theater special operations commands to make them better staffed, to make them more receptive 

to their geographic combatant commanders. 

At this point in time, sir, I would say with the two reductions 

that we have taken, we are getting pretty close to where we need 

to be at USSOCOM, but we are always looking for more efficiencies, and I think that is true of all of my fellow combatant commanders. 

General FRASER. Sir, we too, in TRANSCOM, over a year ago, 

began a strategic review of our core capabilities that are necessary 

in order to execute our mission, and as we went through this review, we were able to identify areas in which we could be more efficient. 
15 

We developed a new strategy focused in four areas. It was on 

readiness, it was on information technology excellence, it had to do 

with our development of our processes and procedures and aligning 

them properly within the headquarters to find some efficiencies, 

and lastly, developing the human capital. 

As we went through this review, we were able to find some, and 

that allowed us to also, at that time, identify positions that we did 

not backfill. So we had been planning for the future by not backfilling certain positions and taking those in anticipation of a cut 

that was coming, and so we think that we have postured ourselves 

for the future in identifying the core things that we need to be 

doing. 

Another area that we reached out was working with our components. We are located at Scott Air Force Base. We are very fortunate that we have the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command [SDDC], one of my component commands that is stationed 

right there. We also have Air Mobility Command [AMC] at a station right there. So we were able to reach out and work with two 

of our components to find some. 

One efficiency we found was coming up with one common billing 

center. Why did we need to have three? One in TRANSCOM, 

SDDC, and also in AMC. So, we have collaborated together to find 

an efficiency there, and that is also paying dividends. 

Another area that we have reached out to in Service Deployment 

and Distribution Command was acquisition area. They had their 

own acquisition organization, and they were able to find some efficiencies, actually, to help big Army by moving a couple of positions 

to our acquisition organization. Since we reside right there at the 

same location, we are able to then absorb that into our organization, do their acquisition, and give positions and billets back to big 

Army. 

So, we are not only looking internally, we are also working with 

the components to see if there are efficiencies and to make ourselves more effective in the future. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. 

Yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you gentlemen, again, for being before us today. 

General Fraser, last year in your testimony to Congress, you 

commented—and I will say it word for word here—‘‘Hybrid airships 

represents a transformational capability, bringing the long-standing gap between high-speed lower-capacity airlift and low-speed 

higher-capacity airlift. Across a range of military operations, this 

ability—this capability can be leveraged from strategic to tactical 

distances. 

‘‘From swift crisis action support to enduring logistical 

sustainment operations, hybrid airship technology has the potential 

to fulfill factory to foxhole cargo delivery. We encourage development of commercial technologies that may lead to this enhanced 

mobility capabilities in the future.’’ 

Those were your words. So, my question is, are you still monitoring the hybrid airship progress? Is there a high probability—we 
16 

have been looking at it ourselves, obviously, that—maybe in about 

3 years, there might be a commercially viable 66-ton hybrid airship. 

Do you still believe in this technology? Can you tell me a little 

bit about where you are in that sequence, please? 

General FRASER. Thank you, ma’am. And, yes, I still stand by 

those words. And we have continued over the last year to follow the 

development of the hybrid airship. In fact, we also were very 

pleased to see the successful flight that Aeroscraft completed last 

year in their hybrid airship out in California. It was a very successful flight. 

We were also saddened to see that the airship was damaged 

when the roof gave way, and then—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Something owned by the Navy, by the way. 

General FRASER. We were saddened to see the damage that was 

done to the hybrid airship, but we have continued to maintain our 

contacts with Aeroscraft. We are encouraged by that successful 

flight—the demonstration of that technology. 

We are also encouraged by a recent report that I received from 

them out at Aeroscraft of the interest in the commercial sector to 

develop this capacity and this capability. 

I can see utility in the future to utilize something along those 

lines, especially when I look at some of the things that we have 

had to respond to. As an example here in the United States, to be 

able to move great quantities into areas where you don’t need a lot 

of infrastructure. And something along those lines. So, we will continue to monitor it. We will continue to encourage the development 

of the hybrid airship as they continue to go forward. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So, you could see it as something that we could actually use in the future if it was a viable tech—if it was proven— 

if it was built? 

General FRASER. Yes, ma’am, I do. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

My second question is for the admiral. 

What is the status of Vision 2020, which included expanding special operations footprint into 72 countries? And considering the 

type of budget constraints that we are looking at, in particular, in 

Defense’s—I mean, we haven’t seen the full budget, but we are getting some blueprint of it. 

What do you see? Do you see that 2020 still moving forward, Admiral? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, ma’am, I absolutely see the Vision 2020 

moving forward. And as we went through the SCMR process, we 

actually used that Vision to articulate why we needed the budget 

levels we needed. And, frankly, it was a good argument that served 

us well in our discussions with OSD and the Joint Staff. 

So, I am very comfortable that the remarks that the Secretary 

has made and the decisions the Secretary has made to recommend 

to the President will put us in a good position to meet the goals 

of Vision 2020. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And can you tell me what planning you have done 

with the Department of State—the State Department and with 

USAID [United States Agency for International Development], for 
17 

example, or other agencies with the 72 countries in mind to ensure 

that humanitarian efforts, in particular, are not duplicated? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, ma’am. 

What we do is, we work with the geographic combatant commanders. And it is the responsibility of the geographic combatant 

commanders to coordinate with the chiefs of mission in the countries in which we will be conducting training. And, of course, most 

of this—you know, 99 percent of this is about training and building 

partner capacity. 

So, there has to be a demand signal from the host nation. So, if 

we are working with Niger or Nigeria, or we are working with the 

Philippines, the demand signal will come from the host nation 

through the U.S. ambassador up to the geographic combatant commander. And then my role as a functional combatant commander 

is to provide the resources to that geographic combatant commander. 

So, everything is done with the support and the approval of the 

chief of mission and the State Department. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank both of you 

for being here today. 

And, Admiral McRaven, I appreciate that I have a son who is a 

physician in the Navy who has been in your command. And so, I 

appreciate very much your service. 

General Fraser, congratulations on your retirement—multi-decades of service—four decades, and you can look back with such 

pride, to me. You were there for victory in the Cold War, providing, 

with a strong American national defense, a broader spread of democracy and freedom today than in the history of the world. 

So, thank you for your service. 

And for both of you, please provide your assessment of the U.S. 

force posture capabilities and readiness of your area of responsibility. How have these been affected by sequestration, the budget 

deal, and the possibility of further defense cuts in fiscal year 2015? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, USSOCOM has a global responsibility, 

much like TRANSCOM. I am the Department of Defense’s synchronizer for the planning for the global war on terrorism. So, my responsibility really is to provide the forces to the various geographic 

combatant commanders, depending upon what their demand signal 

is. 

So, as we have made that argument back to OSD, and that argument has resonated, I am very comfortable with where we are in 

the current budget. And now, sequestration is affecting all of us. 

The chairman mentioned that—in his opening remarks that, as sequestration affects the other services—the Army, Navy, Air Force, 

and Marine Corps, it subsequently has a trickle-down effect on U.S. 

Special Operations Command. 

I receive all of my manpower from the services. My recruiting 

base is from the services. My enablers are from the services. So, 

it is a little difficult sometimes to make a one-to-one comparison 
18 

when you look at the USSOCOM budget. I think our budget—the 

recommended budget is going to serve us well. However, as sequestration has affected the broad Department of Defense, it will absolutely affect our ability to conduct special operations globally. 

General FRASER. Congressman, I, too, am comfortable with 

where we are right now. But I do have significant concerns as I 

look forward to the future, because we are dependent upon the 

services in maintaining a certain readiness level in order to be able 

to respond in a timely manner, wherever that call may come, 

whether it is a humanitarian or a crisis response. 

And as I look forward into the future, and I see under sequestration that the possibility of the readiness levels going down, will 

definitely impact our ability to respond in a timely manner. 

And so, that is an area of great interest to us in Transportation 

Command. 

Now, as I look forward to the future, one of the things that I 

think that we can do in Transportation Command is to try be more 

creative in bringing more business into the Defense Transportation 

System. We are a working capital fund. So, as we do business for 

the services and they reimburse us, the same is true for other government agencies or other organizations that we reach out to. 

So, we are very appreciative of what Congress has done for us 

and allowing us, as an example, to be able to charge DOD rates 

for foreign military sales. This has opened up an opportunity for 

us to further establish a relationship with Defense Security Cooperation Agency and bring more business into the Defense Transportation System [DTS]. 

So, that is going to be very helpful for us as we look forward to 

the future. In fact, Admiral Rixey has already been out to visit us. 

We have had very good discussions. And so, that is one area that 

we are looking forward of doing more business. 

The areas, too, that we are reaching out is to build the trust and 

confidence with other organizations to bring more business into 

DTS. That will help us mitigate some of the future challenges that 

we are going to see. But as the services go down in their readiness 

levels, that will have a definite impact. But we are trying to do 

what we can on our own to reach out to others to keep that readiness level up and bring more business. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you both for pointing this out. And I 

am particularly concerned. What we are talking about is defense 

sequestration. The American people think of sequestration and 

think of reduced spending. No, it is my view that 50 percent of the 

cuts are on 15.1 percent of the budget, which is defense. And so, 

it is really an assault on the military. So, thank you for even having a positive attitude. I am impressed. 

Admiral McRaven, I understand that there has been in the U.S. 

Northern Command [USNORTHCOM] a Special Operations Command, North established. How is this being resourced, and how 

would this proceed? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, thank you. 

I have theater special operations commands with all the geographic combatant commanders. We did not have one with 

NORTHCOM until last year. And in discussions between General 
19 

Jacoby and I, he was looking for me really to kind of up-gun the 

staff effort that we had at NORTHCOM. 

So, we have always had a presence—a detachment, if you will— 

at U.S. Northern Command. We didn’t formally make it a theater 

special operations command [TSOC] until last year. 

I was able—getting back to these—the efficiency reviews, I did, 

in fact, migrate some manpower from the USSOCOM staff, and 

move it to USNORTHCOM to establish the TSOC. 

The TSOC’s role really is to work through General Jacoby to support both the Guard and Reserve aspect of it. We work closely with 

the Canadians. We work closely with other partners with 

USNORTHCOM. And so far, I think it has been a good move for 

us. 

It is a pretty small theater special operations command, certainly 

relative to someone like SOCCENT [Special Operations Command 

Central], which is my largest of the theater special operations command. It is a small effort, but we think it is an important effort 

for USNORTHCOM. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much for the American people. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Fraser, you and I have had many discussions. As you 

know, I am a big fan of TRANSCOM. I think that things don’t happen without TRANSCOM. And TRANSCOM isn’t given as much 

credit as it should. Of course, I have jokingly told you that I call 

you the Corporal Klinger of the whole military, because you make 

things happen. 

Having said that, there is an issue that is very critical for us in 

Hawaii, and that, of course, is the GPC [Global Privately Owned 

Vehicle Contract] contract. I do know that it is under protest. And 

for my colleagues here, that, of course, is the movement of the private automobiles, especially of our men and women in uniform. 

And you can imagine how important that is for them. 

I am wondering, has there been anything new decided in that 

case? Has the Court of Claims made a decision? 

General FRASER. No, ma’am, that is—as you know, was a contract that was decided last year. It came under protest, and [U.S. 

Government Accountability Office] dismissed that protest. Shortly 

after that, then, the outgoing company then filed in the Court of 

Federal Claims. It is in the Court of Federal Claims, and is scheduled for a hearing on the 7th of March, and we are under a protective order until such time. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Yes. And I do not want you to, of course, violate 

that. But to the extent that you might be able to share some information, and if you can’t because it is covered by the protective 

order, I clearly understand that, but I was wondering, are there 

any assurances that you can give me as well as the—in particular, 

the service members in Hawaii that they will never—that they will 

not suffer any kind of loss as a result of that, and in fact, you 

would be able, as a result of the awarding of this contract, to the 

subsequent bidder, that there will be no added cost to the DOD. 

And of course, what I was concerned about was the issue regarding 

the transition costs. 
20 

General FRASER. Ma’am, this was an open competition. There 

were multiple bidders on this particular contract. It was a best 

value contract that we looked at. The source selection committee 

then made their selection and then, since then, we have already 

mentioned, we have gone through several protests. We are aware 

of that. We are aware, also, of some of the accusations that have 

been made. 

I can assure you that we are—have taken these accusations and 

looked at each of them and have found nothing that would cause 

us to reverse our decision, any red flags, utilizing everything that 

is available to the command, as well as other national agencies and 

organizations. 

Ms. HANABUSA. And as we both know, one of the accusations was 

with the winning contractor’s alleged connections to North Korea. 

And, I don’t know if that is also part of this protective order, but 

if it isn’t can you explain to me what you have done to ensure that 

that is not an issue? 

General FRASER. Ma’am, we used everything that was available 

to us when the accusations were made, and we could not find anything to substantiate that. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So, that is not part of the challenge that has 

been filed in the Court of Claims? 

General FRASER. I am just commenting on what we have done 

and what is in the Court of Federal Claims will be determined on 

the 7th of March. 

Ms. HANABUSA. And what is the process, General, in the event 

that the Court of Claims were to reverse the dismissal? What then 

happens? Is it a rebid or is it something that, you know, it is 

awarded to the next lowest bidder, or—what happens then? 

General FRASER. Ma’am, I would have to stand by for that decision, and then that would give us direction as to what to do. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. 

And in my closing time, General, I just want to know that as you 

know, there is a pivot to Asia-Pacific, and in your statement, you 

talk about the fact that the airlift and sealift and the USPACOM 

[United States Pacific Command] AOR remains a critical requirement. Do you feel that you have enough in terms of the airlift and 

sealift capability to meet the demands as you anticipate it to be in 

the pivot to Asia-Pacific? 

General FRASER. Yes Ma’am, we do. Coupled with both our organic and commercial capabilities, we are confident that we can 

meet the missions of PACOM. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much. 

And I yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

both of you for being here and for your service to our country. It 

is great to have the 10th Special Forces at Fort Carson in Colorado, 

and they do such a great job. I visited them recently and they are 

really excelling at what they do. So thank you for your leadership 

there. 

I recently had the honor of sitting down with one of my constituents, Susan Allman, and hearing her family’s story. It is a story 

that involved her husband, who is father to their children and an 
21 

outstanding man who is a Green Beret who did serve with the 10th 

Special Forces. Tragically, the rigors of the job that we had asked 

him to do had worn on him mentally, emotionally, and physically, 

to the point where it became too much for him to bear, and he took 

his life. 

Susan came to me to share his story and to celebrate his life, but 

she also came to me to help prevent the tragic loss of our heroes 

in the future by raising awareness about SOCOM’s Preservation of 

the Force and Family program. You mentioned that earlier, Admiral. She conveyed to me that the program was not in existence 

when her husband was struggling, but after learning about it and 

its merits, knew that if he had been able to participate in it, he 

would be here today with her and the children and continuing his 

career with the Green Berets—with the special forces. So, Susan is 

here today in the audience, and I want to again express my condolences to her and thank her for her sacrifice to our country. 

How is this program, the Preservation of the Force and Family 

program, supporting service members and their families, and what 

does it mean for the overall readiness of special operations forces? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, thank you. And let me also pass on my 

condolences. Our suicide rate, unfortunately, has grown here over 

the past 3 or 4 years. It has remained steady over the last 2 years, 

but it is of great concern to me as I mentioned in my opening remarks. I will go back to my predecessor, Admiral Eric Olson. Prior 

to change in command, Admiral Olson had initiated a Pressure on 

the Force and Families Task Force. So, he went out, and for about 

10 months of this task force, interviewed 7,000 soldiers, about 

1,000 spouses, had 440 different meetings with small units, and the 

report literally landed on my desk the day I took command. 

And Eric told me, ‘‘You need to read this. We have got to do 

something about how the force is fraying.’’ And that was the term 

he used at the time, that the force was frayed. And this was in 

2011. Well, sir, the force has continued to fray. But that was really 

kind of a wake-up call for us. 

I came into the military in 1977 at the end of Vietnam, and most 

of the folks that raised me were Vietnam veterans; and frankly sir, 

we didn’t do a very good job of taking care of our veterans. And 

I know I speak for all the service chiefs and all the combatant commanders; we are not going to let that happen again with this generation, and we appreciate the support of everybody on Capitol Hill 

to make that happen, to put our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in a good position as they move forward. 

But with that report from Admiral Olson, we initiated, we turned 

the Pressure on the Force and Families to the Preservation of the 

Force and Families. And frankly sir, we have dedicated a lot of 

time and effort to figure out, How do we help the force and the 

families? And this was a key component of it. And we have a number of sub elements to the POTFF. 

We have the Human Performance Program. It is really focused 

on the individual soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that are 

preparing to go overseas in a combat environment. We take care 

of them prior to their deployment, on their deployment, and when 

they return from deployment. It is really an opportunity physically 
22 

to get them back up to speed as quickly as we can, and we have 

seen some tremendous results as a function of that. 

The second piece is the Psychological Performance Program. 

Similar, we are working through the Defense Health System. They 

are actually kind of contracting for some of the health care professionals we need to deal with the psychological problems that we 

are finding with a lot of our returning soldiers. 

And the other components are really about family resiliency. And 

this is an area, and I have, again, made a successful argument, and 

the folks on Capitol Hill have been very supportive, as I have said, 

you know, in the past, I think we as a service take great care of 

our families, but this has been an incredibly stressful time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Now, Admiral, this program took some hits in the 

last year’s budget. 

Admiral MCRAVEN. It did, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Are you concerned about that for the next year? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, what we did was we actually migrated 

some money to Defense Health Systems to be able to manage some 

of our Psychological Performance Programs, and I am okay with 

that. I think they will do as good a job of managing it as we could, 

and we are fine with that. 

Frankly, sir, I think we have got to figure out how much we need 

to invest over time to determine whether or not we are actually 

getting the return on our investment. I can tell you, anecdotally, 

when I travel around and I talk to the spouses and I talk to the 

service members, they are very appreciative of the Preservation of 

the Force and Families program. 

But, at some point in time, I will need to come back to this body 

and be able to show categorically how this has helped. I think I can 

do that to a degree now, but it is going to take us a couple years 

to see the results of this effort. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you so much. 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Fraser, it is good to see you again. 

Last year, at your posture hearing, we talked about what would 

happen to the surge capacity should we have to lay off the merchant marine fleet and move these ships from the readiness level 

they are at to the point where we actually have to lay off some of 

the crews and perhaps, eventually, reflagging of some of the commercial ships. 

U.S. flag merchant ships operating worldwide in commercial, 

international trade markets, and in support of U.S. Armed Forces 

overseas, are carrying fewer defense cargoes as military ops wind 

down in Afghanistan. And as you know, our defense cargo is reserved for U.S. flag merchant ships under cargo preference law intended to help sustain a reliable cargo fleet capable of meeting 

military support requirements. 

You mentioned briefly, earlier, the Maritime Security Program. 

I am also, of course, an associate of this Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement program. Could you elaborate a little bit further as 

to what TRANSCOM initiatives are to bring more government- 
23 

financed cargo into the Defense Transportation System to assist 

U.S. shipping companies and to avoid losing more of these U.S. flag 

ships? 

General FRASER. Well, thank you, ma’am. And, a couple of initiatives that we have taken. First, I would say that we stood up an 

Enterprise Readiness Center [ERC] at our headquarters. This organization, we took out of hide, within our headquarters, to establish 

it, to look forward to the future in areas that we might be able to 

reach out to bring more business into the Defense Transportation 

System. 

We are seeing the fruits of that in the foreign military sales, as 

I have mentioned. What we have also seen is the ability to reach 

out to a couple of other organizations, too. As we begin that dialog, 

they are more interested. The other thing that we have done is establish a better relationship, also, with the Defense Logistics Agency, and so they are bringing more into the Defense Transportation 

System. 

So this is all there. They are small steps, they are initial steps, 

but I think they are areas which we will see continue to grow. The 

other initiative that we took this last year that hadn’t been done 

before, is we reached out to industry through the National Defense 

Transportation Association [NDTA] to bring a private sector representative [PSR] to sit in our headquarters. This is a model that 

we actually got from FEMA [Federal Emergency Management 

Agency], after I had visited FEMA and seen where they bring in 

industry specialists. 

So, we figured out a way to bring industry into our headquarters 

and sit in our headquarters and then look at the processes, the procedures, and look at other alternatives that are out there for not 

only the best practices, but areas that we might reach out to bring 

more business in. 

The first representative is from the maritime industry, and will 

be in our headquarters for 6 months. Industry pays for this, takes 

it out of hide; but they feel it is something worthwhile in making 

that investment. 

We are now in the process of looking forward to who is next, 

looking at another mode, whether it is a 3PL [third-party logistics], 

a surface, or maybe even an aviation representative. So, we are beginning that dialogue with NDTA. 

We are encouraged by what we are seeing, both out of the ERC, 

the Outreach Program, and this PSR rep, as a couple of things we 

have done. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. So, it is not just the sealift capability, but it 

is also airlift with commercial airlines? 

General FRASER. We are across all modes. 

The other initiative that we took this last year was to stand up 

an executive working group for surface. This had not been done before. So, now we have a Surface Executive Working Group that 

reaches out and works with industry, both rail and road mode. We 

already had a maritime, and we have an air, so now we are covered 

across all the modes. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

General McRaven—I mean, Admiral McRaven—sorry. Didn’t 

mean to insult you. 
24 

I wanted to chat a little bit about the global special operation 

forces network. And the guidance from the Joint Chiefs requires 

that for you to carry out this plan, it must remain resource-neutral. 

So that if you pursue this strategy of creating a global special operation forces network, can you talk a little bit about what are your 

plans to remain resource-neutral? And are you prepared to cut resources in other areas to maintain this network? And how would 

you re-allocate resources? And what types of things do you need 

from us to help you to establish this network? Is it authorities— 

additional authorities? What do you need to make this happen? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, ma’am. 

The network itself, or the people that we have had, have actually 

been in these countries for decades. So, in effect, prior to 9/11, we 

had folks in about 120 countries at any point in time. Now, truth 

in lending—sometimes it was one person at an embassy. Sometimes, it was a couple hundred people, sometimes it was a couple 

thousand. But the people have been out there training with our allies for a very long time. 

What I am attempting to do is really to kind of link the people 

together so that the transfer of information from, you know, that 

young major that may be in Colombia who is working for 

SOCSOUTH [Special Operations Command South], and what he 

learns in Colombia is probably important to what happens in Africa, because the drug trade sometimes moves from Colombia to Venezuela to Africa to Southern Europe. 

So, my role really here is to link or to connect the dots, literally, 

that are out there around the globe. 

We can do this in a resource-neutral fashion. It is about rebalancing some of my resources, but within my portfolio and within 

the authorities I have as the special operations commander, we are 

able to do that. 

So, it is not so much about populating new areas, while we are 

looking at new areas. It is really about connecting the areas that 

are and the folks that are already out there. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral McRaven and General Fraser, thank you so much for 

your service to our Nation. It is deeply appreciated. 

General Fraser, as you have spoken, for TRANSCOM to be able 

to achieve its mission, there are lots of resources out there that it 

utilizes, whether it is U.S. base structure, or whether it is agreements with other countries. I wanted to get your perspective on the 

recent Kuwaiti agreement, where we hopefully will be able to leverage that. 

Can you give us an idea about how you would leverage that? 

Who is going to package and process the equipment as part of that? 

Does that give us some more operational flexibility? And does it 

change the calculation when we look at the equipment that we are 

moving out of theater and the calculation as to whether or not we 

keep it or we provide it to partners in the region? Can you give us 
25 

some perspective on how that agreement will be leveraged by 

TRANSCOM? 

General FRASER. Well, thank you, sir. 

If I can answer the last first—and that is a service responsibility 

to make the determination of the equipment, whether it will be 

designated as excess defense article, or it is going to be returned 

to the United States and then brought back into the stocks after 

going through depot repair, wherever that may be. 

So, that is a service responsibility. And we will move things in 

accordance with their wishes. 

The Kuwaiti agreement that you speak of has given us additional 

flexibility. If I might say, it has allowed us to use intra-theater airlift to then move equipment out of Afghanistan and into Kuwait 

and into a yard there. This, too, is also resource-neutral in utilizing 

the assets that are already there. They have processed a lot of 

equipment before, coming out of Iraq. So, they will then be responsible for receiving at an intermediate staging base, and then processing the equipment, preparing it for onward shipment back to the 

United States. 

Some of that—it may be determined that it stays there in preposition stocks. But this has given us another alternative to get 

things out of the theater. 

One of the challenges that we had was when the Torkham border 

closed. We had a lot of equipment that was frustrated. We had over 

800 pieces that were held up in the carrier holding yards. We had 

another 300 that were in other yards, and then on the road. And 

so, what we were able to do with this new initiative—and being 

very appreciative of what Kuwait is allowing us to do—is then 

multimodal these pieces of rolling stock out of the theater, and 

then they will be able to process it and bring it on back to the 

United States. 

The other pieces of equipment were then rerouted. And so, we 

have unplugged all of that that was up near the Torkham border 

since it has been closed, and rerouted it down south across the 

Chaman border. 

It has given us another way in which we can rapidly move equipment out of the theater. 

Mr. WITTMAN. As you look at your operations there in 

CENTCOM [Central Command], how important is the base infrastructure or the base capacity in the European Command in order 

for you to accomplish your mission to move both the equipment in 

and out of the Central Command? 

General FRASER. Sir, we are engaged with both the European 

Command, and also with AFRICOM [Africa Command], and what 

the laydown needs to look like from a mobility perspective. What 

relationships we need to maintain, what access we need to have. 

And so, as we look forward in the future, we are having a dialogue also with the European Infrastructure Committee, as they 

look at the tasks that they have been given, and what that laydown 

may look like in the future. So, we are an integral part of that in 

bringing that to the table. 

As you know, we are responsible for the global En Route Infrastructure Master Plan. And so, that is a key part of what we look 

at. And this is across the globe, not just in Europe. Because as we 
26 

downsize, and as we come back and out of certain areas, I feel it 

is important that, as Admiral McRaven has talked about, about 

building partnerships, building those relationships, I think it is 

going to be important that we, too, also maintain these relationships—key relationships, as opposed—about access in the future. 

And then exercising that every so often so that we have the flexibility, the agility within the system to be able to respond, no matter where that call may be. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Can you give us a very brief perspective on the 

use of automated technologies? I know that there are a lot of great 

ones out there—things like item-unique identification, IUID, and 

automated information to data capture, AIDC. Can you give us 

some idea about how you might be able to use that in creating 

greater efficiencies within TRANSCOM? 

General FRASER. Sir, we have been the advocate and proponent 

for automated information technology. We use a little bit of everything, depending upon what we are moving and how we need to 

track it, and what is the best cost-effective way to track the item. 

We use anything from bar code in the supply areas all the way 

up to passive as well as active radio frequency ID. So, it is a caseby-case basis depending upon the material that we are moving. 

I have been in the yards overseas, as well as here in the States, 

moving foreign military sales equipment, and every vehicle will 

have an identifier on it so we will know where that is as it moves 

through the system. 

So, we are utilizing all different modes of AIT [automatic identification technology]. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral McRaven, thank you for your services. 

My questions and comments are really going to go to General 

Fraser. 

Thank you very much for working so closely with us. We really 

appreciate all that you do. 

I am particularly interested in what you cannot talk about until 

next week, when the budget is out and the details relating to the 

Air Mobility Command and the plans that you are remaking in 

that regard. If you would like to comment ahead of that, I would 

certainly welcome it, but I suspect that you won’t. 

The other issues are the very strong statement that you made in 

your written testimony concerning the sealift capacities. And I am 

particularly interested in the organic fleet, the age of it, and what 

plans you may have that you could talk about today, or maybe that 

you do have plans that you can’t talk about. 

If you could cover that, and if you would like to say anything 

about the Air Mobility, I would appreciate it right now. 

General FRASER. Thank you, sir. And I will say that we have a 

wonderful working relationship with Air Mobility Command. They 

are maintaining the strategic airlift capabilities that we need in 

meeting the mission in the theater right now. 

Those young men and women continue to move forward in a very 

aggressive manner. This is not just in Afghanistan. But I would 
27 

also like to comment on how flexible they are to meet other demands. 

So, when the call came and it was necessary to provide support 

to the Central African Republic, they were there. They moved, the 

crews went in. They started moving Rwandans, they moved Burundis. So, that has been very positive. 

They have also been very flexible and supportive of Southern 

Sudan, and the French in Mali. 

So, the flexibility that Air Mobility Command has is really wonderful. And maintaining that readiness has allowed us the flexibility to support other things, as opposed to just Afghanistan, and 

in supporting other operations around the world, too. 

With respect to sealift, as we look forward to the future, I do 

have a concern. It is in my statement. And this has to do with the 

Ready Reserve Fleet. The Ready Reserve Fleet is a critical component of our surge fleet as we look forward in the future to respond 

to any other crisis. 

The Ready Reserve Fleet is an aging fleet. It is normally lay 

berth. It only generates periodically to exercise the ships in a— 

what we call a turbo activation. But over the next 10 years, we will 

have 1.6 million square feet age out. The ships are just old. And 

so, they are going to have to be replaced. So, we have tasked our 

staff through the Joint [Distribution Process] Analysis Center to do 

a cost-benefit analysis of options on what should we do to recapitalize this fleet. I believe it is a discussion that we need to have 

to make sure that we have that capacity and that capability in the 

future. 

That study is just underway. Should be completed in the not-toodistant future so that we can then begin to have that dialogue. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Is the not-too-distant future timed with the next 

National Defense Authorization Act? Or do we wait until the subsequent one? 

General FRASER. Sir, we just tasked that out. That is an internal 

tasking that we have. It was not done by anybody else. But we 

wanted to start taking a look ourselves at what alternatives are 

there out there in the future to recapitalize that fleet to begin that 

dialogue. 

I would say in the next 45 days or so internally to our command, 

we should have that done. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would hope that that would be available to us. 

This is a critical component. It ought to be part of what we take 

up this year in the NDAA and at least set the stage for dealing 

with this issue. 

The other issues relate to the other components. I am on the 

Maritime Subcommittee at the Transportation Committee, so we 

interact on these things. We are just simply going to have to wait 

until the budget—until the President’s budget comes out, and then 

we can go into detail about the equipment for the Air Mobility. 

In the meantime, I want to thank you for your service and your 

willingness to work with all of us. It has been a pleasure working 

with you and thank you very much, and good luck on your retirement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Coffman. 
28 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Fraser, thanks so much for your dedicated service in 

U.S. Transportation Command and best of luck on your retirement. 

Admiral McRaven, thanks, obviously, for your leadership in the 

U.S. Special Operations Command. 

The former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said before he left 

the administration words to the effect that he didn’t envision the 

United States doing another Iraq and Afghanistan again, prospectively going forward; and words to the effect that we will not—he 

didn’t see the United States invading, occupying and pacifying and 

administering whole countries anymore. And as an Iraq war veteran, I certainly second that, his view of that. 

So going forward, if we are not going to be doing the heavy footprint counterinsurgency or stability operations, and we are going to 

migrate more to counterterrorism to utilize Special Operations 

Command, one of the debates is, to what extent, though, that you 

can’t—can—to what extent can you offshore it, counterterrorism? 

Or to what extent do you really need to have a physical presence 

on the ground, the human intelligence component, the other components, when we look at perhaps Yemen and Somalia as a template 

for going forward? 

Could you comment on that? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, sir. And I think you have raised a good 

question. It is one of the things that we are trying to address in 

our kind of SOF global plan. And that is how do you go about conducting counterterrorism operations or building partner capacity 

without rocking the boat too much in terms of your relationship 

with the host nation. 

So one of the things that the special operations brings is a small 

footprint. It is cost-effective to put a small group in there. It is— 

they are culturally trained. They speak the language. We understand how to work with a U.S. embassy; how to work with our 

interagency partners; how to work with the host nation. 

And so as you look at the various areas where we are partnered 

against some of the CT [counterterrorism] threats in Yemen, in 

other countries around the world, that paradigm works pretty well 

for us. 

Now, in reference to Secretary Gates’s comments, I would tell 

you our crystal ball as a nation has not been very good over the 

last several hundred years. So I think we have to be careful about 

assuming that we would never go to major war again. That is not 

to say that we should accept that as a given, but we should also 

recognize that that possibility is always out there. 

I would be concerned about thinking that the special operations 

community is the panacea for all our problems. We are not. I can 

tell you that U.S. Special Operations cannot stop the North Koreans from coming south. We cannot keep the Straits of Hormuz 

open. We can do some things and we do them very well, but frankly, we are linked very closely with our conventional partners. We 

can’t do anything without the general purpose force as part of our 

enablers. 

So, I do think we have to be on the ground, partnered with our 

allies to go after the CT threat. Can you do some of it offshore or 

remotely? Only if, as you point out, sir, you have good human intel-
29 

ligence on the ground, provided by somebody, whether that is the 

host nation or others. You have to understand what the intelligence 

picture looks like. Or you are not going to be able to get after that 

threat no matter where you are located. 

Mr. COFFMAN. So, I certainly don’t want to conflate conventional 

capability with counterterrorism capability. But it seems that we 

were more effective perhaps as a country when we look at postVietnam all the way maybe to pre-Iraq invasion in 2003, when we 

focused more on partnering with indigenous forces within a given 

region to accomplish our security objectives, rather than us going 

in with a very heavy footprint and accomplishing them. 

And I certainly—but there is no question, and I agree with you, 

we have to maintain strong conventional forces to deter those who 

would otherwise want to attack us. 

But can you go over again where you see these—to what extent 

Al Qaeda is franchising their operations at this point in time? And 

it is just—it is more of a movement, obviously, than it is an organization, is it not? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, it is. Al Qaeda, of course, is an ideology. 

So you are trying to fight an ideology that, of course, now has people that are gravitating towards it. So as core Al Qaeda has been 

degraded significantly in the Pakistan region, we are clearly seeing 

the kind of cancer spread. Mainly our biggest threat is coming from 

Yemen. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula continues to be I think 

the greatest threat to the U.S. homeland. But Al Qaeda in the Islamic Lands of the Maghreb is a problem, as they are spreading 

across North Africa. 

We see Boko Haram beginning to conflate with AQIM in North 

Africa. We see ISI [Islamic State of Iraq] and ISIL [Islamic State 

of Iraq and the Levant] beginning to develop or fully developed and 

growing in the Iraq and Syria area. 

So as I mentioned earlier, I think the threats to the homeland, 

the high-end threats to the homeland have diminished. That is not 

to say that we don’t still see some threat streams out there, but 

the high-end threats have diminished. The problem is the global 

threat has broadened with these franchises that are out there. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY [presiding]. Mr. Enyart. 

Mr. ENYART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Fraser, it is so good to see you again. I think the first 

time I met you, I was still wearing Army BDUs [battle dress uniform] in your command headquarters at Scott Air Force Base. 

And, you know, General, I don’t think I have ever had the chance 

to tell you that as a very young airman, I think I was E–3 at the 

time, I got to fly in a T–39 with your predecessor, General Jack 

Cappen at the controls. And it was a great thrill. Of course, when 

we first met, I had two of my three wings and the Illinois National 

Guard belonged to you—the 130s up at Peoria and the KC–135s 

right there at Scott. 

So I am familiar with many of the challenges that you have. And 

I was particularly pleased to hear in your earlier testimony, and 

I don’t want to misstate anything, but I think you said that because of having TRANSCOM and AMC and the Army Surface Material Distribution Command all located at Scott, you were able to 
30 

wring some efficiencies out of those commands and use some of the 

resources together in order to provide a better bargain for the 

American taxpayer. Have I got that right? 

General FRASER. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. ENYART. Super. I am so glad to hear that as a taxpayer and 

as a Member of Congress. Can you tell me what specific impacts 

do you expect to see as we have ongoing headquarters reductions? 

What impact will that have on TRANSCOM? And do you believe 

you have got further efficiencies that you will be able to bring 

about at Scott as a result of having all of those commands colocated there? 

General FRASER. Sir, we are always looking to be more efficient 

and effective. And so one of the things is is that as we have set 

up our processes and our procedures at the headquarters there 

through a very deliberate process to bring others in who have good 

ideas. One of the things that we have encouraged the young folks 

is to speak up. And if they have got a good idea, then let’s get it 

on the table. 

They are very innovative. They are not shy about letting us know 

where some other efficiencies can be had. And so we continue to 

reach out to the workforce. They have identified a couple of areas 

that we think that we can find some other efficiencies. So one of 

the areas, and we are working this through the Joint Staff and 

through the Department of Defense right now, is do we maintain 

the joint scheduling shop, JOSAC [Joint Operational Support Airlift Center], as we move forward in the future. 

So all the aircraft are not in there. Is it the right thing to do to 

have a separate scheduling shop that does that? Or do you give 

that back to the services under the service secretary withholds and 

things of that nature? And so that is a potential efficiency out 

there. 

So, that is just one other example of an area that we are taking 

a look at. 

Mr. ENYART. General Fraser, in light of the drawdown in Afghanistan, how is TRANSCOM looking to maintain the readiness of 

both its private partners and its organic partners? And I was certainly very glad to hear that you have incorporated the private sector rep into your headquarters based on the FEMA model. That 

has certainly worked very good—very well for FEMA. 

But how do you intend to do that going forward? 

General FRASER. Well, sir, we have continued to engage our commercial partners, not only across the executive working groups, but 

also through the National Defense Transportation Association. 

They have a number of different committees, of which we have individuals that sit on their various committees, whether it is railroad, maritime, or aviation. And so we have a very open and candid dialogue. 

We also participate in their board of director meetings once a 

quarter. There are also a Transportation Advisory Board that occurs once a year that I attend, as well as other meetings throughout the year. So we are going to continue to reach out to industry, 

continue to bring them in. 

This last year, we also held a large meeting in St. Louis and 

brought in a lot of industry reps. We had over 600 that participated 
31 

in this, which was very informative to them, to let them know 

where things were going in the future, what the future looks like. 

It is very difficult for them to build business plans when we can’t 

give them assurances. 

And so that is one of the things that is very challenging right 

now, especially with sequestration and the inability to predict the 

future and what it is going to look like as far as any types of movements that are going to be out there. And so working with industry, we have got to be as open, be as candid as we can, while yet 

at the same time having this other initiative to bring more business into the DTS. 

Mr. ENYART. Thank you, General. 

Admiral, I didn’t mean to ignore you. I had the great soldiers of 

the 20th SF [Special Forces] Group under my command also. But 

I apologize, I am out of time. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you. 

Mr. Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Chairman. 

General Fraser, Admiral McRaven, thanks for being here. Thank 

you both for your service. 

General Fraser, congratulations and good luck in your future endeavors. 

And I know you know which questions are coming, General Fraser. 

As you know, I am very proud to represent the Joint Base 

McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. There are some worries that I think a lot 

of people, specifically in that community, have, specifically dealing 

with the KC–10s, you know. And I think everybody agrees there 

that the refueling and air mobility mission there has been a spectacular display of what you all can do. 

And I am really concerned about the proposals to entirely eliminate this—the fleet of KC–10s. And I know my colleague, Mr. 

Garamendi, has the same concerns, as he has a good part of that 

fleet at Travis. 

Since the KC–10 is a tanker-cargo aircraft, how much tanker capacity will you lose if that proposal goes through? And if the entire 

fleet is retired? 

And do the combatant commanders agree with losing that capability? 

General FRASER. Sir, as it has been previously stated, we can’t 

comment until the PB [President’s budget] is delivered and we take 

a look at that. 

But I will say that I am very encouraged by what I am seeing 

with the KC–46. As that program continues to move forward, and 

that is going to give us the significant capacity and capability in 

the future, as that force is modernized. And we look forward to getting the KC–46 aboard. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Well, and I will—you probably won’t comment on 

this, but if there is a requirement and a process in there, I think 

most people would agree that there is going to be a gap in the ability to execute that mission and the readiness because of whether 

it is overseas refueling, whether it is homeland security, you know, 

that the traffic in the Northeast corridor up there, that all these 
32 

missions are, to—I am—at some point, you are going to handcuff 

yourself. And, God forbid, something happen, a delay in the 46 delivery. And it is something—can you comment on any of that? 

General FRASER. Well, sir, I will say that we completed last year 

and have reported back to Congress under a mobility capabilities 

assessment. And in that, we also talk about the tanker capability 

as well as the strategic lift and the tactical lift that is required in 

going to the future, and what that capacity yields and the ability 

to support the plans. 

And so, I would point to that as the most recent study and analysis that we did on the capacity that is required going forward. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Okay. Well, it is—I know what has been proposed 

has a huge portion of it has to do with sequestration. I wanted to 

point that out. And I know you have to do, say what you are saying. 

But I think most people when they look at a major part of airlift 

and refueling kind of being shelved or put off, it creates a hole as 

we are ramping up. 

We know the 46 is coming online, and it will be a huge asset to 

what we are able to do. But it is—I think there are still a lot of 

questions out there. 

I know I have continually raised them, and as this budget proposal comes forward, and that has been out there, I think it is 

going to continue to raise a lot more questions. 

And I know, you know, I know with TRANSCOM you guys have 

seriously considered other scenarios as going forward, depending on 

what the budget allows you to do. 

So I just wanted to raise that concern and plant that seed as we 

move forward. 

And I yield back, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Barber. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for being with us today. And thank you for 

your many years of service to your respective branches and to the 

country. 

And to you, General Fraser, I wish you all the best in retirement. 

I remember well when my father retired from the Air Force. It was 

a bittersweet moment of time for him. He loved being in the Air 

Force. And he was looking forward to more time with family and 

not having to move us every 2 or 3 years. But I really wish you 

well and hope your retirement is everything you want it to be. 

Admiral McRaven, I would like to address a question to you. It 

goes without saying that our special operations perform a critical 

mission for the country. And I am looking forward to discussing a 

specific aspect of our operation with you, and that is combat search 

and rescue [C–SAR]. 

I am very proud to represent the men and women at DavisMonthan Air Force Base in Tucson. That is where my dad was stationed. That is how I came to the desert. That is where I met my 

wife when we were teenagers. 

So, there is a lot of both personal as well as professional pride 

in that incredible facility. 
33 

As you know, Admiral, we have the 563rd Rescue Group there, 

one of only two active duty Air Force rescue groups dedicated to 

personnel recovery. 

And I have met with these airmen a number of times, and was 

joined in one of those meetings by Ranking Member Smith. 

We learned from them what they do and how important their 

mission is, not only, as you might know, to rescue and to search 

for military personnel, but many times they are helping us back 

home when we have a serious rescue mission in our community. 

It has been reported that last year the Air Force was considering 

moving C–SAR mission from Air Combat Command to Air Force 

Special Operations Command [AFSOC]. Quite frankly, I think this 

would be a mistake. 

I agree with what the Air Force said a few years ago, that under 

ACC, the C–SAR assets could be mobilized faster during a national 

crisis, integrated into combat training, and tasked to support all rotations. 

And, Admiral, given the importance of both the ACC and AFSOC 

command rescue operations, can you give us a sense of what the 

budget will look like for C–SAR operations, the combat rescue helicopter, and any plans for consolidation of the mission? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, my son, an Air Force major, is also stationed at Davis-Monthan. And I was just out there a couple of 

weeks ago. Great airmen and a great facility. 

Sir, as you point out, the Air Force had looked at and investigated the potential to move C–SAR into Air Force Special Operations Command. The decision was made not to do that, and I fully 

supported that decision. 

I think it was, as with a lot of things, as the Air Force was dealing with sequestration, they were looking at opportunities to save 

some money to be able to resource other things. But at the end of 

the day, the decision was made not to do that. I am in complete 

agreement with General Welch. I do not know the details of the C– 

SAR budget, and I would ask—that is probably a question for General Welch, sir. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you very much again, to both of you, for your 

service. 

And is it fishing that is in the future or what are you going to 

like to do when you are retired, General? 

General FRASER. Seven grandkids, sir. Have fun. 

Mr. BARBER. Very good. I wish you all the best. 

Thank you so much. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I certainly want to thank our panel for your service to this 

country. 

General Fraser, on your retirement, kudos. 

Wrong state, but that is okay. We can invite you back to Florida. 

Admiral McRaven, it is—Special Forces has done an outstanding 

job, and I really do appreciate your comments in regards to—some 

have pinned everything on special forces that can save the world, 
34 

and we—I think you hit it right on the head. It is a mixture of conventional forces and special forces in regards to what you can do. 

Just quickly, though, on SOCOM, you have taken a lot of hits in 

regards to downsizing your command structure. And it sounds like 

you understand that and work that. 

Do you see any major hits coming to that command structure in 

the next budget? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, I don’t. As we have gone through the 

process, we have been able to make a pretty good argument for 

why we need the command structure we need. The Secretary has 

supported that argument. And I think we are going to do pretty 

well in the budget, sir. 

Mr. NUGENT. I think you have. I mean I think that you have gotten down to a lean fighting position that you need to have. 

But as we look at a smaller component of our special operators, 

particularly as you look at our underwater delivery vehicles, as we 

may. And particularly when you look at the age of the fleet from 

that perspective, I know that SOCOM is working to come up with 

some other solutions on those submersibles, because we are working with these legacies that are, what, four decades old. 

And so, I want to make sure that we are doing everything that 

we can to help you. And I know you have made a lot of progress, 

particularly in the three last years. As things start changing, you 

can shift your focus a little bit on looking towards the future. 

So I think it is on the right track today, and I know that dry 

combat submersible is a priority for your command. I understand 

that you are using an accelerated approach to deliver this muchneeded capability to our warfighters, who I care about, obviously, 

the most. 

Having three sons in the Army, I get it. And I want to make sure 

that our warfighters have the ability to reach their objective and 

being in a position to be successful and return back to us. 

Do you see any statutory requirements that we have in place 

that, you know, could harm the progress in the near term or in the 

future that we may need to address here? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, thank you. The dry combat submersible 

is a key component of our maritime strategy as we move forward. 

And, as you pointed out, really over the last 12 years, as we have 

resourced more of our kind of ground components and our air mobility components to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we 

probably haven’t paid as much attention to our maritime mobility, 

both surface and subsurface, as we should. 

So the dry combat submersible is a key piece of our future. Right 

now, sir, there is a public law 112, that really I would offer could 

use a relook, because what it does is it takes us from exercising the 

dry combat submersible under a CAT [category] III program and 

wants us to look at it as a Category I program, so the difference 

between, you know, a smaller program and a larger program. 

Right now, as I look at it as an ACAT–3 [acquisition category] 

program, it gives me, as the SOCOM commander, flexibility in assuming risk. And this is what it is all about. And frankly, I am prepared to assume a little bit more risk as we work with industry to 

build this capability. 
35 

If we have to look at it as an ACAT–1 program, then my ability 

to manage the risk and assume the risk is kind of taken out of my 

hands. So we would certainly request that we re-look this public 

law. And, if there is any room for us to maintain our flexible acquisition approach to the dry combat submersible, we would certainly 

appreciate that. 

Mr. NUGENT. Well, I can certainly see—and having been an airmen, I hate to say back when, 1969 was actually—I think the 

Wright Brothers just gave up some of their stuff to us. But, the 

ability for us to reach our adversaries and put our folks in the best 

position to complete the mission, I think, is overwhelming and I 

really do appreciate your leadership, Admiral, in regards to looking 

past your nose and looking out into the future as—and we have not 

and you hit it right on the head. 

We have military—and I have only been a Member of Congress 

here for 3 years, but the government has not done a good job of 

predicting our future warfare. We have been pretty miserable at it. 

No one suspected that we would be in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously. So who knows what the future brings. 

So I do appreciate both of your leadership as we move forward. 

So thank you very much. 

And, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Actually, we have been quite consistent. We have 

been 100 percent wrong. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Admiral McRaven, thank you very much for your extraordinary 

service. 

And, General Fraser, for yours as well, and congratulations on 

your retirement. Well earned. 

Admiral McRaven, I wanted to just, I think, follow up on the 

comment that you had made, really, in your testimony about the 

fact that our most extreme adversaries are not going to be susceptible to a non-violent message—ideology. 

And, so we don’t have a lot of choices in that realm. And I think 

you have probably touched on this probably with a number of answers to the members here, but we are not able to do mil-to-mil 

activity. Certainly there are a number of operations that we do to 

try and bring people together to capture hearts and minds, but 

when it comes to the next generation is there something that you 

feel that you are able to do that actually tries to break up the future for many of, young men particularly, that we encounter in 

that regard? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes ma’am. 

And this is probably the most difficult task we have found in the 

course of the last 12 years is how do you get what we think is the 

right narrative out to the young Muslims that are on the fence. 

And, of course, the preponderance of Muslims are absolutely righteous and where they need to be, but it is the extremists that create 

some problems. 

And no matter how much we try to address the narrative with 

the extremists, some of them are just irreconcilable and however 

having said that, we have a new generation that is coming up in 

the Muslim world, and I think we need to continue our efforts to 
36 

work with them, to partner with them, to find the moderate Muslims that are willing to work with us to buy down the extremism 

in their countries. 

But extremism has a power all its own, and there are some out 

there that believe that the Al Qaeda ideology will crumble within 

itself, because it is a corrupt ideology and if we give it enough time 

it will collapse. 

I am not one of those people. It is a corrupt ideology, but I do 

not know that in and of itself it will collapse inside. And so I think 

we have to pressure it. We have to pressure it with the support of 

the moderate Muslims that are out there. We have to pressure 

with support with our forces forward and building partner capacities to isolate the threat. I think it has got to continue to be 

pushed into the recesses and isolated so that it doesn’t have the capability and the reach to be able to conduct acts against the homeland and our national interests. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Along with our partners what has given you the 

most hope that that is a possibility down the line? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. I think it has been my experience in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, and sometimes this is hard to convey to the American 

people just how good the Iraqi people and the Afghans are. 

Ma’am I will tell you, the folks that I have worked with in the 

Iraqi military and the Afghan military are absolutely fabulous. 

They are wonderful people. They are patriotic. They want the same 

things we want. 

So that gives me hope. 

Having said that, at the same time, there is an extremist element of this that is irreconcilable and that I think we need to continue to pressure and isolate. But, I think what gives me hope is 

the people I have met. When you meet them, they are a wonderful, 

wonderful people and we need to continue to work with them 

and—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Will special forces be playing a role at all in the election in Afghanistan, or are you folks in the background for this? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. No ma’am, we—you know, the election is run 

by the Afghan people. And the U.S. military, in this case, we have 

no role other than to support the movement, you know, if we have 

to help move folks from point A to point B, the conventional military will do that, but no ma’am, we in the special operations community don’t have a role in the elections in Afghanistan. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 

And General Fraser, just really quickly, is there anything you 

could change as you retire—any words of wisdom for the Congress? 

Ways that we work best with you? 

What would you like to tell us? 

General FRASER. Ma’am, I would just like to say thank you. 

Thank you for the open, candid dialogue that we can have in the 

relationship, because our ability to come over here to meet with 

you not only in this form but in the private meetings, I think, helps 

us all to better understand the challenges as we look forward to the 

future. 

And so, we need to make sure that we are able to continue to 

have that dialogue, because there are difficult times ahead. It is 

unpredictable as to what the future holds. We know that in 
37 

TRANSCOM. We don’t know where we are going to be called upon 

to go. 

So I look forward, even in my life after I transition, to continue 

to make contributions where I can. So thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, we hope you will. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Thornberry. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I particularly was interested in the exchange with Mrs. 

Davis and Admiral McRaven. The only thing I think is important 

to add is, there is another narrative that the other side is trying 

to put out there, and we, I think, often don’t appreciate how effective they can be at making things, wedding parties or whatever the 

issue is that we are combating in this battle of the narratives. 

It is another factor on the playing field. Admiral, you are kind 

enough to come back to us in a couple weeks with the Intelligence 

and Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I appreciate 

that. And so I may hold off in talking about other special operations issues until we have that opportunity. 

General Fraser, in addition to the good sense you have to retire 

in Texas, I wanted to ask about a couple things. 

In response to Mr. Wittman, you talked about the global infrastructure plan. There are some Members of the House and the Senate that are very concerned about the United States abandoning an 

air base in the Azores and believe that from a logistical standpoint 

that could be a key asset to getting to Europe, getting to 

CENTCOM, getting to Africa. 

Do you have any comments about that? 

General FRASER. Sir, we have provided input to the EIC, the European Infrastructure Committee, as to the bases we look at, the 

ability that—and capability that the various bases provide us. Also, 

looking at alternatives, trying to analyze that and what that would 

mean to the deployment of forces and moving around. 

And so, we are doing that analysis. We are working with them 

to make sure it is totally understood what the impact of any 

changes may be in the future. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. And when will that be complete—you may 

have answered that already. 

General FRASER. Sir, the EIC is a different committee that is 

part of the Department of Defense—— 

Mr. THORNBERRY. So you are just submitting your input and you 

don’t know when they are going to—— 

General FRASER. We are a part of that. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. It is—as I say, there are some Members who 

are very concerned that we may be about to mothball something 

that we regret, one day. 

Let me go back. You were asked, I think, by Mr. Miller about, 

and you talked a couple of times about the different efficiencies you 

have found in your command. 

Going beyond efficiencies, as you have done these analysis and 

so forth, have you run into statutes or regulations that ought to be 

on our radar screen to help get more value for the money we spend 

in TRANSCOM? 
38 

I mean, obstacles to doing things better, because one of the 

things the chairman has asked us to look at is those sorts of reforms. And there is a lot of money that is spent in your area. 

General FRASER. Yes sir, and one of the areas I have already 

pointed to has to do with our ability and flexibility in the command 

as an acquisition organization to work the different modes, the different contracts that are necessary to accomplish the mission. And, 

so having that. 

One of the things, though, that we are working with our acquisition folks is exactly what you are talking about, are those things— 

are there things within the regulations—within the Federal acquisition regulations that inhibit our ability to move forward in the 

future? 

One of the areas that I might highlight is, and this goes to other 

organizations or agencies, is trying to work with them as they 

make decisions and unintended consequences that it has with respect to Transportation Command. 

Where I am coming from there has to do whether it is support 

of the military sealift program—the Maritime Security Program, 

excuse me, last year when that was not fully funded, it was impacted by sequester, we broke faith with industry. We failed to pay 

them the last 6 weeks of the year. They had signed up. They had 

committed 60 ships, 10-year increments, and that was the same 

time we were about ready to go into another approval for them to 

commit and then we break faith with them. 

The unintended consequence is then how do they go to their 

boards, how do they work with industry to modernize, to capitalize, 

and re-capitalize as they go forward in the future? 

So are there other things that other committees in other areas 

have unintended consequences? Unintended consequences when we 

change the regulations and we are not—with cargo preference and 

that may be a minor adjustment, but that can impact merchant 

mariners. 

And so we are in a dialogue and have an agreement now that 

we are right at surge capacity for merchant mariners. That is why 

we are very supportive of the development of a national maritime 

strategy and working very closely with MARAD. 

So there are a number of areas that we have gotta work together 

on. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, and certainly, you all highlighting those 

for us, because we may not pick them up—would be helpful. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to know about any plans to expand theater operations— 

theater special operation commands. 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Sir, we currently have seven theater special 

operations commands. There is no intent to build more special operations commands. Having said that, what I am trying to do is 

strengthen the special operations commands so that they can be 

more responsive to the geographic combatant commanders. 

So, as part of our review—our efficiency review—we actually migrated some of the manpower from the USSOCOM staff. But we 
39 

will be doing that over the course of the next couple years through 

the theater special operations commands to give them more capability in the intelligence shop and their operations shop and their 

planning shop, and actually, in their acquisition shop, as well. 

Mr. VEASEY. If you needed to expand with, you know, personnel 

reductions that are looming, how would you be able to do that 

quickly, you know, given those type of budget constraints? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, sir. I think the plan that we currently 

have on the books, in terms of migrating the manpower to the theater special operations command, will put us in a good position to 

do the support we need to do for the geographic combatant commander. 

So, I don’t know that I need any additional manpower. And I 

think what we have got in terms of a plan, a road map for the way 

ahead is sufficient. 

Mr. VEASEY. As far as just resources and, I guess, competition for 

resources between the various services, how do you manage—how 

do all the branches manage that effectively under those sort of 

budget constraints? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, sir. So, my money from Major Force Program 11—that is, USSOCOM money—that goes towards funding a 

certain part of a theater special operations command. 

So, you know, in general, I put about $20 million a year into a 

special operations—theater special operations command. Now, that 

varies. 

SOC Korea, for example, one of my smaller SOCs, is about $4 

million. SOCCENT, my bigger SOC, is about $40, $45 million. 

However, having said that, the services have executive agency responsibilities. So, they also have a bill to pay for the theater special 

operations commands. It goes through their service components. 

We need to continue to have them pay that bill. And, of course, 

the sequestration impacts them, and they are looking at where 

they can find cost savings. We are continuing to work with the 

services to make sure that the TSOCs do, in fact, get funded at the 

levels we think are appropriate. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, General, 

thank you for your testimony today and for your service. 

Good. 

Admiral McRaven, if I could just start with you—from fiscal year 

2013 and fiscal year 2014, SOCOM-based funding was reduced 

nearly a billion dollars, with $183 million of that reduction coming 

from research, development, test, evaluation [RDT&E]. Can you 

tell this—were any of your priority acquisition technologies affected 

by this reduction? And as a corollary, are you concerned about support for emerging technologies currently in the R&D [research and 

development] phase that are needed to support SOCOM’s mission 

set in the future? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, sir. The R&D cuts we took, we kind of 

spread across the board so that no one program would take too dramatic of a cut. Now, that is not always the best way to manage 
40 

your research and development, but it worked for us this time 

around. 

However, were we to take more significant cuts in RDT&E, then 

we would have to do really a vertical cut on some of our programs, 

and I think that would be detrimental. 

Having said that, my staff, as we have talked about—the imbalance within my portfolio in terms of RDT&E, and O&M [operations 

and maintenance] and procurement and MILCON [military construction] dollars. So, one of the things that we are working to do 

over the next couple years is figure out how do I get that more in 

balance. What is the right percentage of RDT&E I need to do as 

a resource sponsor with my service-like hat on in order to provide 

the best capability to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 

that I have? 

I am not sure I have that right, to be honest with you. What I 

do know is that we have not put enough into RDT&E over the last 

several years because, frankly, we have been fighting the shortterm fight. As we looked at Iraq and Afghanistan, most of our 

money was going towards O&M to maintain our readiness, procurement money to buy the capabilities the soldiers needed. And we 

were not looking as far downrange as we should. 

Having said that, I think we are beginning to bring it back into 

balance, but we still need some work. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral, if I could, also, can you talk about what role SOCOM 

is playing in the Defense Intelligence Agency’s new Defense Clandestine Service [DCS]? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, sir. 

We have been working with the Defense Intelligence Agency as 

they have developed this Defense Clandestine Service. And I am a 

strong believer and supporter of the DCS concept. What it will do 

is put U.S. special operations operators, working for the theater 

special operations commands, they will be essentially dual-hatted. 

Their tasking will come from the theater special operations command. They will have a reporting line, as well, to the Defense Intelligence Agency. They will work as an intelligence officer in various countries to collect the information that U.S. special operations needs to do its mission. 

So, I think the DCS approach is the right one. We have, I think, 

a good broad base support with the inner agency, and we are working very closely with our intelligence partners to move ahead with 

the DCS. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Admiral. 

Last question for you. And then I hope I have time to get to General Fraser. 

Could you update us on the ISR requirements that your command has, and how that is driving your investments over the current budget window? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, sir. ISR, as you know, is a critical component to everything we are doing on the counterterrorism side, 

and my staff—we are building an ISR road map to look at both the 

unmanned and the manned ISR. 

I think what we have got to take into consideration as we have, 

you know, come out of Iraq and we are drawing down in Afghani-
41 

stan is, do we have the mix of ISR correct? Okay? In Afghanistan, 

we had the preponderance was unmanned, probably 60–40 unmanned to manned. 

But now, as we move into other areas, we are trying to determine whether or not we need more manned ISRs. So, we are drawing down our U–28 fleet, for example, which is a single-engine prop 

job that we used in Afghanistan quite effectively, but it doesn’t 

have the legs, really, to meet some of the ISR requirements we 

have in continents like Africa, where the problem set will be 

longer-range. 

So, we are moving to an MC–12 platform. It is a dual propellerdriven, longer legs, better capability. We are looking at pure-fleeting our unmanned ISR, moving from the MQ–1, the Predator, to 

the MQ–9, Reaper—pure-fleeting that with the high-definition sensor. 

So, that is all part of the direction we are heading. I am very 

comfortable with where we are. 

The services are supporting our requirement. So, we have a requirement for a certain number of orbits for U.S. Special Operations Command. And then the services have a requirement to support us with some additional orbits. And we are working closely 

with the services to meet those commitments. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Admiral. 

I know my time is expired. I will submit my question for General 

Fraser for the record. And I know earlier, you spoke about the 

work you are doing. And you and I have spoken in my office privately about the work you are doing to support both the—our operators, as well as their families, and meeting all their needs so that 

the whole force is intact and staying strong. 

I thank you for the attention you are paying to that, Admiral. 

Great job. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Thank you very much for your service and for being here today. 

And this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

(47) 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

(91) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Admiral, can you outline for us some of the more difficult advanced technology requirements that SOF needs in order to maintain an edge on 

the battlefield? Are there needs with regards to the well-being of the families of our 

special operators that will need congressional action for you to be able to fully address? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Some of our most difficult advanced technology requirements 

include personal protection, signature management, first pass lethality, and color 

night vision. Another vital requirement is enhancing the survivability of our SOF 

operators by improving personal protective equipment. To address this challenge we 

are pursuing vastly improved protection capabilities through proactive/reactive 

novel material solutions, such as the Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit (TALOS). 

Our adversary’s capabilities continue to evolve and improve. To maintain our edge 

on the battlefield SOF needs comprehensive signature management in all environments to avoid detection. We are evaluating novel technologies to provide SOF aircrews and their platforms with first pass lethality by rapidly acquiring ballistic 

wind data for vastly increased accuracy of unguided weapon systems. Finally, maintaining our tactical advantage at night will require revolutionary, game changing 

capabilities like color night vision. The goal of our color night vision effort is to provide the SOF operator the ability to see true color on a moonless night with just 

starlight—a tremendous tactical advantage. 

Taking care of our Service members and their families is a top priority—our people are the foundation upon which the success of any mission rests. USSOCOM is 

grateful for the support the Congress has shown for our Preservation of the Force 

and Family initiatives. This support has enabled USSOCOM to hire and embed professional staff into all of our units to help assure the physical, psychological, spiritual and social wellbeing of our community. 

We are especially grateful for Congress granting USSOCOM the authority to use 

appropriated funds to support family programs as authorized in the 2014 NDAA, 

Section 554. This authority, in conjunction with the authorities found in Title 10 

U.S. Code 1789 that permit funding for chaplain-led family programs, will enable 

USSOCOM commanders to use appropriated funds to support family programs 

much like their counterparts in the conventional force. 

The Commander, USSOCOM (CDRUSSOCOM) has a statutory responsibility 

(Title X, Sec 167) to ensure the readiness of special operations forces. Although Sec 

167 does not explicitly mention families as a component of operational readiness, 

we view the wellbeing of our families as an integral part of the readiness mix. Accordingly, the CDRUSSOCOM has an inherent responsibility to ensure that the 

families of those assigned to USSOCOM have the necessary resources and advocacy 

to withstand adversity and to support their service members in the accomplishment 

of their duties. The tools available to our USSOCOM’s Commanders include the programs authorized by Sec 554 and the personnel hired as part of the POTFF initiative, particularly Family Readiness Coordinators. 

We view the Preservation of the Force and Family initiative as an enduring and 

dynamic requirement that will require continuous improvement and refinement as 

emerging technologies and practices are identified and introduced to our efforts. In 

keeping with this, USSOCOM requires sustained support to sponsor research that 

will inform our efforts across the psychological, social, spiritual and physical domains, and the resources and authorities to continue to support our families and 

assure the readiness of our forces. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Could you update us on the ISR requirements your command has, 

and how that is driving your investments over the current budget window? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) global ISR requirement remains unchanged. USSOCOM continues to implement innovative solutions working with the Services, Combat Support Agencies, and Geographic Combatant Commands (GCCs) within the confines of economic, political, and geographic realities. USSOCOM has adopted a balanced approach to focus on improving sensors, 

platform endurance, data transport architecture, and methods to process, exploit, 

and disseminate intelligence. 
92 

The withdrawal from Afghanistan does not change USSOCOM’s global airborne 

ISR (AISR) requirement (Memorandum for Secretary of Defense and Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff-Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

Support to Special Operations Forces 9 January 2012; Joint Emergent Operational 

Need (JEON) for Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance in Support 

of Special Operations Forces, 8 June 2012), but rather reflects a need to shift ISR 

capabilities to other regions in support of prioritized Special Operations Forces 

(SOF) operations. The locations where SOF operate outside of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region require a variety of means to successfully conduct ISR. USSOCOM is 

working closely with SOF Theater and Component commands to refine air, ground, 

and maritime ISR requirements to support the GCCs. 

Economic realities drive difficult decisions, but there is no anticipated demand reduction for SOF’s unique capabilities. Continued ISR programming support from the 

Services and Combat Support Agencies in addition to USSOCOM efforts will remain 

essential through the Future Years Defense Program and beyond. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Transportation Command faces some unique challenges among the 

combatant commands. With the majority of your supplies and passengers traveling 

via commercial partners, and the vast majority of your traffic on unsecured networks, your networks have a large aperture size relative to other commands. Can 

you update us further on the steps you are taking to reduce your cyber vulnerability, both in terms of collapsing the number of touchpoints and in terms of contract incentives to commercial partners to better secure their own networks? Are 

you satisfied with the level of progress? 

General FRASER. U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) is integrating 

critical systems operated by our service components behind a common security 

boundary with common technology and policies and enhanced situational awareness 

for USTRANSCOM and component network defenders. In addition, USTRANSCOM 

is including the new Federal Acquisition Regulation Clause, ‘‘Safeguarding of Unclassified Controlled Technical Information’’ in all of our new non-transportation 

contracts, while retaining the Cyber Security language we previously developed in 

our transportation contracts. We are continuing to build relationships with our commercial partners and law enforcement to increase collaboration and incorporate contract language based on industry best practices. Additionally, I am gaining operational control of cyber protection teams to augment our organic network defense 

forces. This will enable a better protective posture across the USTRANSCOM enterprise. We are fully engaged with U.S. Cyber Command and Defense Information 

Systems Agency to work through command and control of these assigned forces. The 

command is satisfied with our efforts to date and will continue to leverage opportunities to improve as they present themselves. 

The incentive we offer is the opportunity to do business with us as manager of 

the Defense Transportation System. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Can you please make available the TRANSCOM internal analysis on options to recapitalize the RRF. You mentioned this could be completed as 

early as within 45 days and we are very interested in ensuring that this information 

be made available to this committee. 

General FRASER. Once our analysis on recapitalizing the Ready Reserve Force 

(RRF) is complete, I will ensure the results are made available to you and the committee. I am encouraged by your interest, as the RRF plays a critical role in 

TRANSCOM’s ability to meet surge deployment requirements in support of all combatant commands. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HANABUSA 

Ms. HANABUSA. At last week’s hearing, I asked for assurances that our service 

members in Hawaii would not see a reduced quality of service with the new GPC 

III contractor. Would you please explain to me, in as much detail as possible, what 

USTRANSCOM plans to do to ensure that is the case? 

General FRASER. GPC III contract award is concluding litigation before the U.S. 

Court of Federal Claims and parties, including USTRANSCOM, remains subject to 

a Court Protective Order. The GPC III solicitation requires the awardee to provide 

the same, and in many cases improved services, regarding in-transit visibility, shipment time, on-time arrival rates and terms regarding in-transit damage. 

USTRANSCOM’s mission is to provide unparalleled logistics support to our 

warfighters, and their dependents, all around the world. 
93 

Ms. HANABUSA. You stated that USTRANSCOM ‘‘could not substantiate’’ any contractor relations with North Korea. However, it is my understanding that, while the 

new GPC III contractor itself may not have these relations, such relations may exist 

through the contractor’s corporate affiliations. Can you confirm that the new contractor, either directly or indirectly through the directors and officers of corporate 

affiliates, does not have any ties to North Korean or Chinese Communist Party officials? When did USTRANSCOM first become aware of these alleged relationships? 

General FRASER. The Government carefully reviewed the allegations regarding 

ties between International Auto Logistics (IAL), its affiliates (to include certain 

board members), and alleged improper ties to North Korea. The Government investigated the matters at the Command and national levels. Based on these reviews, 

the Government found the allegations are without merit, do not give rise to any violations of law or regulation, and pose no undue security concerns. In addition, the 

Government reviewed pertinent Commerce and Treasury Department regulations 

regarding prohibited contracting entities and activities and conclude they are not 

applicable to awardee International Auto Logistics. USTRANSCOM first became 

aware of these allegations November 1, 2013 when the losing contractor, American 

Auto Logistics, raised them in a bid protest before the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO denied the protest. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HUNTER 

Mr. HUNTER. When you appeared before a House Armed Services subcommittee 

on April 17, 2013, you identified ‘‘first pass accuracy and enhanced lethality weapons’’ as a ‘‘difficult advanced technology requirement that SOF need[s] to maintain 

an edge on the battlefield.’’ You went on to state that, ‘‘SOF will increasingly need 

the ability to precisely apply exact weapons effects on specific targets with near-zero 

collateral damage.’’ 

I understand the United Kingdom has fully and independently developed, with 

U.S. and U.K. manufacturers, a Dual Mode Brimstone tactical missile that was successfully integrated on an MQ–9 Reaper aircraft and demonstrated first-pass 

lethality at China Lake in December 2013 and January 2014. This missile has also 

been used extensively by the Royal Air Force in combat operations over Afghanistan 

and Libya, with extraordinary accuracy and low collateral damage. It seems that 

this is exactly what you called for during your April 2013 testimony when you spoke 

of the need for new technology to maintain our edge on the battlefield. 

One year later, what progress has SOF made in addressing the threat(s) it has 

identified, particularly as it relates to fast and erratically moving targets? Since the 

Dual Mode Brimstone missile has already been developed by our UK allies, is combat proven, and has successfully been integrated on a MQ–9 Reaper, is Dual Mode 

Brimstone on your radar screen to meet the precision-strike weapon requirements 

you outlined in your testimony last year? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has fielded 

several service common weapons on the MQ–9 Reaper including multiple variants 

of Hellfire that are battlefield proven at minimal cost to the command. On other 

SOF strike platforms such as the AC–130Ws, USSOCOM has fielded the Griffin 

Block III missile with a multi-effects warhead which fits inside of the Common 

Launch Tube. We have also fielded the Small Diameter Bomb and are currently integrating the Laser Small Diameter Bomb. Both munitions provide increased first 

pass accuracy and enhanced lethality to the USSOCOM Stand Off Precision Guided 

Munitions arsenal at little cost to USSOCOM. Representatives from USSOCOM received technical capability briefings and observed live demonstrations of the Brimstone missile conducted at China Lake in December 2013. USSOCOM continuously 

explores opportunities to integrate new and affordable capabilities to meet 

warfighter needs however, there is currently no plan to acquire and integrate the 

Brimstone missile onto USSOCOM fixed wing strike platforms. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MAFFEI 

Mr. MAFFEI. SOCOM is posturing for a major tactical C4I (Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers, and Intelligence) recapitalization program, STC (SOF 

Tactical Communications), over the next few years. Current budget projections for 

communications equipment are relatively low, compared to previous years. What is 

the command’s plan, timeline and funding, to procure and field STC? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. USSOCOM procures tactical radios and delivers new capabilities via an ongoing annual Capital Equipment Replacement Program (CERP). We 

will continue to procure and deliver the next generation SOF Tactical Communica-
94 

tions (STC) systems at a relatively constant rate each year. The STC procurement 

plan, timeline, and funding, as shown in the FY15 budget request are captured 

below. 

Item 

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 

Qty Total 

($M) Qty Total ($M) Qty Total ($M) Qty Total ($M) Qty Total ($M) 

Handheld — — — — 1 0.012 4 0.056 7 0.099 

Handheld CERP 973 13.630 1,018 14.251 1,068 14.957 1,075 15.043 1,042 15.634 

Manpack — — — — 11 0.439 12 0.482 12 0.492 

Manpack CERP 214 7.711 240 8.903 196 7.435 156 6.086 160 6.396 

Manpack-Fixed 

Mount 

13 0.630 11 0.567 11 0.583 11 0.592 11 0.605 

High Frequency 

CERP 

153 1.836 144 1.733 146 1.761 143 1.859 145 1.893 

TOTAL* — 23.807 — 24.457 — 25.187 — 24.118 — 25.119 

*Item totals may not add to the program total due to rounding. 

Mr. MAFFEI. The Army is developing the Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit 

(TALOS) for SOCOM. Has there been any consideration on what communications 

systems, existing or new, will be leveraged to connect the operator? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. USSOCOM, not the Army, is leading the development of a series of technologies necessary to construct a Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit 

(TALOS) in order to increase Special Operations Forces survivability. TALOS development is leveraging current and previous Army, Air Force, DARPA, and other Government research to lower the technical risk and reduce development time. The goal 

is to build an open architecture capable of adopting emerging improvements and 

provide a self-sufficient, standalone, expeditionary capability with increased capability at a lighter form factor. The communications interfaces will support 

connectivity with existing infrastructures (radio and cellular technologies), platforms, and organizations while enabling new capabilities. 

Although TALOS is initially intended for special operators involved in high risk 

missions, we foresee potential application across the SOF Enterprise as well as 

through DOD, among first responders and Wounded Warriors. The development of 

powered exoskeletons, advanced armor, and lightweight power generation and distribution systems have wide-ranging potential uses. TALOS staff are coordinating 

with Departments of Homeland Security, Energy and Veterans Affairs as well as 

representatives of New York Police and Fire Departments in an effort to increase 

awareness of the TALOS vision. It is envisioned that novel ballistic materials, advanced power storage systems, and exoskeleton advancements will be made available to other DOD and Federal agencies prior to the fielding of the TALOS prototype. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. RUNYAN 

Mr. RUNYAN. As you know, I am very proud to represent Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst, which has done an outstanding job fulfilling its refueling and air mobility mission. With KC–10s doing a large part of the air refueling mission at JB MDL 

in support of overseas operations, the Northeast Tanker Corridor, and homeland defense, I am concerned about proposals to entirely retire this fleet of aircraft when 

they are vital to the mission. Since the KC–10 is a tanker/cargo aircraft, how much 

tanker capacity will you lose and how much cargo capacity will you lose? 

General FRASER. The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2015 keeps the 59 KC– 

10s throughout the Future Years Defense Program while preserving acceptable levels of risk. 

Mr. RUNYAN. How does the proposed possible loss of KC–10 capacity degrade the 

capability to fulfill worldwide air refueling requirements? Cargo requirements? How 

will you make up these shortfalls? Do the other Combatant Commanders agree with 

losing this capability? 
95 

General FRASER. The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2015 keeps the 59 KC– 

10s throughout the Future Years Defense Program while preserving acceptable levels of risk. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Why would you not replace the KC–10s with the KC–46A on a one 

for one basis so the tanker and cargo mission capability will be retained without 

any ‘‘bathtub’’ or mission risk? 

General FRASER. The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2015 keeps the 59 KC– 

10s throughout the Future Years Defense Program while preserving acceptable levels of risk. 

Mr. RUNYAN. If the KC–10s were all put in the Reserve Component would the 

savings be substantial enough to keep them in the air mobility fleet? Why or why 

not? 

General FRASER. The President’s Budget retains the entire KC–10 fleet through 

the Future Years Defense Program. Moving that fleet to the Air Force Reserve 

would require further analysis by the Air Force of the KC–10’s effectiveness for operating in a strategic reserve capacity. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Last year, the Armed Services Committees made clear our concern 

about the future viability of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet and requested that the Department of Defense study some of the policies and legislation that will affect the 

CRAF going forward. Additionally, we understand that USTRANSCOM has participated in a working group along with the commercial carriers in an effort to harmonize your relationship and ensure that the parties are working in the best national security interests of the United States. General, can you update the committee on the details of any progress made by the Department, whether through the 

study or through the working groups, on ensuring a viable future for the CRAF, especially following the projected withdrawal from Afghanistan, and regulating compliance with the longstanding National Airlift Policy? 

General FRASER. The President’s Budget retains the entire KC–10 fleet through 

the Future Years Defense Program. Moving that fleet to the Air Force Reserve 

would require further analysis by the Air Force of the KC–10’s effectiveness for operating in a strategic reserve capacity. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. PETERS 

Mr. PETERS. I understand there is an outstanding Urgent Operational Need for 

a sea-based Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) Unmanned Air System 

(UAS) to support Special Operations Forces conducting counterterrorism operations 

in the AFRICOM region. And I understand the Navy is working to meet this requirements through an Endurance Upgrade Rapid Deployment Capability (RDC) acquisition to the MQ–8 Fire Scout. 

Can you tell the committee if your forces still require this capability, how the 

Navy is providing the capabilities you requested, and if any additional support is 

needed to meet this requirement? 

Admiral MCRAVEN. Yes, we still have a valid requirement for Sea Based ISR per 

the January 24, 2012 Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) approved Joint 

Urgent Operational Need (JUON) Request for Sea-Based ISR UAS System Support 

Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum (JROCM) 007–12, January 30, 

2012. The Navy approved the MQ–8 Fire Scout Endurance Upgrade Rapid Deployment Capability (RDC) on February 1, 2012. 

The Navy has provided MQ–8 capability in support of SOF since frigates (FFGs) 

first began to support the requirement in Fall 2012. Fire Scout ISR support is a 

critical enabler in regions where land basing is limited due to political/military restrictions and tyranny of distance. Post-Afghanistan, there will be an increasing 

need for expeditionary, sea-based ISR to support SOF. 

Due to fiscal constraints, Navy MQ–8 ISR support is limited, and the last scheduled deployment of an FFG with MQ–8 capability in support of SOF ends during 

Fiscal Year 2015. Additionally, Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) are not slated to field 

in numbers to regain and sustain current Fire Scout capability for several years. 

However, the Navy has done initial Non-recurring engineering work to install Fire 

Scout on Guided Missile Destroyers (DDGs), which could provide necessary seabased ISR support to SOF in the near-term as an interim solution until LCS is 

available in sufficient numbers. 

Mr. PETERS. I understand that DOD’s Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC), under the purview of the U.S. Transportation Command 

(USTRANSCOM), has jurisdiction over the Strategic Port Program, but that the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers the 

program. Given this shared participation, how are the responsibilities for the pro-
96 

gram delineated between DOD and DOT? Are they clearly defined and understood, 

particularly with respect to funding responsibilities for the Strategic Port Program? 

How does TRANSCOM coordinate with MARAD to ensure that the program’s resource needs are identified and met? 

General FRASER. These responsibilities are delineated in the National Port Readiness (NPRN) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)–Revision 6, signed lastly on 

29 Aug 2006. Specifically, MARAD is responsible for providing vessels, coordinating 

use of commercial shipping services and equipment (containers, chassis, etc), managing and maintaining the National Defense Reserve Fleet/Ready Reserve Force, 

and working with industry stakeholders and organizations (Transportation Research 

Board, American Association of Port Authorities and the National Defense Transportation Association). 

USTRANSCOM’s responsibilities include: providing air, land and sea transportation; directing and coordinating the activities of its components (i.e., SDDC, Military Sealift Command, and Air Mobility Command); exercising command of all 

transportation assets; serving as DOD single manager for transportation; providing 

guidance and insight into DOD transportation policies and plans; and being defense 

transportation sector lead for DOD Critical Infrastructure Program. 

Typically MARAD and USTRANSCOM provide funding only to cover the administer portion of the Strategic Seaport Program, service contracts needed to gather 

information, and analyze the seaports. 

If Strategic Seaport facilities become unsuitable for national security requirements, DOD and MARAD will first work with the Strategic Seaport to identify suitable replacement capability at that port. If no suitable options exist, DOD and 

MARAD coordinate with other Strategic Seaports or identify an alternate seaport 

that has the ability to replace the lost capability/capacity. 

Commercial Strategic Seaports are either privately or municipally owned and 

have various options for funding infrastructure improvements such as: port revenues, general obligation bonds (G.O. bonds), revenue bonds, loans, grants, and other 

sources. The DOD, consistent with the premise of relying on viable/available commercial capability, successfully leverages port self-investment as the best value 

means by which to sustain required seaport capabilities. 

USTRANSCOM, through the Strategic Seaport and Ports for National Defense 

Programs, coordinates with MARAD to ensure DOD’s needs for strategic mobility 

are included in civil sector planning, which guides the funding and maintenance of 

civil sector infrastructure. The Strategic Seaport and Ports for National Defense 

Programs coordinate through the National Port Readiness Network to ensure 

MARAD and the Port Authorities are aware of DOD’s needs and those needs are 

incorporated into Port Planning Orders. DOD’s policy is to rely on civil sector infrastructure, identify and communicate our requirements, and negotiate for the use of 

that excess infrastructure capacity. 

Mr. PETERS. Does TRANSCOM still utilize the Commercial First strategy (which 

prioritizes commercial services above the Strategic Port network)? Has TRANSCOM 

discussed with U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) any standardization of (Strategic Port) Port Planning Order’s (PPO)? Does 

TRANSCOM have the ability to prioritize and/or make recommendations to the improvement of connectivity of the Strategic Port system, if it is found that the physical infrastructure in and around Strategic Seaports is not sufficient? 

General FRASER. USTRANSCOM follows the DOD directives to utilize best value, 

US flag, commercial resources to the maximum extent practicable. Sealift cargo appropriate for commercial carriage to be carried by commercial ships assumes the following priority: first, to commercial vessels already under charter to the United 

States; then to commercial vessels in accordance with the Cargo Preference Act of 

1904 (10 USC 2631) and the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, 7 Nov 07. 

USTRANSCOM has discussed standardization of PPOs with MARAD. Generally 

speaking, the PPOs have historically been standardized by including content of specific berths or linear footage of berths and ‘‘Open air’’ and ‘‘facility enclosed’’ staging. 

USTRANSCOM does not have the ability to prioritize improvement of connectivity 

if it is found that the physical infrastructure in and around Strategic Seaports is 

not sufficient. Such priorities are determined by other Federal, State and local government authorities or, in the case of rail, by the commercial-railroad owner. In the 

Congressional Report titled Update to Port Look 2008, Strategic Seaports Study, 3 

Jan 2012, DOD found that the infrastructure in and around Strategic Seaports is 

currently sufficient to meet DOD’s needs. 

However, USTRANSCOM does have the ability to recommend improvement of 

connectivity by sharing concerns and issues it discovers with MARAD, the Federal, 

State and municipal Departments of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration and the Port Authorities. 
97 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIDENSTINE 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Combat operations in Afghanistan are on track to be concluded 

by the end of 2014. Whether a residual force remains largely depends on whether 

the Afghan government signs the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA). Regardless, 

US Transportation Command is tasked with moving our troops and materiel out of 

Afghanistan. Considering this herculean effort will require assistance from our allies, I wanted to ask you a question along those lines: 

• Azerbaijan has been one of the most reliable partners for the United States as 

a transit route to and from Afghanistan since 2001. How do you now assess the 

role of Azerbaijan as part of your contingency plans for the retrograde from Afghanistan? How closely are you working with the government of Azerbaijan and 

its security forces in those efforts? 

• The Northern Distribution Network has been a critically important transit 

route for the operations in Afghanistan. The United Stated has successfully developed cooperative relations with many of the countries along this route. Can 

you update us on your engagements with and the capacity of these regional 

partners to support US retrograde operations from Afghanistan? 

General FRASER. U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) engagement 

with Azerbaijan has resulted in a strong partnership that capitalizes on mutually 

beneficial logistical efforts. Azerbaijan currently provides surface and over-flight access in support of sustainment and retrograde operations to and from Afghanistan. 

Over the past two years, Azerbaijan has increased their commercial capabilities at 

the Heydar Aliyev Airport by building state-of-the-art wash racks and cold storage 

facilities; both of which are contracted for use by our commercial carriers to respectively move retrograde cargo out of Afghanistan and food supplies into Afghanistan. 

Furthermore, our political engagement strategy resulted in Azerbaijan approving 

the U.S. blanket over-flight of its airspace and decreasing its diplomatic clearance 

lead times for U.S. aircraft landing in support of multimodal operations. As the U.S. 

drawdown in Afghanistan continues, Azerbaijan will be a significant partner in providing flexibility across our strategic lines of communication systems enabling successful sustainment and retrograde operations. 

USTRANSCOM continues to engage successfully with our regional partners 

across the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). Despite decreasing cargo volume 

due to lower force levels in Afghanistan and the strategic requirement to maintain 

flow across other routing options, the NDN continues to provide a scalable transportation network that maximizes flexibility and reduces risk. The relatively unrestricted freedom of movement across the NDN significantly bolsters our distribution 

network. 

Æ