Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - [H.A.S.C. No. 114-109] HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







	[H.A.S.C. No. 114-109]

	HEARING

	ON

	NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

	FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

	AND

	OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

	BEFORE THE

	COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

	SECOND SESSION

	__________

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING

	ON

	THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND FISCAL YEAR 2017 READINESS POSTURE

	__________

	HEARING HELD
	MARCH 15, 2016


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






	______

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

	20-061 WASHINGTON : 2016
	-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
	Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
	DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
	Washington, DC 20402-0001

















	SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

	ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman

	ROB BISHOP, Utah MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
	VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
	AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
	ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York, Vice JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
	Chair TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
	FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey SCOTT H. PETERS, California
	MIKE ROGERS, Alabama TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
	CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
	RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
	BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
	SAM GRAVES, Missouri
	STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma
	Margaret Dean, Professional Staff Member
	Vickie Plunkett, Professional Staff Member
	Katherine Rember, Clerk






















	C O N T E N T S

	----------
	Page

	STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

	Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking
	Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 2
	Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia,
	Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness............................ 1

	WITNESSES

	McDew, Gen Darren W., Commander, USAF, United States
	Transportation Command......................................... 2

	APPENDIX

	Prepared Statements:

	McDew, Gen Darren W.......................................... 22
	Wittman, Hon. Robert J....................................... 21

	Documents Submitted for the Record:

	[There were no Documents submitted.]

	Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

	[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

	Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

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







	THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND FISCAL YEAR 2017 READINESS POSTURE

	----------

	House of Representatives,
	Committee on Armed Services,
	Subcommittee on Readiness,
	Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 15, 2016.
	The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in
	room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert J.
	Wittman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

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

	Mr. Wittman. I will call to order the Subcommittee on
	Readiness of the House Armed Services Committee.
	I want to welcome everybody and thank you for being here
	today with us for the Readiness hearing on the U.S.
	Transportation Command [TRANSCOM] fiscal year 2017 readiness
	posture.
	This is the only hearing in front of this committee by
	TRANSCOM and it has been 2 years since we have had the
	opportunity for the Transportation Command to present its
	readiness posture.
	In the past 3 months, the services testified on increased
	readiness risks due to reduced investments in installation
	infrastructure, training, and equipment. Today I look forward
	to hearing how the Transportation Command's budget request
	enables a readiness recovery plan and where we continue to take
	risk.
	I would like to welcome all of our members and our
	distinguished Air Force expert. This morning we have with us
	General Darren McDew, U.S. Air Force, Commander, United States
	Transportation Command, distinguished VMI [Virginia Military
	Institute] graduate.
	Thank you for testifying today. We look forward to your
	thoughts and insights on these important issues. The purpose of
	this hearing is to clarify Transportation Command's posture to
	address readiness priorities, mitigation strategies, and to
	gather more detail on the current and future impacts of these
	decisions on operations and training.
	Once again, I want to thank our witness for participating
	in our hearing today, and I look forward to discussing these
	important topics.
	And now I would like to turn to our ranking member,
	Madeleine Bordallo, for any remarks that she might have upon
	her return from Guam.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the
	Appendix on page 21.]

	STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE FROM GUAM,
	RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

	Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
	calling this hearing today and, General McDew, I welcome you
	and your entourage.
	I am glad that we are able to hold this meeting, and I
	thank you for being here and for your service to our Nation.
	Transportation Command as a functional combatant command
	plays an integral role in the central planning and the
	execution for the movement of our forces and their equipment.
	As the only command with operational requirements on each of
	the seven continents, TRANSCOM is asked to carry out land, sea,
	and air mobility missions around the world. It enables our
	military to project force in a timely and an efficient manner
	in response to both planned and unforeseen contingency
	operations.
	We have heard from several of the services and combatant
	commands [COCOMs] already this year about the funding
	unpredictability levied by sequestration and years of
	continuing resolutions [CRs]. So I hope that you help us better
	understand how these fiscal conditions have affected readiness
	within TRANSCOM, and where our committee in Congress, as a
	whole, can stop the damage and begin to repair our force.
	I thank you again for being here today, General, and we
	look forward to hearing from you.
	And I yield back.
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo.
	General McDew, we will go to you for your opening statement
	and want you to know, too, that your written statement will be
	entered into the record.

	STATEMENT OF GEN DARREN W. McDEW, COMMANDER, USAF, UNITED
	STATES TRANSPORTATION COMMAND

	General McDew. Thank you, Chairman Wittman, and since you
	opened it up, a hearty, ``Rah Virginia Mil!''
	Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Bordallo--I hope I didn't
	butcher that, ma'am--and distinguished members of this
	committee, it is an honor to be with you today representing the
	men and women of the United States Transportation Command. I
	would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the
	committee and I would like to thank you for the unwavering
	support you give to the men and women who serve this mighty
	Nation.
	I value the time I get to speak to you, and I would like to
	start by highlighting a true American hero with whom I have had
	the pleasure to serve, my senior enlisted leader, Chief Master
	Sergeant William W. Turner. Bill enlisted in July of 1986 in
	Shelbyville, Tennessee, and after 30 years of faithful service,
	this impeccable leader, this airman, his wife, Stacey, and his
	children, Regan, Tyler, Haley, and Jacey, are retiring in May.
	It is a tough, tough thing for him to do.
	Chief Turner is a true American hero who has served with
	distinction, participating in contingency operations around the
	globe, including nine deployments in support of Operations
	Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. He deserves all the respect
	and appreciation our Nation can possibly bestow and he is
	emblematic of those men and women I represent today. But Bill
	Turner will be sorely missed. And he stands right behind me.
	As I appear before you today, I assure you that those men
	and women that he represents in U.S. Transportation Command
	stand ready to deliver this Nation's objectives anywhere at any
	time. I am in awe every day of what its members are capable of,
	and I am proud to serve next to them.
	I am confident our organization is ready to respond when
	our Nation calls. However, there are several trends that
	concern me. First, the current pace of today's operations
	requires the full effort of our non-mobilized air refueling and
	airlift fleets. Should the need arise to respond elsewhere in
	the world, the mobility resources required could exceed
	existing capacity.
	Additionally, I am concerned about our ability to operate
	in increasingly contested environments, including the cyber
	domain where nearly 90 percent of our traffic flows on
	unclassified networks to and from our commercial providers.
	Finally, we must remain vigilant and meet the long-term
	recapitalization needs of tomorrow. Highest among these
	priorities are the development of a viable, strategic sealift
	recapitalization plan and the on-time delivery of the KC-46
	Alpha.
	To address these concerns, I have established the following
	priorities for the command. Ensuring today's readiness while
	advocating for tomorrow's capabilities, advancing our cyber
	domain capabilities, evolving to remain relevant in tomorrow's
	world, and championing an innovative workforce. These
	priorities balance today's readiness while ensuring our focus
	remains clearly on the future.
	In closing, I am committed to working closely with Congress
	and the services to retain the flexibility we require while
	partnering in and out of DOD [Department of Defense] to ensure
	we are always ready to deliver the Nation's objectives in time
	of need.
	Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Bordallo, and
	distinguished members of this committee, thank you again for
	your time and your support to U.S. Transportation Command and
	our total force, and I stand ready for your questions.
	[The prepared statement of General McDew can be found in
	the Appendix on page 22.]
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you, General McDew. I appreciate your
	opening statement and your perspective on both the
	opportunities and challenges there before TRANSCOM.
	I want to begin by exploring the challenges that TRANSCOM
	faces in the cyber realm. And you spoke to those and that you
	were in the unique situation versus other COCOMs and even other
	elements of our Nation's military and the interconnectivity
	between your systems and systems of the industry and systems of
	customers and how that has to be addressed, obviously, in
	today's threat world.
	Give us your perspective on what, first of all, TRANSCOM is
	doing in addressing those threats.
	And then secondly, what type of support are you getting
	from U.S. Cyber Command? And more specifically, do they
	understand the variety of threats that you face because of the
	uniqueness of your systems, and are they, number one, cognizant
	of that? And number two, are they allowing you the flexibility
	you need to make sure that you are properly defending
	TRANSCOM's digital systems?
	General McDew. Thank you, Chairman.
	On the first, on what is U.S. Transportation Command doing,
	the cyber threat--I believe we are in our infancy as a nation
	in dealing with the cyber threat. All of us would probably
	agree that we couldn't foretell where we would be today with a
	cyber threat versus where we were just 10 years ago. And I am
	concerned, as will all of us--where we will be 10 years from
	now.
	U.S. Transportation Command is doing an exceptional job of
	defending our own network and our enclave. As we talked earlier
	this morning, we have some great cyber professionals who won
	awards in how well we defend our network.
	On the periphery of that defense though lies 90 percent of
	what we do, which is on the unclassified commercial networks
	and outside of that we have commercial providers that are under
	attack every single day. So you might not necessarily have to
	attack my strong position inside USTRANSCOM, but go after
	someone who provides us a service.
	With that I am concerned about some definitions that we
	need to get after and that is when I defend my network, how far
	out can I defend? What constitutes an attack on a commercial
	provider? What do they have to report as an attack, because the
	definition may be not as clear with every single person. Those
	are just a few.
	Because of that I believe we are uniquely postured as U.S.
	Transportation Command to work both inside the military and
	outside with Homeland Security in bridging the gap between
	military capabilities and commercial capabilities.
	And that is where Cyber Command squarely fits. And Admiral
	Rogers and I, the Cyber commander, are tied at the hip. He
	fully understands our dilemma. His team is completely linked
	with ours and they are great supporters.
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you. I know that it certainly provides
	you a number of challenges that you must deal with and we want
	to make sure that Cyber Command is cognizant of those and is
	there to help you. I think yours is a unique situation and one
	that we want to make sure that you have the tools necessary to
	defend your systems as well as understanding where the threats
	are from your customers and also from the industry that you
	work with.
	Let me talk about the Maritime Security Program [MSP]. And
	I want to go to the Merchant Marine Act and the U.S. policy
	there states that the vessels of the Merchant Marine shall be
	operated by highly trained and efficient citizens in the United
	States.
	And I understand that as you implement the Maritime
	Security Program, there are about 60 ships there of the 78
	total that are available to provide that sealift, to provide
	that ability for us to move things around as necessary to
	preposition supplies. All those things are extraordinary
	critical and I can go through the numbers of what was moved
	during the conflicts in the Middle East. And it is mind-
	boggling what has been done there, the logistics of what you
	all have done both in Iraq and especially in Afghanistan with
	sometimes challenges to the lines of communication and trying
	to get our military hardware to ports in places like Karachi
	and others.
	A couple of questions that I have is concerning the MSP. To
	what extent are you looking at the program--not just today in
	the capability but what the program needs to provide in the
	future, understanding the challenges that the industry faces
	both with capacity that is in the ships but also capability and
	that is in the merchant mariners that run those ships?
	Give me your perspective on where you see us today but also
	what TRANSCOM needs to do to make sure the future is such that
	both the capacity and capability are there in necessary
	quantities to meet United States military needs.
	General McDew. Yes, Chairman. The Nation is still a
	maritime nation. And our reliance on the maritime force to
	deliver what we call a decisive force. I can deliver an
	immediate force anywhere on the planet tonight. But to deliver
	a decisive force it takes a fully fledged, competent, maritime
	fleet. And that is what the MSP provides us.
	And in the future of the program, in the number of ships
	and in mariners both are concerns. First with ships. The 60
	ships of the 78 is telling because we only have 78 in the
	entire international market for the United States--a maritime
	nation. That is, I believe, a challenge. We ought to have a
	dialogue about how important is a U.S. international fleet to
	the United States of America. I believe it is vital to moving
	military goods and hardware.
	And as you articulated quite well, we could not have done
	the last wars we had without that decisive force being
	delivered by our maritime partners. As a matter of fact as an
	airman, as a career airman it kind of daunts me to tell you
	that it is the maritime force that provides that decisive army
	to provide force around the world.
	And we are working very closely with the Department of the
	Navy to come up with a balanced program that will get after
	ship recapitalization and whether or not and how we
	recapitalize those ships and how long it will take. What we
	don't want to do is take away from the building of other ships.
	And so we got to have some leverage. Is there a part of it that
	will be--maybe we buy some foreign-built ships to bridge the
	gap? Do we build new ships? All of it has to be factored in to
	what the U.S. Navy is doing as well.
	On the mariners--without mariners we don't have a
	capability. And I believe that U.S. credentialed mariners is
	important too. So I have been visiting some of the maritime
	colleges to ensure that those young men and women understand
	how much we need them, how much we value their credentials they
	come out of college with and we need them to go to sea. And we
	need them to stay with us.
	And so it is important that we keep about 11,000 plus is
	what MARAD [U.S. Maritime Administration] tells me, mariners in
	the fleet.
	Mr. Wittman. Very good. Well thanks for your perspective on
	where we are today but also what we need to do in the future
	and I agree with you, we need to have some soul-searching
	conversations about what--both capacity and capability we need
	to build for the future. We know today it seems to be in
	somewhat a state of atrophy, and we need to make sure we are
	anticipating the needs in the future.
	So General McDew thank you so much. And Chief Turner thank
	you, thanks for your service to our Nation. Thanks for all that
	you have done. We wish you all the best in your retirement.
	Please give our best to your wonderful family. I know they
	sacrifice as you serve. Please thank them. We know that service
	to our Nation is indeed a family affair and we appreciate your
	stellar performance and your dedication to this Nation. Thank
	you.
	Now we will go to Ms. Bordallo.
	Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. General
	McDew, every service that has come before our committee has
	talked about the delicate balance between readiness and
	modernization in today's atmosphere of fiscal constraint.
	What primary, secondary, or other affects have fiscal
	constraints put on TRANSCOM readiness, whether in terms of
	personnel or equipment?
	General McDew. Ms. Bordallo, the services have a daunting
	challenge. The first, which--our Secretary of Defense has laid
	out some priorities of what the challenges are that face this
	Nation. I would put at the top of the list--fiscal.
	The threat of sequestration threatens directly the
	services, which directly threatens every single--every single
	combatant command because we are organized, trained, and
	equipped by the services. We have great partnership with the
	services. But their ability to modernize and project that
	modernization forward and plan forward has been challenged by
	the up and down of the fiscal environment. I will put it that
	way.
	So going forward, we have got to provide a stable budget,
	then we work on the size of that budget. But a stable budget, a
	predictable budget, is very, very, very important.
	I am concerned that if they have to make tough choices,
	ma'am--honestly--a tough choice between a new aircraft carrier
	or a new sealift vessel--that is going to be an interesting
	challenge that will impact our ability to transport.
	They understand how important what we do here at the
	Transportation Command is, but they have to make some tough
	choices, and I don't want to have to pit one against the other.
	Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Your command, General, has
	experienced a decreased OPSTEMPO [operations tempo] from the
	height of the war in Afghanistan. Now if the demand for global
	transportation does continue to decline, how will the reduced
	workload affect overall readiness in TRANSCOM and will our
	forces benefit from increased time to recover in time or will
	the reduced contributions to the Transportation Working Capital
	Fund adversely affect readiness?
	General McDew. Yes and no. The decreased OPSTEMPO can't be
	felt across the entire enterprise. I will tell you that we have
	some areas that are still hitting a high OPTEMPO and that is
	our tanker fleet. Our KC-135 and KC-10 refueling fleet is
	stressed at a point that--near bending.
	And I am concerned our ability to flex that force to
	another region of the world if we needed to. So that is still
	at a very, very high OPTEMPO, as are some other smaller areas
	in the command.
	There have been a decrease of cargo flow throughout the
	enterprise and that has been documented. And I am concerned
	that we need to have enough cargo flow to ensure that our
	airlift industry, our gray-tailed--both gray-tail and gray-
	hulled fleet that we own inside the services, and our maritime
	fleet have enough business to keep the capacity we will need in
	the next conflict.
	Because as you know the world is more volatile and we are
	going to have a conflict somewhere and we just need to make
	sure we can have that capacity that we will need and I am
	concerned that too low a flow on the cargo will keep us from
	keeping that at capacity.
	Ms. Bordallo. That is right. All right and I have a third
	question. As we continue the Pacific rebalance strategy, what
	opportunities does this provide to broaden the skills and
	experience of our mobility force? Will the increase in
	transportation need throughout the Pacific provide any
	additional challenges to TRANSCOM?
	And lastly, does TRANSCOM foresee the need for any
	increased infrastructure or capabilities in the region to help
	facilitate transportation operations?
	General McDew. You earlier acknowledged that the fact that
	U.S. Transportation Command is a functional component command.
	I sometimes like to play with the words a little bit. We are a
	functional command, yes, but we have a global responsibility
	and global reach. And we are already in the Pacific. And we are
	working very closely with U.S. Pacific Command [USPACOM].
	We know that there are challenges with distance and time in
	that region. We know that we have some volatile actors in that
	region so we are very, very closely aligned with USPACOM and
	what they are trying to do in the region.
	There are some challenges there but I believe the PACOM
	team is doing some amazing things in the region with partners
	and allies to give us bed-down options and access to ports.
	The challenges of cyber and the challenges of a malign
	actor forcing attrition upon us are sums that we have to
	continue to concern ourselves with but I will tell you, U.S.
	Transportation Command is already in the Pacific and we
	understand the region and our crews are ready to operate there.
	Ms. Bordallo. I am pleased to hear that. Thank you.
	And I, too, would like to go on record as wishing Chief
	Turner the best in the future. Thank you for your service.
	And I yield back.
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo.
	And now I go to Mr. LoBiondo.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	General, thanks to you and your team for the outstanding
	work and service to our country. As you can tell probably from
	some of the questions from the chairman and ranking member that
	the Maritime Security Program is something on our minds, very
	keen that many of us are concerned that if we don't pay
	attention to this program, not something that probably a lot of
	people in America know much about, probably don't care much
	about. But if the wrong thing happens and some conflict breaks
	out and we don't have the proper infrastructure, we are in
	pretty serious--pretty serious problems.
	So you have talked a little bit about it, you have answered
	some of the chairman and the ranking member's questions, but is
	there anything else you can suggest that we can do to ensure
	the health of the Maritime Security Program while right now not
	a lot of people are paying a lot of attention to it?
	General McDew. Congressman, I believe that MARAD, the MARAD
	administration probably summed up the Maritime Security Program
	and the interest in the fleet best when he refers to it as a
	three-legged stool. And there are three things that really can
	strengthen and underpin our maritime force.
	One is the stipend, the MSP that we are talking about. One
	is cargo preference, and we have seen some things over the last
	few years that have decreased the amount of cargo preference
	some of these industries have had. And the other is a robust
	international trade.
	The problem we have is, from my perspective, the only lever
	we have in the Department and inside of MARAD is the stipend.
	That is the only lever that we can actually control. And so
	right now that stipend of $3.1 million which we ought to look
	at increasing over time is keeping 60 ships of only 78 with us.
	And I am behind anything that further increases our ability to
	make sure that we have the capacity we need to go to war.
	And I think that is a leg of the stool that we have got to
	continue to keep an eye on.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo.
	And I go to Mr. Nugent.
	Mr. Nugent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, General, thank
	you for being here and your staff and to the Chief Master
	Sergeant, congrats. It is a good feeling when you know you are
	going to retire. This is my last year, too, so it is a good
	thing.
	And I think you hit on it particularly, you know, we talk
	about the rebalance to the Pacific but right now what is going
	on in Europe and we are looking at, you know, prepositioning
	forces there but trying to surge people there. You know,
	without maritime lift capacity, my sons that are all in the
	Army are going to be kind of hard-pressed just because you
	can't put a Paladin or an Abrams--you can't carry very many on
	an aircraft. But you sure as heck can on a ship.
	You mentioned 78 ships. What do you think the realistic--or
	what numbers should we really be striving to get to to be able
	to meet the surge command, you know, possibilities that we may
	have to face in the future?
	General McDew. You are right, Congressman Nugent.
	On the ability to provide that decisive force, your sons in
	the Army want ships to be able to do that. The 60 ships that we
	have in the Maritime Security Program provide us that ability
	to have capacity in the time of need.
	What we owe is a continual look at what those numbers look
	like, and we work with MARAD who really runs that program for
	us to see what the industry will allow and what portion of the
	industry we can have in the program.
	Will we need all the ships in the program? Maybe not. But
	we need enough in the program to move those critical pieces of
	equipment. There are some that believe that we can rely on
	nations around the world to help us. And maybe we can, but
	history has shown us that--and the law tells us--that we must
	be able to move those critical components with our own
	indigenous forces. And so that is what the 60 gives us and I am
	willing to continue to work with MARAD and the services to
	ensure that we have what--the right capacity going forward.
	Mr. Nugent. Okay, so you really didn't answer the question.
	I am sorry, General, but I was trying to get at, what do you
	think the force should look at? I understand, you know, the 60
	and the 78, but where do you think we should be striving to get
	to as we look forward in regards for this committee and regards
	to appropriations in the future?
	General McDew. Sorry for----
	Mr. Nugent. Okay.
	General McDew [continuing]. Kind of skating a little.
	I don't have an actual number in mind but the team right
	now is--we got--we have a mobility review coming up in the fall
	that will try to get after those numbers. I am concerned that
	we may need additional numbers only because we have had free
	movement through the oceans for the last few conflicts. We have
	not had to worry about attrition and we have not had to worry
	about access to ports and those threats that now can put the 60
	ships in jeopardy.
	So 60, although provides the amount of capacity we will
	need, will also provide the insurance against attrition.
	Mr. Nugent. Right.
	General McDew. And so those--that study--that exercise we
	are going to do in the fall is going to try to get after some
	of those numbers. I don't have an actual number----
	Mr. Nugent. Okay, I appreciate your candor on that.
	We talk about sealift but then we also need to talk about
	the ability to get our troops into theater, and I know the Air
	Force has limited capacity and so we rely upon our civilian
	fleet to do that.
	My concern is that we are starting--correct me if I am
	wrong--that we have started to depend upon foreign aircraft or
	transportation for our troops and, you know, my kids have flown
	on a number of different service-provided aircraft to get to
	Afghanistan and to Iraq.
	Is that true that we are having to rely upon foreign
	aircraft carriers or aircraft?
	General McDew. I would never say never but we have a very
	robust Civil Reserve Air Fleet----
	Mr. Nugent. Right.
	General McDew [continuing]. That is U.S. air carriers.
	Mr. Nugent. Right.
	General McDew. A very robust industry and we have been
	using them to the max extent possible. There are some probably
	subcontracts that may be going on out there inside of the CRAF
	[Civil Reserve Air Fleet] program----
	Mr. Nugent. Right.
	General McDew [continuing]. That we may be using to augment
	that capability. But I don't believe that there is any lack of
	capacity in our craft program right now that we ought to be
	concerned about.
	Mr. Nugent. So is that a problem for us, so if they
	subcontract--if an American carrier subcontracts to a non-U.S.
	carrier that is not certified as CRAF.
	General McDew. They will not necessarily be certified as
	CRAF but they have their own certifications in order to be part
	of our program. In order to be used by that as a subcontractor,
	they have to meet certain criteria. I don't have it off the top
	of my head right now but I am not concerned about the carriers
	that are being used in the system today.
	Mr. Nugent. Okay, because I do--like I said, I have three
	sons that are in the military, in the Army, and I want to make
	sure that when they are transported--not my sons, alone--but
	all of our sons and daughters that get put in a theater that we
	make sure that their ride there is as risk-free as possible. So
	I appreciate it.
	General McDew. The vast majority is done----
	Mr. Nugent. Okay.
	General McDew [continuing]. On U.S. carriers as part of our
	CRAF program. And it is rare that we will use otherwise. And so
	I would have to look at those circumstances.
	Mr. Nugent. I appreciate that, General, and Mr. Chairman,
	thank you very much.
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Nugent.
	Mrs. Hartzler. Okay, all right.
	General McDew, I wanted to drill down a little bit about
	some of the comments that you made talking about capacity, we
	talk about the 78 ships, 60 of which are obligated to TRANSCOM
	in the efforts that they have going forward.
	You spoke about the possibility if the need was there for
	the use of foreign ships. I want you to elaborate on that a
	little bit. Obviously, knowing that they would have to be
	manned by U.S. merchant mariners, citizens of the United
	States, and so I want to get your perspective on how MSP would
	work if you were to--I am assuming contract with foreign ships.
	Give us your perspective, too, on the Jones Act. There is
	many times there is discussion about the Jones Act, whether it
	should stay in place or whether it should not. I think the
	Jones Act has a tremendous amount of utility, especially in
	situations as we face potentially with capacity within our
	sealift ability.
	So give me your perspective there on foreign ships versus
	U.S.-flag ships, the Jones Act, and then how do you manage
	within that realm, again, merchant mariners with--to establish
	that capability?
	General McDew. I may have been a little unclear----
	Mr. Wittman. Sure.
	General McDew [continuing]. What I first transmitted.
	In the MSP it is all U.S. flag--U.S. crewed ships. I
	posited that we ought to have a conversation as a country about
	whether or not we believe that is the way to go forward. I am
	not advocating. But if we don't keep an eye on our capability
	and our capacity, we may find ourselves there by default. And I
	am not advocating that either. But I mentioned that as
	something we ought to be concerned about as a nation--a
	maritime nation.
	So thank you for letting me clarify that a little bit.
	Mr. Wittman. Sure.
	General McDew. I am not advocating----
	Mr. Wittman. Got you.
	General McDew [continuing]. That at all.
	I am advocating potentially as a bridge to capacity and the
	ships that we have in some of our gray-hull fleet and how we
	recapitalize some of those ships is--maybe we can have some
	foreign-built capacity in those ships as we work--these are the
	ones we keep in reserve, our Ready Reserve Force. Can we have
	foreign-built ships?
	The stipend, as we have talked about before, provides our
	maritime industry a little bit of defraying of the cost of the
	difference between what it costs to run a U.S. flag
	organization versus a foreign flag. And the numbers that MARAD
	tells me recently--I don't want to be completely quoted----
	Mr. Wittman. Sure.
	General McDew [continuing]. But the $3.1 [million] just
	defrays the cost of that difference, it doesn't cover the cost
	of that difference. And some would say that that difference is
	upwards of $5 million today. And it may be going up to $6
	million, $7 million, $8 million in the out-years, that
	difference in costs.
	And so that is where the true conversation about MSP and
	the stipend gets to.
	Mr. Wittman. Well, thanks for clarifying that because I do
	think it is a discussion we need to have concerning how do we
	make sure we have that capacity. How do we make sure too that
	we have the capacity going in the future, obviously--aging
	fleet, as you spoke of the capability there to make sure we
	have U.S. merchant mariners to man those ships. I think it is
	extraordinarily important, so definitely an issue we have to
	talk about.
	We put a lot of focus now on amphibious lift, sealift as an
	important component--in fact there is an element of amphibious
	lift that is indeed a sealift component, although it is a
	military ship, per se, it assumes the same role as a sealift
	ship would be in prepositioning supplies and making sure that
	we can move things in the right way in the timely ways that we
	need to.
	So I agree, I think that your perspective there is
	extraordinarily important and one that we need to address on
	the House Armed Services Committee.
	Ms. Bordallo.
	Ms. Bordallo. Thank you Mr. Chairman. General McDew,
	question for you.
	TRANSCOM recently released the CRAF Report in response to
	the fiscal year 2016 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act].
	Can you relate how TRANSCOM engaged with industry in developing
	the inputs in this report to Congress? And was there agreement
	generally or are there still areas of disagreement?
	General McDew. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about
	that a little bit, the CRAF report.
	If I may step back just a second and talk about the
	industry, I believe that U.S. Transportation Command and our
	international, our commercial aircraft industry in this country
	have a good relationship. There is no universal agreement in
	that industry about anything.
	However, I believe--I am being a bit facetious, but if you
	get 20-some-odd carriers in a room you may get a little bit of
	disagreement. So I don't believe we have universal agreement
	but I think we have good agreement that the report addresses
	their concerns.
	I think that we can always improve communication. The
	disagreement we had going into--that caused us to have to do
	the report in the first place, I think, was purely a lack of
	communication, a lack of understanding about terms.
	In the report, we talk about block hours, and that is what
	the commercial industry uses to do their training, do a lot of
	the financing--we don't typically use that term in our
	business. So we may have been talking past each other when we
	talk about readiness of that fleet compared to the readiness of
	our Air Force fleet and the fleets we use.
	So we did engage heavily with industry, we let them see the
	advance reports, which I think upset a few. We then changed the
	report and modified it to address some of their concerns. And I
	believe the final report we included letters from many of the
	carriers. A couple of them still disagree with what is in the
	report but many of them are supportive.
	Ms. Bordallo. Well thank you. That is good news.
	And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. We will now go to
	Mrs. Hartzler.
	Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you Mr. Chairman. General, it is nice
	to meet you. I feel like fellow neighbor, here, being from
	Missouri, and appreciate what you do. Of course we are very
	proud of Rosecrans there, and the C-130s and the airlift they
	provide there. I hope some day to get over and see your base
	personally and tour it. But appreciate what you do.
	I guess my question is, as it relates to the planned Air
	Mobility Command airlift force structure, what is your greatest
	concern in providing airlift capabilities to support the
	Defense Strategic Guidance and contingency operations to other
	combatant commanders?
	General McDew. First, you are welcome to visit anytime. I
	have had a chance to go to Rosecrans on a number of occasions.
	The amount of training, the professionalism, and what they
	bring back to--particularly the C-130 fleet--is remarkable.
	There have been many folks that have said that the training
	they have gotten there is the best training they have ever
	received in their entire careers.
	So please come out and visit us in the cornfields of
	Illinois anytime.
	Mrs. Hartzler. I will pass that on. Thank you.
	General McDew. The Air Mobility Command force structure is
	of concern in a couple of regards, and I am a little bit
	removed from my last job as Air Mobility Command commander, but
	the capacity for the C-17, which has been a remarkable weapons
	system, the C-130, but more importantly I believe the tanker
	refueling fleet is where our greatest need is.
	That airplane is 50-plus years old, the KC-135. It was old
	when I flew it, three decades ago, so it is a bit older now. We
	will be flying it for several more decades. We built 700 of
	those airplanes between 1957 and 1964. It is going to take us
	till the mid- to late-1920s to build the next 179. So that
	recapitalization effort must stay on track, and at the rate
	they are doing it we are going to have to fly the current fleet
	of KC-135s 30 more years. So that is a potential problem.
	On the airlift fleet, I believe that our capacity is
	adequate, and we are just below what we need in capacity-wise
	by about a few airplanes. The Air Force is partnering with us
	to buy back some additional airplanes that they put in backup
	inventory, to bring them back to active inventory. We believe
	that will get us back to the numbers we think we will need in
	most contingencies.
	Of course as an aviator and a commander I can use as many
	as I can get my hands on, but I think that capacity will be
	sufficient with a manageable amount of risk.
	Mrs. Hartzler. It is very, very important, what you do to
	support the other aircraft and the missions being carried out.
	How has sequestration and future defense budget uncertainty
	affected MSC's [Military Sealift Command's] commercial partners
	if they are needed for a contingency or surge?
	General McDew. I believe sequestration impacts all of us.
	The biggest concern for sequestration is on, for me, it does
	impact MSC, it does impact most of our command, but mostly
	because it impacts the services. We rely on the services to
	organize, train, and equip the forces that we will need, all
	the combatant commanders will need in time of war.
	Anything that provides the services with unpredictable
	budgets, anything that decreases their ability to modernize,
	decreases their ability to plan for a new C-17 replacement, to
	keep the KC-46 on track, any of those things adversely impacts
	not only me, but then through me all of the combatant commands.
	So sequestration is not our friend.
	Mrs. Hartzler. Absolutely. I am a member of the Budget
	Committee as well as, and we are working very hard to try to
	make sure that you have what you need and that we make sure and
	replace the defense cuts that were scheduled a few years ago.
	Thank you very much for your service.
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mrs. Hartzler.
	Now we will go to Mr. Gibson.
	Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And General, thank you very much for your leadership.
	Congratulations and thank you for your service, sacrifices of
	your family, and I also see your hardworking staff behind you,
	and I appreciate them as well.
	A couple of questions in terms of this budget. I'm
	interested to know the commitment from the command in terms of
	revitalizing the Global Response Force [GRF], and then if you
	could also talk to the European Reassurance Initiative,
	concerns you have with regard to your command's
	responsibilities thereof.
	General McDew. I just have to scramble to write because I
	have no memory any more. First note, hardworking staff, they
	are more than hardworking, they are brilliant, and they
	underpin anything I am able to do. There are some great men and
	women at U.S. Transportation Command that underpin, I think,
	the power of this Nation and I always will take an opportunity
	to brag about them when I get a chance. So thank you.
	Revitalizing the Global Response Force--it is something
	that concerns me because I have told my other combatant
	commander friends, whatever they do is what we do. And how they
	do it, how they plan for it, impacts what we can help them
	with.
	If they go into a cloak-filled room to provide a Global
	Response Force but can't make sure it is transportation
	feasible, then we don't have a Global Response Force. Our
	ability to project an immediate force tonight and a decisive
	force tomorrow is underpinned in the cornfields of Illinois, in
	this country.
	I think all of them understand that, and we are working
	very closely with each and every one of them to do it,
	including my friend at European Command [EUCOM]. That
	initiative is going to be transportation-heavy to be able to
	move back and forth the forces we will need to provide
	reassurance to our allies and we are ready to do it.
	I think we will also provide some cargo capacity to keep
	capacity in our maritime fleet, which is also important to this
	Nation.
	Mr. Gibson. Just to follow up, in terms of the rotating
	armored brigade combat team, do you feel you have good numbers
	now in terms of what impact that is gonna be, how that is gonna
	affect your ability to accomplish your worldwide mission in
	view of this new requirement?
	General McDew. I don't believe we have all of the numbers
	that we will need until we fully understand the size, scope,
	and periodicity of those rotations. I do believe we have the
	capacity to take care of it and the rest of the world but it
	depends on what the rest of the world looks like. If the rest
	of the world stays relatively calm, and we are not putting
	large troop rotations through another region of the world, yes.
	If we have the capacity we have right now in the Middle East
	and we had to swing to another massive thing while doing those
	troop rotations we would just have to make sure that we time it
	appropriately and see where we might assume some risk with some
	limited assets.
	The first one that will come to be a limiting factor is our
	air refueling fleet. That fleet will be a lim fac [limiting
	factor] very, very quickly if we are swinging from one region
	of the world to the other, because we are using it so heavily
	right now in the Central Command [CENTCOM] region.
	Mr. Gibson. I am not surprised. I expected that and I
	appreciate the comment very much. I think that is really where
	the risk is. I support where we are heading on this. I think it
	is important for the reassurance, but when you consider the
	other requirements that we have from the other combatant
	commanders, and the uncertain environment, the volatile and
	uncertain environment, I am concerned as far as commitments we
	are making, and then if we should have to do something in the
	Pacific that is rather significant, would we still be able to
	accomplish our reassurance in Europe.
	Some of this we probably don't want to go into now, it
	would rather be classified, but just know that this committee
	from a readiness standpoint, that is one of the issue areas and
	concerns we have and so we very much look to you and your staff
	to give that fine-point analysis on this going forward.
	Anything else, sir, that you wanted to mention?
	General McDew. No, it is something that my staff back at
	Scott [Air Force Base] works on almost daily. We are in
	constant contact with each of the combatant commands. We have
	asked, though, that we look at some of the timing to ensure
	that we don't try to put all of it out all at once. If we can
	smooth flow it out and at least be as predictable as we can, I
	believe that we can accomplish most of what the European
	Reassurance Initiative will get for us and still underpin the
	deployments around the world.
	Mr. Gibson. Thank you very much, General.
	And with that, Chairman, I yield back.
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibson.
	Why don't I go to Mr. Peters.
	Okay, thank you.
	General, I wanted to talk a little bit about the DP3
	[Defense Personal Property] program as we had spoken at a
	little bit earlier.
	I know the transition from the previous contractor to the
	new contractor didn't get off on the best foot. We got a lot of
	calls, as well as others, about personal property and the
	timeliness of it getting back stateside or even getting to
	forward-deployed areas wherever those folks may be.
	Can you give us an up-to-date perspective on where the DP3
	program is now with current carrier, the timeliness, the
	performance standards that are required on the contract, and
	how this contractor is performing?
	General McDew. Our global privately owned vehicle contract,
	the GPC-3, was something that I had to learn quickly about when
	I took command of U.S. Transportation Command because as I tell
	my staff--you move goods and services for the military all the
	time but when you move a family, that is something that really
	is extremely emotional and we all understand it because we all
	have families who have moved around the world.
	And so this particular contract did not get off to a good
	start. But the movement from a vendor who had it for 15 years,
	transitioning to a new one is always going to have some
	challenges. But there was also a period of time where the new
	contractor wasn't allowed to get started because of a protest.
	So that further hampered their ability.
	And there is no other way to describe it but abysmal is how
	it started.
	But last year, this contractor moved 72,000-plus vehicles.
	They had four quarters of work. Their lowest quarter of on-time
	delivery was 86 percent. They had two quarters above 99
	percent. I believe they have turned the corner.
	I have challenged my staff to say one day we will recompete
	this contract. We don't want to have this happen again. So we
	are--I am taking a briefing every single peak season, I will
	take a briefing. We should never be surprised that the peak
	season for moving people is the summertime. And surprisingly,
	Christmas happens on the 25th of December. We shouldn't be
	shocked by that at any time in the future. And I don't think we
	will be.
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you, General McDew.
	Are there any other questions? Mr. Peters.
	Mr. Peters. I want to thank you, General. I apologize. They
	scheduled two hearings at the same time for me so I am trying
	to run between both.
	And what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, if it is all
	right, I have a couple questions having to do with strategic
	ports and the use of them that I will submit for the record.
	And I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your having this hearing.
	Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Peters. We will gladly do that.
	Any other questions that you might have, General McDew will
	submit them for the record, and as well as any other committee
	members.
	So if there are no further questions before this hearing, I
	will adjourn.
	General McDew, thank you very much. Thank you.
	[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


	=======================================================================




	A P P E N D I X

	March 15, 2016

	=======================================================================


	PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

	March 15, 2016

	=======================================================================

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



	=======================================================================


	QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

	March 15, 2016

	=======================================================================



	QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN

	Mr. Wittman. Do you agree that the 60 Maritime Security Program
	ships provide USTRANSCOM with assured access to an effective, national
	defense sealift capability?
	General McDew. Yes, the capacity and vast intermodal capabilities
	offered by Maritime Security Program (MSP), and assured through our
	Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Contingency Contracts, enable
	USTRANSCOM to project and sustain forces across the globe and meet the
	most demanding wartime requirements. The MSP ships provide
	approximately 20% of our entire force projection capacity and almost
	all of our sustainment capacity. Additionally, MSP provides over 2,400
	mariners that contribute to the current pool of 11,280 mariners that
	presently crew both the government-owned and commercial ships.
	Mr. Wittman. If the Maritime Security Program's effectiveness is
	minimized and U.S. flag is reduced, what would be the impact on our
	military's ability to fully activate, deploy and sustain forces?
	General McDew. Reductions to the number of vessels participating in
	Maritime Security Program (MSP) would result in USTRANSCOM's inability
	to fully activate, deploy and sustain forces across the globe. The pool
	of U.S. mariners need to crew the U.S. flag commercial fleet as well as
	the government-owned surge fleet is at a point where additional vessel
	losses will jeopardize our ability to project power to meet wartime
	requirements.
	Today there are 78 U.S. flag ships trading internationally of which
	60 participate in the MSP program and receive a stipend to offset the
	cost of operating a U.S. flag vessel. Reductions to government impelled
	and commercial cargo would likely result in losses to MSP vessels and
	other U.S. flag ships trading internationally. These reductions would
	further degrade USTRANSCOM's ability to crew the surge fleet upon
	activation.
	______

	QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HUNTER
	Mr. Hunter. I reviewed with great interest the report prepared by
	the U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) in response to section 1085
	of the FY 2016 NDAA (hereinafter, ``the Report''). The purpose of the
	Report is to foster a data-driven process for determining the level of
	peacetime airlift augmentation necessary to ensure CRAF readiness and
	interoperability. I recognize that TRANSCOM currently projects
	relatively high levels of CRAF airlift augmentation due to current
	world events, but we have seen CRAF augmentation fluctuate in the past
	(e.g., following the post-OIF/OEF drawdown). Would you agree that it is
	important for TRANSCOM to develop a systematic process for determining
	the level of airlift augmentation necessary to maintain CRAF readiness
	and interoperability?
	General McDew. CRAF is an exceptionally important part of the
	National Defense transportation capacity. We depend on our CRAF
	partners to routinely augment airlift especially if we need to mobilize
	for war. We agree that it is important that USTRANSCOM maintains a
	systematic process to ensure CRAF carriers are able to operate within
	the military airlift system. We believe USTRANSCOM's current plans and
	our forecasted workload over the next several years will be sufficient
	to maintain interoperability throughout the airlift system.
	USTRANSCOM defines CRAF readiness and interoperability as the
	ability for CRAF carriers to operate within the military airlift
	system. In the Report, USTRANSCOM, using a systematic process, defined
	the minimum level of airlift augmentation as a combination of flying,
	and particularly ground activities, which preserve CRAF readiness and
	interoperability.
	USTRANSCOM previously employed, and continues to employ, a
	systematic process for determining the level of commercial airlift
	augmentation, as required by the National Airlift Policy, which it
	shares during executive engagements with industry throughout the year,
	and which was affirmed by the CRAF Study, Phase II Report, in 2014.
	Mr. Hunter. I was struck by the Report's assertions that: (i)
	``ground activities and engagements,'' such as board meetings and
	industry group gatherings, are sufficient to maintain interoperability
	between CRAF carriers and the military airlift system; and (ii) that
	there is ``little correlation between hours flown by CRAF participants
	on DOD missions and their ability to operate within DOD networks.'' The
	National Airlift Policy, signed by President Reagan and still in force
	today, requires DOD to ``establish appropriate levels for peacetime
	cargo airlift augmentation in order to promote the effectiveness of the
	Civil Reserve Air Fleet and provide training within the military
	airlift system.'' Please explain how TRANSCOM's reliance on ground
	activities is consistent with the National Airlift Policy's directive
	to ensure CRAF readiness and interoperability by ``establish[ing]
	appropriate levels for peacetime cargo airlift augmentation''?
	General McDew. USTRANSCOM defines CRAF readiness and
	interoperability as the ability for CRAF carriers to operate within the
	military airlift system. This includes the ability of the carriers to
	successfully interface with DOD's command and control activities as
	well as the ability of commercial crews to safely operate at military
	airfields. In the report, USTRANSCOM, using a systematic process,
	established an appropriate level of airlift augmentation which
	accounted for the military airlift system training provided by ground
	activities.
	Ground activities and engagements alone are not sufficient to
	ensure readiness and interoperability. It also requires an appropriate
	number of touch points between commercial aircraft and military aerial
	port personnel which occur when CRAF participants operate DOD missions.
	However, it is the number of these touch points versus the number of
	hours flown that are important when determining the minimum level of
	airlift augmentation required to meet National Airlift Policy
	objectives. For example, a greater contribution to CRAF readiness and
	interoperability is achieved by two CRAF cargo flights originating at
	Dover AFB and flying five hours to Keflavik, Iceland, than a single
	flight flying 20 hours to Al Udeid AB, Qatar. Although the ``block
	hours'' are half as much for the two flights to Keflavik, arguably
	twice as much experience is gained by both DOD and the carriers on
	those two flights compared to the single flight to Al Udeid. The
	National Airlift Policy requires the DOD to (1) promote the
	effectiveness of the CRAF and (2) provide training within the military
	airlift system. USTRANSCOM accomplishes the first task via CRAF/
	commercial augmentation contracts and accomplishes the second task
	through systemic ground-based activities/engagements and aerial port
	touch points.
	Mr. Hunter. All DOD assets (e.g., aircraft, ground vehicles, ships,
	submarines, and weapons) are required to be exercised within a military
	operating environment. The Report suggests that CRAF is an exception
	because pilots are already routinely flying in commercial activities.
	Would you agree that strategic airlift readiness requires exercising
	the entire network and enterprise (including military ground
	personnel), not just pilots? If so, how does TRANSCOM ensure the
	readiness and interoperability of the entire network with such low
	levels of peacetime airlift augmentation?
	General McDew. USTRANSCOM ensures the readiness of CRAF
	participants with respect to interoperability within the military
	airlift system in accordance with the guidance in the NAP. There is a
	corresponding spectrum of activities and engagements that provide the
	touch points necessary for CRAF participants to successfully operate
	within DOD networks. These include a minimum level of commercial
	aircraft activity at AMC aerial ports, certifications and CRAF
	participant inspections, table-top CRAF activation exercises and key
	leader interfacing between the military and industry at various
	echelons.
	USTRANSCOM's assessment determined there is little correlation
	between increased hours known by CRAF participants on DOD missions and
	their ability to operate within DOD networks. Pilot seasoning is a
	responsibility of the airline and a prerequisite for participation in
	the CRAF program. Interoperability between carriers and the military
	airlift system is a function of aerial port activity, exercises,
	inspections, and interface at various echelons.

	[all]
	</pre></body></html>