Posture and Readiness of the Mobility Enterprise

I call this hearing to order. Good afternoon. Before we start, I'd like to take a moment and remember all the casualties from Operation Epic Fury to include the six fallen airmen from last week's tragic crash of Zeus 95. Our thoughts go out with the family members. We mourn each of them. The KC-135 community is a large one and this loss has reverberated across that family. Today is good to be back with our readiness colleagues for another joint hearing. Our topic is the posture and readiness for our mobility enterprise. Thank you to my good friend and Seapower Ranking Member Joe Courtney, as well as Readiness Chairman Jack Bergman and Ranking Member John Garamendi for their collaboration on this critical, often overlooked topic. And I'm just going to take a few moments, just a moment of silence for those fallen comrades, those six and the other seven that we know of now and any others that are in harm's way. The United States Transportation Command and Maritime Administration, TRANSCOM and MARAD, provide vital logistic capabilities in support of our force projection to help overcome the tyranny of distance. It's only getting harder to move and sustain our equipment and our people across these vast distances. However, this mobility is the foundation of our ability to project peace through strength. This challenge will require both organic and commercial logistics capability. Within the Seapower jurisdiction, the subcommittee continues our strong support for the Tanker Security Program as well as the Maritime Security Program. The FY 25 NDAA strengthened these programs and we stand by to provide any additional statutory changes that assure our access to critical sealift capability for liquid and dry cargoes on U.S. flag and U.S. crewed commercial vehicles. I think it was General Patton who said, operations are for amateurs, logistics are for professionals. General Reed, I know that you understand how important logistics are to our nation's armed forces. The same with you, Mr. Carmel. It is so important that we get the logistics piece right, whether that is getting there or getting back there or resupplying while we're there. There is nothing more important than TRANSCOM and MARAD. I'm going to enter the rest of my statement for the record, but before I do that, I just want to pass on, General Reed has his wonderful wife Lynn here with him today. As someone who has served, I understand that our family members, especially our spouses who endure our careers and allow us to do the jobs that we have to do, I cannot thank you enough. Your service is as great or greater than the service members that you allow to serve. And so I just can't go without saying thank you for being here today, as I'm sure you have been a partner throughout General Reed's career and we thank you for that. And with that, I recognize my friend Joe Courtney.

Thank you, Chairman Kelly. And I also want to begin by associating my remarks with your words of condolence and sorrow, particularly over the loss of the KC-135 aircrew and all the families who've lost service members in the war in Iran. This committee has jurisdiction over the tanker program and the work of its pilots and crews who do so much important and complex operations for our national security. And their service, which sometimes is not maybe that well known, deserves all of our support and appreciation for what they do, not just for our armed services but also for our country. And again, I want to welcome both witnesses here as well, General Reed and Mrs. Reed for being here, our new MARAD Administrator Steve Carmel. Again, we had a great visit a few weeks ago and I'm very excited about the fact that someone with your incredibly strong background in industry is at the helm of this position. And I think a lot of us all kind of think alike and hopefully we're going to do good things together. So again, thank you for your appearance today. Again, we hold this hearing every year and sometimes it does feel a little bit like Groundhog Day because some of the recurring challenges are sort of revisited year in and year out. What I would say is the good news is there is strong bipartisan support for recapitalizing the sealift program, which Trent mentioned in his opening remarks. And the same holds true for our airlift programs as well, which particularly and hopefully we'll talk a little bit about the C-17 age right now in terms of where that stands in terms of our future priorities. Again, this subcommittee remains committed to moving these priorities as fast as possible. Again, I would just again for the record note that in the FY 17 National Defense Authorization Act, we were the first to mandate the use of vessel contract manager models for ship construction. And we're seeing great success with the Merchant Marine training ship recapitalization program. And we have legislated over the last two years extending those authorities to the National Defense Reserve Fleet and also for landing ship mediums, which the Secretary of the Navy just announced a couple weeks ago that they are actually going to move forward again using the VCM model, which really I think shows great promise in terms of speed and affordability in terms of ship construction. Again, I would just end by noting what I mentioned a moment ago, which is that the C-17 cargo planes, which have been workhorses for decades, are starting to get a little long in the tooth. And we really start, we need to start having a real conversation, hopefully it will spread to other committees and the defense committees in terms of how we not get in a situation where we're doing service life extensions ad nauseam for platforms that really cost a lot of money to sort of keep in the air. So again, I want to recognize our friends from the Readiness Subcommittee who again are very passionate and active in this portfolio and with that I yield back.

Thank you, Ranking Member Courtney. I now recognize Mr. Bergman, who is not here. If I ask unanimous consent that his opening statement be entered for the record as well as my completed statement from earlier. And with that, I recognize Mr. Garamendi.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Carmel. Delighted you're with us. Appreciate the conversation we had and look forward to continuing that conversation. General Reed, your lovely wife behind you brings you even more attention and we appreciate your meeting when we had an opportunity to discuss many of these issues. I do represent Travis Air Force Base, so this issue of refueling is very, very much on my mind, as well as the C-17s and other transport aviation assets. Joining my colleagues here in acknowledging our service members that have died in the most recent conflict in Iran. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with the members, their families, and others who are continuing to serve. Whether transporting cargo, refueling assets, or sustaining our forces, men and women support our mobility enterprise both in uniform and out. It's a critical source of our nation's strength. I'm grateful that the subcommittees are meeting again jointly. I really enjoy the company of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Courtney and of course our chairperson on the Readiness Subcommittee. Unfortunately, I think you used the word Groundhog Day. It seems as though we keep going back over the same turf and do we make progress along the way? I think the answer is yes, we do. We have a better understanding of the issues. The solutions are out there. The C-17 as just mentioned by my colleague Mr. Courtney is but one example. The KC-135 is even older, Joe. And unfortunately, the accident that did occur and the related deaths came from one of the airframes came from Beale Air Force Base. That was the airframe that survived that incident. So where do we go from here? I guess I awoke in the last couple of days and I'm going, the Secretary of Defense did, excuse me, Secretary of War did what? He applied for a Jones Act waiver? Why? What's that all about? I want to get into that in much more detail. You just can't take a Jones Act waiver and say, okay, we're going to do it. Waiving for what, where, why, how, and what was the problem that was going to be solved here? We really need to find out. The committee generally and certainly in my own world has been to support the Jones Act. It's critically important and it relates directly to the issue of the SHIPS Act. And Mr. Kelly, thank you so very much for joining with us in being one of the four principal authors of the SHIPS Act. So what's going on here? I don't know if you have the answers, General Reed or Mr. Carmel, but if you do, please share with us why is there a waiver of the Jones Act? So let's just spend a moment on the SHIPS Act. If we're concerned about moving personnel and equipment, we're going to have to build some American vessels. And we're going to have to flag them in America. We need our shipyards to be busy and ultimately we cannot succeed if we do not have the fleet to move the men and equipment and women and equipment. So we'll see what happens. The SHIPS Act seems to be in good shape and hopefully it will move out of Congress and to the President. I do appreciate the President's statement on the maritime necessities. It fits very well with the SHIPS Act. And so we'll continue to move that. So TRANSCOM and MARAD, we win or we lose based upon the work that you do. Mr. Carmel, you had some different ways of looking at how to build our fleet. I hope you're going to take that up and when I go to questions I'll probably, if you don't pick it up, I will query you on what was a new way of moving this thing forward. So with that, I yield back and look forward to the hearing. Thank you.

The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the witnesses for five minutes each. Mr. Carmel, I recognize you and when you're done, General Reed, for your statements.

Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman, Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Garamendi, and Ranking Member Courtney. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I want to start with a simple framing. The United States is not experiencing a temporary maritime downturn. We are confronting the cumulative effects of a long-term structural disengagement from the global maritime system. Three facts define where we are today. First, the United States has not built a commercial ship for sale into the global market since 1960. We do not build nor could we the types of ships that carry our nation's commerce. In fact, we cannot repair them either, our ship repair sector being incapable of docking large container ships, all things considered, that make up a large part of the MSP fleet, for example. This is not a cyclical gap. It reflects decades of separation from the international shipbuilding ecosystem and building at scale means building for the export market, not a domestic one. In the U.S., we seem to have lost a firm grasp on what big means. Second, the U.S. flag international fleet has declined to roughly 80 ships. None primarily carry the foreign commerce of the United States and not one molecule of energy. Nor do we have the capacity to service with U.S. flag cable ships the undersea infrastructure upon which hundreds of billions of dollars of data deliverable U.S. export trade depends, nor can we mine critical minerals on the seabed with U.S. flag ships. At the same time, we often overlook the critical economic and strategic value of the Great Lakes and inland waterways fleet, which must be more fully integrated into our maritime ecosystem. Third, Congress and TRANSCOM deserve real credit for preserving sealift capacity. But those investments operate within a legacy architecture. The resulting brittleness of a surge sealift capability dependent on that model tells us that perhaps it needs to be reexamined. The Ready Reserve Force struggles because of the indisputable and fundamental fact that idle assets decay. Fighting that is expensive and rarely successful. Taken together, these are not isolated shortcomings. They are the predictable outcome of treating maritime capability as a collection of discrete assets rather than an integrated system and a cost-center centric strategy that has outsourced shipbuilding, repair, logistics, financing, and digital maritime infrastructure. Outsourcing is cheap, but it works only as long as those you are outsourcing to are willing to do the work and it robs you of the most critical component of resilience, which is options. Choice before Congress is therefore not whether to make incremental improvements, but whether we're prepared to make trajectory-altering change, to think not only outside the box but outside our experience. If we do so, maritime dominance is within our grasp. That change in mindset requires resisting a familiar but dangerous instinct, optimizing incumbent architectures rather than rearchitecturing the entire system. The United States risks modernizing its industrial plant to become merely better at low volume instead of rebuilding it for repeatable modular production integrated with digital engineering at scale. One principle above all else must guide our efforts as we operationalize a maritime action plan to build our maritime ecosystem. Maritime power must be grounded in commercial reality. Fleets that do not carry cargo cannot sustain themselves. Access to trade, not expanded subsidy, must be the foundation of any durable solution. Today, access to cargo is one of the most serious challenges facing not only a revitalized shipbuilding enterprise, but both the Maritime Security Program and Tanker Security Program. The pool of preference cargo is limited and in some trades declining. This constraint is a principal reason why it would be very risky to expand the Tanker Security Program beyond the 10 vessels currently enrolled. Expanding capacity without expanding cargo access would dilute utilization and reduce effectiveness. The same constraint places increasing pressure on the Maritime Security Program carriers. Efforts to improve Ready Reserve Force readiness through activations draw from the same limited pool of preference cargo on which MSC vessels depend. In effect, readiness measures for one part of the system unintentionally cannibalize another. This highlights a fundamental tension in the current architecture. The Maritime Security Program and the Ready Reserve Force are not independent instruments. They interact and at times compete within a single constrained cargo environment. That tension underscores the maritime action plan's pillar one and pillar three emphasis on cargo access and systems integration, recognizing that commercial viability, reserve capacity, and readiness must be managed together rather than expanded independently. Underlying all this is a single organizing principle: assets fail, systems endure. Maritime power functions as an ecosystem and it must be rebuilt as one. The Maritime Administration is committed to being a responsible and responsive partner in that effort. Rebuilding our maritime capability is achievable, but it must be treated as a priority. Absent that prioritization, our future testimony will no longer be about how to achieve maritime dominance, but how to live without it. Thank you. morning will no longer be about how to achieve maritime dominance, but how to live without it. Thank you.

General Reed.

Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Courtney, Chairman Bergman, Ranking Member Garamendi, distinguished members of the committees. Today, my bride Lynn, our senior enlisted leader Chief Master Sergeant Brian Krzelnik, and the men and women of the United States Transportation Command pause for six seconds to offer condolence and comfort to the families of six Air National Guard and active duty teammates who gave their all while serving in the CENTCOM area of responsibility. As thousands more continue projecting, maneuvering, and sustaining the joint force globally via airways, highways, sea lanes, rail lines, pipelines, ports, and cyberspace, our resolve is unbreakable. We are ready, united, and decisive, and together with your support, we will become ever more ready so that we will always deliver. Thank you for the opportunity to represent USTRANSCOM and the opportunity to answer your questions.

Thank you, witnesses, and thank you for appearing here. I'll start with questions myself. General Reed, thank you for visiting with me, and as we discussed and was demonstrated in Operation Midnight Hammer, air refueling is a critical enabler for the entire joint force. Too often, tanker capacity is treated as a follow-on consideration rather than a foundational requirement. As we evaluate future force structure, whether adding bombers, sustaining a future 24/7 airborne command and control like Looking Glass, how are you assessing tanker requirements upfront, and do we currently have sufficient tanker capacity to meet these demands, and if not, what additional capability or capacity is needed?

Thank you, Chairman, for that. The principal role of air refueling and airlift within USTRANSCOM is to serve as the immediate force. This is when we need to be the most responsive. This is when we need to get the joint force moving the fastest, and the best way to do that extended at range is through air refueling. Currently, the air refueling fleet is the most stressed fleet that we have, but it is the one that I use the most to actually set the conditions to get the joint force on the move. Midnight Hammer showed just how much it actually takes to move the joint force at speed, and we continue to see that each time we engage in an operation. As we go forward, the largest challenge and the largest concern that I have is the survivability of the fleet. The adversaries continue to advance in their ability to see us and to affect us, and so with that, we continue to press for increased connectivity of the fleet to be able to get information inside the airplanes to the crews so that they could see what's happening around them, that I can give them direction and control, and that they can be more responsive. Something else that absolutely has to happen, and I appreciate your support, is the continuous recap of the fleet. Right now, it's currently the KC-46, and I ask that we continue to support for that. Thank you.

Retired Admiral Gary Roughead recently wrote an article in RealClearPolicy about the importance of government cargoes for U.S. maritime presence. I ask unanimous consent to enter the article into the record. Without objection, so ordered. General Reed, given TRANSCOM's reliance on the Tanker Security Program for surge capacity, how are you ensuring reliable fuel procurement and supporting TSP operations for a contested environment, and are there any gaps that could limit availability?

The gap that we have is that the fleet as it stands now is incredibly small, but just as we heard before, cargo is all-important. And so we in TRANSCOM are trying to do what we can within the authorities that we have to increase the opportunities for that. We continue to explore any and all possibilities that we may have through exercising as well, but as we go forward, we are going to have to find ways to expand the fleet.

And again, General Reed, and I'm trying to get to you, Mr. Carmel, I'm not ignoring you. The Mobility Capability Requirements Study has been an invaluable resource, and I commend your team for the depth of analysis over the past 35 years. As we look at the most demanding scenarios for bombers, airlift, and tanker operations, have those stress cases been validated against the current assumptions of the MCRS, and do they accurately reflect the demands we would face in a high-end conflict today? And as an aside, does DOD realize an aircraft floor is not an aircraft ceiling?

Thank you for that question, and thank you for the credit for the work for the last 35 years. We are currently, as we speak, running through the next study, which is due to you early next year. It will take into account emerging threats that we see. It will also take into account the experiences that we've seen in the last two to three years. Once that study is complete, it will inform what changes we need to make, and we'll come back to this committee with those findings.

Thank you. And Administrator Carmel, thank you for meeting with me, and in our meeting, we discussed the Tanker Security Program and Maritime Security Programs. Do we have sufficient government cargoes to make these programs effective, and what risk do any shortfalls pose to their long-term viability?

Thank you, sir. As we discussed, we do not have enough cargo, government preference cargo. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the Tanker Security Program, that limits potential growth. General Reed and the TRANSCOM team are great partners with us in industry, and we all understand that we have a problem we have to solve. I would note that I think it might be a little bit unfair to place the entire burden of that solution on TRANSCOM. I think the purpose of the TSP program was to provide militarily useful tonnage that potentially could make something of a living in a commercial space, and I think we ought to do a better job at looking there for that, in my personal opinion. That cargo is there. The solutions are all around us. It requires a different way of thinking about how to go about cargo, so it's not just a General Reed, you need to produce more military cargo. There's other ways to do this, and we're going to get there.

Thank you, and my time is expired. I now recognize my friend, Ranking Member Joe Courtney.

Thank you, Chairman Kelly. So, Mr. Carmel, again, your testimony was actually quite impressive in terms of just laying out a different type of vision that we've just got to get out of sort of the rut that we're in in, you know, that's constraining the growth of shipbuilding and the maritime sector. You know, we talked a little bit a few weeks ago about the fact that, you know, a national maritime strategy really is the best way to kind of, you know, paint the picture so that different parts of the government, not just TRANSCOM, you know, can really work towards achieving that goal of expanding capacity. What's your view of a national maritime strategy right now in terms of, and do you see one coming together that, again, is going to help guide Congress and the country?

Thank you for that question, sir. And actually, I do. I feel highly encouraged. A national maritime strategy is an all-of-government approach. The DOD should not be primarily responsible for maintaining the U.S. flag merchant marine. The merchant marine is here for two reasons. First, to carry our nation's commerce, and second, to carry the nation to war when we need to. Full stop. That's what we're here for. And we need to focus more on the first part. I had a great conversation with Commissioner DeBelli yesterday from the Federal Maritime Commission. I think there's awesome opportunity there for us to work with the FMC to develop a more viable base of commercial cargo. We've had great conversations with the Department of Commerce, again, on finding commercial cargo that can help sustain our fleet, and the folks at OMB, National Security Council. So all of those people working together, I think, we are coming, we are coalescing to a common view that we are not going to succeed unless we get a grip on carrying our nation's commerce. That's what we're here for. And if we can do that, the second part of carrying us to war works well. So I'm very optimistic that we are going to get there.

Good, because I know, I mean, this idea of a national maritime strategy is something that your predecessors, who have been very sincere and committed, you know, were also focused on. I mean, do you sort of envision this sort of coming together like in the next year, two years? You know, is that because it is, it involves all of government, really, as you were just describing.

Yes, sir. I do envision it. In fact, I'm driving for it. If I accomplish anything before I leave here, well, there's a lot of things I want to accomplish before I leave here, but that is one. The one thing I absolutely do not want it to be is a PowerPoint presentation no one reads. We are going to produce a maritime strategy that gives us a maritime industry that works, and we don't have to come back to this 10 years from now and do it all over again. You mentioned it yourself. We've got to stop this starting and stopping and over and over and stuff like that. We're going to do that.

The, I mean, if you look back in history, I mean, there was a national maritime strategy that was developed in the 1930s, and actually it provided, I think, the infrastructure for, you know, a nation that entered a world war. So I think, again, I think you'll have strong support on this subcommittee in terms of helping in any way possible to achieve that goal. General, again, I mentioned the C-17 situation, which, you know, we spent a lot of time on tankers over the years and we still should, as John points out, but maybe again, if you could spend a minute just talking about, you know, where you see the C-17 fleet and, you know, what the prospects are for really starting to look at recapitalizing, you know, that important part of your portfolio.

Thank you for that question, and it is something that I think sometimes causes a little bit of confusion when I say things like that. So the Maritime Security Program and the Tanker Security Program

Thank you. C-17 is a fantastic platform and it's been around for quite some time. I remember as a lieutenant standing on the ramp at McChord watching this new plane actually arrive. Since then, we continued to build it for a while, but we've used it an awful lot in 30-some-odd years. Right now, the average age of the fleet is about 22 years. My concern is the length of time that it actually takes to design and field a new platform. And so with that being said, the time is now to get started on what comes next.

Actually, you're a pretty young guy, so I think using your own experience, but no, I think your point is extremely well taken and I think that, you know, it's something, again, our subcommittee should be looking at in terms of creating authorities to move an enterprise like that forward. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Courtney. We actually had that discussion in my office yesterday. So I now recognize the gentlelady from the Commonwealth of Virginia, who is such a great member of this committee, Ms. Kiggans.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our two witnesses for being here today. It's great to see both of you again. I appreciate the work you're doing, especially to be loud and staunch advocates for shipbuilding and ship repair. We're doing a lot down in Hampton Roads, where I have the privilege of representing, so it's a team effort and I look forward to continuing that mission that you're on. But wanted to talk a little bit about connectivity. I know that when we've had debriefs from battle group commanders that have come back from extended deployments, especially most recently to the Red Sea, we had the opportunity to meet with the USS Ford and Eisenhower's commanding officers, and for them to listen to the importance of Starlink and connectivity and what that meant for just receiving messages from home on the personal side, but then on also the warfighting side and what that looked like. So General Reed, if you could talk to us a little bit about what that communication piece looks like, that connectivity, how you are and what resources you're utilizing and what you might need more of to make sure that those lines of communications and that connectivity is where it needs to be.

Thank you for that. The current challenge that we have is for the most part the line of communication that we have is from site to site. What we need is we need the means to be able to communicate when we're so far apart that we can no longer see each other. Beyond line of sight is really key for us. There are a number of things that are available for us to be able to get that done. Thankfully, the Air Force is investing in that for us, but there's a lot of work to be done for that. The main reason why we need that is to be survivable in the battle space. The crews not only need to be able to have the equipment, but I need to have a way to give them the direction that they need. They need to be able to join the rest of the joint force that's there. They need to know what's going on around them so that they can survive. The added potential to this also is when we engage in the movement of the wounded. And being able to have crews on board that can connect to the physician on the other side to be able to have continuous care and be aware of what's wrong with them is key. And once we get that done, I think we'll see that we can save actually more lives in the future.

And do you have any specific requests or ways that Congress could be helpful in accomplishing that goal?

For the funding streams that we have currently, I just simply ask that we continue those. There cannot be a break in that. Thank you.

Okay, great. We can work on that for sure. And then Mr. Carmel, you've stated in the past that United States flagships carry almost none of our international commerce. And the U.S. government maintains several programs to encourage the maintenance and acquisition of American vessels, such as the Maritime Security Program and the Tanker Security Program. So can you speak to the relationship between these programs and how they relate to our international commerce?

Thank you for that question. And it is something that I think sometimes causes a little bit of confusion when I say things like that. So the Maritime Security Program and the Tanker Security Program are designed to produce assets available to General Reed and TRANSCOM for military transportation, not primarily to carry the nation's commerce. To the extent they carry the nation's commerce, it is a byproduct of carrying military cargo with excess space. So the focus is a little bit different. And you can actually see it when we go to flag a ship in, the first question that's asked is what's the military utility, not what is the commercial utility. And in fact, there's a separate set of rules for flagging ships in under the Maritime Security Program that make it easier than if you are flagging in ships for commercial trade. I'm not quite so sure that I understand that, and I think in terms of regulatory reform, that ought to be something we ought to talk about. But that is in fact what happens. It's easier to flag a ship in under MSP rules than it is just for general commercial trade. So a ship that is designed to carry cargo primarily for international trade first and foremost is going to be a heck of a lot bigger than what's in the Maritime Security Program. You know, to be militarily useful, they're also by international standards relatively small. Hence my comment in my opening statement that we've kind of lost the bubble on what big means in this country. And so they're different types of ships, they do different things, and for the Maritime Security Program and Tanker Security Program, to the extent they carry commercial cargo at all, it's just an artifact, not the principal purpose of the ships.

I appreciate your answer. Thank you very much. And just as an aside in my last few seconds, just wanted to say thank you for the work you're doing to support the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and our six state maritime academies as well. And I know Congress has approved and appropriated funding for the National Security Multi-Mission Vessels, five of them, I believe. So look forward to continuing to support that and all of our young men and women who choose to serve there. But thank you for the work you're doing. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. And I'm going to take a point of personal privilege. I think we have four cadets from the Virginia Military Academy, from VMI, is that right?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Virginia Tech, right? They are from the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets. Would you all please stand? You look so great in your uniforms and it is so great to have young people willing to serve this great nation. [Applause.] And since I screwed up where you're from, I think I do know how to say Go Hokies, right? All right, thank you. I now recognize Mr. Garamendi.

Chairman, if I may, one day you could be me. Thank you.

[Laughter.]

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's get down to the one part of the national maritime strategy that does exist, that does create opportunities for shipbuilding and for mariners, and that's the Jones Act. Recently, there was a request by the Secretary of Defense to waive the Jones Act. And so General Reed, needless to say, I'm rather concerned about this waiver. The Jones Act does provide the opportunity for some ships to be built, militarily useful or altered in some way to be militarily useful. But this waiver came out of the blue, as near as I can find. Were you part of the decision made to this waiver? Were you consulted?

Chairman, I was not consulted, but I will tell you that the letter as I understand it went to the committees came from Acquisition and Sustainment. That's actually the level that has the authority for that. If for some reason within my authorities I needed excess help, that is not the lever that's available to me, but I have some additional ways that I could get additional help, but that one does not reside with me.

So the mobility enterprise is far more than just the maritime industry. It's also the robust ground and we've discussed the air assets here over the last few moments. Was there any indication to you or any information to you that those resources were insufficient to meet the needs, for example, the fertilizer industry and the other products that are referenced in the notification?

Chairman, I would have to defer to those who focus on economic viability. Mine is not in that realm. Thank you.

Mr. Carmel, were you consulted in this declaration prior to the waiver request?

Sir, this is a 501(a) waiver. The Department of War has the authority to issue that without consulting MARAD, and that's the way it was done. So no, sir, I wasn't.

And similarly, are you aware of any insufficient qualified vessels that would be covered under this waiver?

If I understand your question correctly, I wasn't part of the economic analysis and so I have to defer to the people that did it.

Okay. Needless to say, the waiver creates a huge opportunity for loss in our maritime industry. If that waiver moves forward, and we've already discussed the role of the military as providing cargo, and this waiver brings that right into our home ports. So it's possible that we're going to have foreign ships up and down the Mississippi River, possibly, or some other areas of the United States. I want to move on to a solution that we have proposed, Mr. Kelly and I and others are moving what we call the SHIPS Act. In the SHIPS Act, there are issues that are similar to those discussed here. The cargo issue, for example, a percentage of the oil and natural gas that is exported from the United States would be required to be on American-built ships. So the Tanker Security Program would be augmented, or at least the purpose of it would be met by American-built ships, American-flagged, that would be carrying LNG or petroleum products. Perhaps as many as 40 ships over the next decade, perhaps even more considering the export that the United States has. I want to bring to the attention of the committee that much of what we're going to be discussing here is answered in the SHIPS Act. I won't go into detail. Mr. Carmel, in our discussion, you suggested there is an additional way to provide for the fleet necessary to support the American military. And you suggested that be that we wave into the program ships and then cycle them in and out. Do you recall that discussion?

Yes, sir, I do.

And you're going to have to answer it with some other, my time is expired here. But I do want to come back to it and discuss that with you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bergman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses. Great to see you both again. I know as I've met with you on more than one occasion, you don't try to sell us a bill of goods up here. You tell it like it is, and we really appreciate that. Mr. Carmel, MARAD has previously indicated a significant shortfall of qualified mariners needed for a full mobilization. How is MARAD coordinating with the Coast Guard to speed up the credentialing process to ensure that trainees from our state maritime academies are entering the workforce more expeditiously?

Thank you, sir. Yes, it is true. The manning issue is a complicated one. When we have enough people to surge the RRF, we have too many people for steady state, and we have unemployed people on the beach, and that's not a healthy thing. So it's a problem that has to be solved in many ways. I had a meeting with the state maritime academy presidents an hour before I got here. And they brought up some great examples. There are 17 regional exam centers. Those are the only place kids can take exams. It impedes the ability of those kids to get their licenses, and so that's something that we really ought to think there must be a better way to do this. It's an antiquated system. Same with processing paperwork for mariner documents. Not every mariner is a licensed officer. We can't forget those guys, and we need to make things easier for them. Military to mariner programs, all that. But at its core, we have to develop a rational approach to how we want manning done, which includes, by the way, the SSO program, which creates another source of tension. If we activate all the SSOs, the sealift security officers, we rob the bridges of the people we need to sail the fleet. So it's a big system problem we need to solve all together. And yes, we are talking with the Coast Guard, maritime academies, unions, everybody.

Okay. Well, I'd like you to take this for the record, but what are the new tangible initiatives MARAD is implementing, just a little list, to not only train but to retain mariners in the U.S. flag fleet? It would be interesting to see your retention priorities, just like in the military, recruit, train, and then we attempt to retain over the longer term. General Reed, as the single manager of global bulk fuel delivery and management, TRANSCOM must balance the tyranny of distance and the potential for contested logistics in the Indo-Pacific theater with increasing demands of distributed maritime operations. How is TRANSCOM addressing the vulnerabilities in the bulk fuel delivery and the storage infrastructure in INDOPACOM theater?

Thank you. Since we've taken on this responsibility, we've had the authority and the analysis to actually change the way the department looks at fuel. One of the largest tools we have now is a bulk fuel feasibility assessment. And it is something that I'd be happy to come back to you in a separate setting, step you through that. In conjunction with the geographic combatant commanders, we take a look at their requirements, we take a look at the situations they might face, and then that informs us on the way forward. Some of the things that we've discovered in that is we absolutely need to find a way to invest in a mixed fleet for fuel, to include smaller-sized vessels with a shallow draft.

Okay. And one more. In the FY 2026 NDAA designated the commander of TRANSCOM as one of three senior officials responsible for the integration of global contested logistics posture management. How are you working with the DepSecDef and the vice chair of the Joint Chiefs to mitigate the risks related to that contested logistics?

Thank you so much. Together with the combatant commands and the services, I represent the gaps that they experience as well as the gaps that we find in U.S. TRANSCOM. Working through and with the vice chairman representing the advice of the chairman, it's a very strong relationship with the deputy of the department who actually drives the resourcing, which is the most important part. That was the part that had the most room for improvement, and I'd have to say that the individuals that we have in place right now are exactly the right folks to make this work.

Great. So what I heard you say was identify the gaps and then mitigate them. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from the great state of Illinois, Mr. Sorensen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too am thinking of every fallen service member as well as every warfighter and peacekeeper who is in harm's way right now. The state of Illinois is so incredibly proud to be home to TRANSCOM's headquarters at Scott Air Force Base in the heart of Illinois. I speak for Congresswoman Budzinski with a collective thanks to the folks at TRANSCOM for doing such vital work for our armed forces in her district and in our home state. General Reed, I am always so glad to have you with us, and it's always good to have someone so I'm not the only person from Illinois in the room, so I'm grateful to see you here in HASC again. You know, when we're in times of war or conflict, TRANSCOM can activate U.S. flag ships for military use. This is critical during times of crises, as Ranking Member Courtney alluded to. Mr. Carmel, thank you so much for your testimony and for sharing your experience with this subcommittee today. And I'll begin with you because you might be one of the foremost experts that we have to answer this question. If this subcommittee could wave a wand, what should be done today, what could be done today to bolster our capacity for maritime transport?

It's a single word, and I use it every time I'm asked that question: cargo. We absolutely have to have programs structured such that we can participate in a reasonable part of our nation's commerce. And if we answer that, if we solve that, everything else falls in place. Shipbuilding, we're not going to have a shipbuilding enterprise unless we have cargo. We're not going to have a ship repair enterprise unless we have cargo. So we absolutely must have a regime that allows us access in a reasonable way to our nation's commerce. So, we absolutely must have a regime that allows us access in a reasonable way to our nation's commerce.

So glad that you mentioned that. I'll come back to that. General Reed, have you seen any changes in the U.S. flag inventory or readiness levels over the past year? And has there been a plan to account for any potential reduction in this capability?

So, first and foremost, I have to follow the conversation here is that cargo is king. And when we have the cargo, we actually generate the system to do everything else that we need the system to do. With regards to having the vessels and the crews to actually sail, that's where it starts. As we continue to look at the Ready Reserve Force, continued investment in that is key for TRANSCOM. And we also need to continue to invest in ships that are not only buy-used but to have ships that are built here.

Mr. Carmel, anything to add to that, to the General?

No, sir. I think the General covered it.

Well, you know, one thing I did want to bring up. When we look at humanitarian efforts around the world, in this administration, they have made an effort to grind international humanitarian aid to a halt. I believe every member of this committee believes in scouring out the waste, the fraud, the abuse. But the reality is that the food aid today is not reaching those who are in need. And if we ignore that, it will just increase the instability around the world. And I'm grateful that I also get to sit in a chair in the Agriculture Committee. Our farmers are so incredibly proud to supply international food aid. But the president's slashing of humanitarian efforts has slashed the essential export markets for our farmers. And reckless economic policy like this leaves American farmers in the lurch. And it costs our own country an estimated $2 billion in revenue, and we can't afford it. And so when humanitarian efforts go away, they take business away from U.S. flag maritime businesses. Cargo is key. It's a real issue because a lack of cargo hurts our country's readiness. But there's good news because we can solve this today. If the Trump administration decides to rebuild our humanitarian efforts, restoring farmers' ability to provide nutrition to the rest of the world, then our U.S. flag fleet then becomes resilient again. So, Mr. Chairman, how about the words make our U.S. flag fleet resilient again? It's got a nice ring to it, and I yield back.

I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Reed, enjoyed our recent meeting. Thank you very much for your service to our country. We find ourselves in agreement on what we envision that we can do working together in service for our country. You made it clear that sealift and Ready Reserve Force programs remain the foundation of our ability to project combat power. We currently have a lot of work to do with an aging fleet. And let me ask you, is it your consensus that aging vessels and the pace at which they're replaced should be concerning to everyone here?

I am concerned with the rate at which we need to retire the vessels versus the rate with which we can replace them.

Replace them. So do you believe TRANSCOM could benefit from the integration of small and medium-sized United States shipyards, shipyards that are agile and ready to meet immediate sealift and logistics support in a manner that your large legacy shipyards cannot perform? Do you believe in order to rapidly expand maritime capacity that we should embrace a culture that puts small and medium shipyards to work?

Anything that this country can do to build ships in order to build the trade and build the industrial base is key. There is a need for a mixed-size fleet. And as we continue our mobility requirements capability study that's due next year, I think that will inform just what size that should be.

Yes, sir, I agree. Mr. Carmel, you've presented a fascinating testimony. You're a very knowledgeable man with clearly an impressive background in your field. You quickly identified when my colleague asked you what was the primary issue, identified cargo. Would you please describe the solution?

Thank you, sir. And there are several avenues. One, of course, is the government-impelled cargo, and that is both military and, you know, EXIM Bank and a number of other various programs. Those cargos remain critical and foundational to our program for the time being simply because that's what we have and it's what's keeping us alive. And so it's important to stabilize and boost those programs. But in order to achieve the long-term growth trajectory that we need, we need to be able to get to the nation's commerce. That's what we are here to carry. And so there are a number of ways we can do that. If we were considered as part of trade deals, and the Maritime Action Plan actually mentions things like this, part of trade deals where reciprocal sharing of cargo is part of the trade deal or other access to maritime commerce or various incentives or disincentives to using U.S.-flag and non-U.S.-flag ships. So it's a mixed solution. It's not one magic bullet. It's a whole bunch of bullets working in concert. But at the fundamental core, we have to be able to carry some reasonable portion of our own commerce, both export and import, I would note. I know the congressman mentioned exporting oil on U.S.-flag ships. I would mention we have a vigorous two-way trade in oil and we import an awful lot of oil too that we ought to consider.

That's a fascinating assessment and there's a lot of moving parts there.

Yes sir.

And it's it's not easy to look over the horizon and envision a complete solution to to the quandary we find ourselves in and maintain commitment to the principles that we've established regarding American-flag vessels and American crews and American ports. The the efforts that we put forth here and I thank both chairmen for holding this this hearing. I have several questions to submit to each of you in writing because because there's some there's some topics we need to discuss that are not necessarily comfortable but seeking solutions. So I thank you each for being here. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield.

I now recognize the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia and also a former chair of this subcommittee and I now recognize Mr. Wittman.

Chairman Kelly, thank you. And I want to again recognize our Corps of Cadets members here from Virginia Tech. Go Hokies. Appreciate what you all do. I remember very fondly my days there on the Upper Quad as a member of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets, Bravo Company, First Battalion, Ut Prosim. And for those that don't know, that's Latin for 'that I may serve.' So hats off to you ladies and gentlemen for what you do. We're very blessed to have these Corps of Cadets members here with us today. As you can tell from their insignia on on their on their collars, they're from across the spectrum at Virginia Tech. Now there's Navy ROTC, Air Force ROTC, Army ROTC, and leadership track studies. So everybody there is going to come out of the Corps of Cadets as this nation's future leaders. So ladies and gentlemen, thanks so much for your leadership. Thanks for joining us today and you get to see how the how the sausage gets made up here. So we we appreciate that. Well Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today and General Reed, I begin with you. We know, listen, 90 percent of our equipment and supplies move by sea during times of conflict. We know that in order for that to happen, we have to have vessels. We need merchant mariners in order to to make that happen. And as we've heard from from both you and Administrator Carmel, we don't have that. And the question has been enduring: how do we get back there? I know Mr. Courtney and I have been talking about this as well as Chairman Kelly for too long, way too long. But it's about making things happen. Chairman Kelly, thank you for the Ships for America Act. That really is what leadership is about. So the challenge is how do we get pieces of legislation like that going forward? How do we get those things in place? How do we make sure we enable you, both of you, to do the job that you need to do? You all have identified to us not only the problem but what are some of the solutions. You know, I want to understand too the world of reality. General Reed, if there was a conflict that broke out today in the Indo-Pacific, would TRANSCOM have the capability to pursue and sustain logistical support in that theater of operations?

The first thing we would do would be to put together the entire fleet. I would ask to get every guardsman and reservist that we require, which is clearly two-thirds of my force, and put them in the air and put them on the seas. For the Ready Reserve Force, I would generate every ship that we have and I would do whatever it takes to make sure that it gets going on its way. The Ready Reserve Force is what we use for that initial surge. The rest of the sustainment actually comes from the commercial fleet and thanks to Captain Carmel, he's going to ensure that I have everything that I need for that for that piece. For the sealift, when it comes to the humans to actually crew the ships, we do feel that we have the force that we need for the initial surge. The challenge will be during a prolonged conflict and the sustainment.

General Reed, thank you. And Mr. Carmel, you you talked about the MSP, you talked about the importance of cargo, you talked about the importance of merchant mariners, you talked about the Maritime Action Plan, all the pieces that are there, some of the suggestions about how do we how do we get more cargo to be carried under the MSP program in order to sustain that to create that demand signal that in turn gets us the ability to to do more in building more ships and training more merchant mariners. Let me ask this. You outlined some of those places where we can go, looking at trade deals to enhance the opportunities for cargo. Tell us the things that Congress can do now in this year's NDAA. Are there enabling pieces of legislation that would either give you the direction that you would need to give a little more momentum towards that? Are there are there authorizing pieces in the statute that you need? What are the things that this committee can do in addition to funding that will help you execute on the Maritime Security Program and make sure you get the Maritime Action Program in place and actually get the things done that you talk about? I know that you're underway in getting that, but what can we do to give you that momentum to get it done even faster?

Thank you sir. There are I think a couple of things. The NDAA, I don't know that we can deal with commercial solutions there, but to the extent that we can, you know, direct things like some percentage of cargo to be considered as part of trade deals, you know, that that I think is a big one. We're not going to get here without without without that. There are sourcing decisions and I know we're having a conversation with TRANSCOM about is there a better way to sustain the military logistics and particularly petroleum. But again I caution that I don't think we can rebuild our fleet on the backs of the military and the the American taxpayer. We need to do it on on commercial cargo. So really that I think is what it all boils down to is is just the demanding or the expectation that we will not be, I guess, ignored might be a strong word, but I'll use it anyway, probably be in trouble for it, but ignored in in in conversations about our relations with our with our with our partners.

Well Administrator Carmel, that's the kind of directness and frankness that we need in order to get things done. Mr. Chairman, thank you again. I yield back.

I thank you and just on a I just want to notate we have put together a hearing with Transportation and Infrastructure that's coming April 22nd. That's part of the solution. There are many more jurisdictions involved, but we're at least leaning forward and getting some forward inertia in bringing everybody together to solve the problem that we have in the maritime industry. And with that, I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais.

Thank you Chairman. I know that the chairman has discussed tanker recapitalization as well as some of the other members, but I just wanted to spend a quick minute on that and then I wanted to talk to you about medical airlift capabilities. First, very pleased as a proud Tennessean that McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base in Knoxville was chosen to host the KC-46A Next Gen Pegasus. Do you believe that there has been concurrent and proportional recapitalization of the active duty, Guard, and Reserve components of the tanker fleet? that there has been concurrent and proportional recapitalization of the active duty, Guard, and Reserve components of the tanker fleet?

First and foremost, I'll tell you that we need to do everything that we can to recap the fleet period. For the KC-135s that we continue to fly, we appreciate the continued investment in sustainment and spare parts for it. It is a fantastic plane and it is doing things extremely well. As we go forward and under the current plan for the service to buy, once we get to the current end of the buy, we will still have about 300 KC-135s. They will be close to 70 years old and they will need some care. And so whatever we do, we need to invest in the whole thing because I need them all. But as the new KC-46s are coming into the fleet, I defer to the services to determine where those go. My expectation is no matter where they are, when we need them, I get them.

Okay. And in terms of medical airlift capabilities, in August TRANSCOM participated in Exercise Ultimate Caduceus 2025 involving about 1,000 military personnel and more than 20 civilian hospitals. This operation was conducted in locations across the continental United States and areas in the Pacific. Can you speak to the TRANSCOM's ability and capacity to conduct global patient movement at scale and in contested environments?

Thank you for that. When we are called to serve, one of the first things that TRANSCOM does is set the conditions for the force to move. And so we will distribute our forces wherever it's needed to include at the point of need. As a part of that is aeromedical evacuation where we will send forward teams to care, teams to plan, and then what we do is we use any of available aircraft available to actually move the wounded. We do know that we have some vacancies to fill. The service is working hard to make sure that we fill that. As we face a high-end fight, we do know that we're going to be stressed.

Okay. Well, we never want to use this capacity or or want to do these evacuations, obviously it's critical that we be able to provide trauma care for military and civilian casualties in a contested domain. And while I appreciate that TRANSCOM conducts these exercises regularly, does your office believe there's sufficient capability to meet requirements for large-scale combat operations in contested domains? And and I'll just say as a physician and what we learned in the the Iraq war and Afghanistan, that golden hour is critical that if you can get a patient to a primary care facility within an hour, their chances of survival is about 95 percent. So I understand the importance of prompt and timely care for the best patient outcomes and know how important your mission to perform medical transport is, whether it be directly related to TRANSCOM efforts or other departments and organizations that you can partner with. What can Congress do to support your mission and patient movement, especially as we contend with potential conflicts for the Pacific and unique challenges associated with that domain? And I know that was kind of two questions, but wanted to get it all in so you had time to answer.

First and foremost, continued investment in the equipment. If at all possible, the more equipment we can buy, the more equipment we have for the crews to use. Also builds options for us to put equipment in theater to preposition. The other thing too is we continue to explore care back here in the states. There's some opportunities as we ran an experiment this past year of distributing the patients using commercial means. While we had a successful experiment, we're not at the point yet where we could execute a contract for that, but as we go forward, that's an option and I'd appreciate all support once we get to that point.

Okay. That's all I have. I yield back.

With that, I want to thank the witnesses once again. I want to thank the wonderful spouses, our cadets from Virginia Tech, I got that right this time, for being here and being a part of this hearing. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.