grams planned include causeway sections, side loadable warping tugs and bulk liquid discharge systems for ship to shore movement, elevated causeways to facili- tiate discharge outside the surfline, sliding padeyes for underway replenishment, flatracks and Sea Sheds to enhance/convert containerships to carry outsize cargo and unit equipment, Lash lift beams to permit loading of outsize lighterage aboard Lash vessels and auxiliary crane ships to facilitate offload of non-selfsustaining ves- sels or discharge in unimproved or damaged ports. The programs, including both ships and support systems, comprise our approach to ensuring the adequacy of sea- lift to meet our requirements. Mr. HIGHTOWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. T-5 CLASS TANKERS REPLACEMENT Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Secretary, the Military Sealift Command plans to replace its five aging T-5 class tankers by leasing five new T-5 tankers. To accomplish this, the Military Sealift Command en- tered into a "build and charter" contract with Ocean Carriers, Inc., Houston, Texas, in November, 1982, for two T-5 tankers with an option for three additional ships. What is the significance of the option date of May 1, 1983? Mr. SAWYER. The option date of May 1 was largely established to ensure that the contractor had provided us with all of the various technical engineering data to provide assurance that the program was viable from a technical and programmatic standpoint. This material has since come in, albeit somewhat late. We do have the issue before us of the NTPF balances. At the present time we anticipate that the balance will cover the commitments on the TAKX and the T-5 programs. The T-5 is much more benign in that area because the commerical value of the ship, in terms of ter- mination liability, is actually somewhat greater in the value ap- praisals done by Maritime Administration than in the contract price for the vessels, so the only liability we have to book in the 57 sumes American Bureau of Shipping and U.S. Coast Guard approv- al of extending dry docking to every four years, versus two years, and tail shaft inspection every eight years, versus four years. This figure includes only M&R and no other costs--such as contract op- eration, fuel, and berthing. Question. In the Strategic Sealift study, the POM reflected $9.7 million for the TAKRX or SL-7. Is $9.7 million what is actually in the budget request? Since the SL-7 program is essentially an ROS effort, do these funding requests duplicate each other