highly effective weapon of the enemy and especially in the count counter-insurgency environment, but with a little bit of fertilizer and technical know-how, you can make something pretty catastrophic. we have made progress. interestingly enough, we put a lot of money. the congress has, the department of defense has, different agencies have tried to find these things under the ground. interestingly enough, what we found to be the most successful have been often the human eyeball, teaching observation skills to our marines. they've kind of gone back to the way we've done business in the past. so we use some of those things, we use ancient things like a bamboo pole that's about 12 or 15 feet with a small hook on it. you kind of dragged it around in front of you looking for a command wire. it doesn't cost anything but saves lives.

dogs. we tried everything from ground-penetrating radar to mind rollers. mind ro mine rollers continue to be successful. they find the pressure-plated mines on the roads that our vehicles go on. the ones that get us the most are those ones that are off the road, on the canal sides, along paths, footpaths and off areas where marines might patrol. and sir, we are mindful. we teach people what to look for. there is a series of ways we grow that experience, but nothing replaces the human eyeball. so sir, it's still a high threat and you still see our great younro new walter reed without their legs today because of ieds. >> and the pakistanis have been of very little or insignificant

caltrate. >> that is correct. helmand is kind of the breadbasket of afghanistan, so you need fertilizer. we don't need it to make ieds. >> i want to ask a quick question about a program you and i have discussed before the transition program that you have very, very commendably, in my view, emphasized for our marines and hopefully will be expanded for our soldiers as well. is that transition of this skill training, counseling, expanding and enhancing in the way that you have planned to do? >> senator, it's in its debut stages. we did our first two beta tests in the middle of january and we're unveiling it both on the east coast and west coast.

we're unveiling it now to the rest of the marine corps over the spring and beginning of the summer. and in a nutshell for all the members, the old program that i went through with captain amos years ago which hasn't changed any to the completely new, let's get our veterans hired. how do we get that one that joined the service and make him a marine for life that when he or she finishes his tour in four or eight years, they come out the other side and they have the greatest opportunity in chance to get a job, go to school, learn a trade, start a business, and those are the pathways we have set for our marines. it is a significant effort, and it will take us -- we probably won't see the real benefits of this for another couple of years, but i'm willing to wait. we're on it right now, senator, i'm very optimistic. >> that's very exciting and very

promising, and i thank the marine corps for that work. secretary mavis, i wonder in light of the navy's need for strategic dispersal of undersea warfare assets and the commitment to keep 40% of the attack submarines on the east coast, if you could give us your assessment of the capacity and military value of the submarine base at new london. >> the submarine base in new london is one of the key components of the strategy in terms of just what you pointed out, the fact that we will be keeping attack submarines in a 40-60 split, atlantic, pacific, that what admiral greenert testified to a little earlier that it's not just specific that we have the need for attack

submarines, it's not just the capacity and the capability of these incredible warships are needed, and i also want to thank the state of connecticut for they've invested about $40 million into the subbase there to upgrade some facilities so that we can maintain that base at the high rate of operational readiness that it is, and that's very much appreciated and it's been very helpful. >> thank you for those comments, and i will say on behalf of the day to day, we are proud to support that subbase. would you agree that with

undermine vehicles, that base is only increasing? >> i will agree with that, senator? >> thank you. my time is up, but again, i want to thank all of you for your service and for your very helpful testimony today. thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. senator webb? >> you and i are probably the only people here who would remember this, but i have to say listening to senator bagich's questions about wanting a deep water port in alaska brought back fond memories of senator stevens when i was secretary of the navy many years ago and under the strategic dispersal concept at that time he was pushing real hard for home ports in alaska. of course, at that time we had 465 ships in the navy. but also, admiral, i think your comment about learning how to operate in the persian gulf, that really brought back a strong memory to me from when i was secretary of the navy and we

had just started, actually, operating full-time in there, and i remember visiting the u.s.s. stanley in the persian gulf like in 1987. the first thing i would do when i would go aboard ship, it came from my youngster crews at the naval academy when i worked with engineering spaces with the s p snipes was always to go down into the engineering spaces and to ask them the last time their commanding officer had visited the engineering spaces. the railings on the ladder going down into the engineering spaces were so hot, you couldn't hold onto them. we've come a long way since then. i remain at the end of this hearing, almost at the end of this hearing, because i was quite surprised, secretary mavis, to hear the response with respect to the questions from chairman 11 and senator mccain regarding this independent study

for the layout from okinawa and guam that we had mandated. because this is -- and perhaps this is just a miscoordination because i know it's not under the jurisdiction of the department of the navy, but i hope what you said is not right. we have mandated by law that there be an independent study and that they would report to the secretary of defense 90 days after the signing of the national defense authorization bill which was december 31st. which means that this independent study not only is supposed to have been contracted but it's supposed to give its first report to the secretary of defense in about two weeks. ask then the secretary of defense has up to 90 days after that to report to us. this is not a small thing, as you know, and we're not in any way up here attempting to kill

this program. we're trying to unstick it. the administration, plural, administrations, have been working on this issue for 15 years now, a little more than 15 years. i've had dozens of japanese delegations visit my office. i have another one coming this afternoon. and i have been saying to them over the last three months that there is an independent review that's going to take place in tandem with the reviews that are going on. i'm visiting japan right after the 1st of april. i had assumed there would be some sort of preliminary report in from the study, ask then we're hearing that apparently there hasn't even been a contract left. i hope we can clarify this. my understanding also is that --

admiral, you can clarify this for me, that the navy has halted potentially about $3 billion worth of construction projects on guam as we attempt to sort all this out; is that correct? >> i don't know if that number is correct in halting it, i'd have to go back and do the research on that. there are some on hold. the specifics and what they're based on, i better check it out before i give you an answer. >> we are in a freeze and it's being misunderstood on guam. the situation in okinawa is one of probably the top two most volatile domestic political issues in japan. we need to get this going. i know there are continuing talks. we follow them every day in my office, but this is a part of it. and it's designed to get an independent set of eyes on this because there are so many turf battles in the department of

defense, quite frankly. >> there are harbor projects regardless of how many marines on guam. >> i know that. i came back from guam more than two years ago and did everything i could to get the white house to put money into that from the tiger fund where we follow this very closely. but at the same time, you know, general amos, i know you know, you and i have had many talks about this, that one of the questions on guam was just exactly the marine corps laydown would look like. i had my own questions about this when i first revisited guam a couple years ago, because they were doing a laydown that included dependent personnel, family personnel, which was driving up infrastructure and the numbers from 8,000 to potentially 20,000 more people, so we know this needs to be redone. but i can't emphasize strongly enough how important it is that, first of all, the law be obeyed

here, and second of all, that we reach an end point on this for the good of our strategic posture in that part of the world and also for our relations with the japanese and the people of guam. no further response required, but i just wanted to reemphasize what chairman levin and senator mccain were saying. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator webb. senator shahim. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you secretary amos, general amos and admiral, for being here this morning. hopefully i am the last person that you have to hear from. i figure on this committee we always save the best for last. i actually want to begin where some of my colleagues left off, and particularly senator bagich, and that is on the issue of energy. i want to thank you very specifically, secretary mavis, for coming to testify on monday

the water and power subcommittee of the energy committee in the senate which i chair held a field hearing down in norfolk on the surcharge. i want to commend the great staff work in finding a ship for us in new hampshire to hold the hearing on. it was a nice benefit to the hearing. but it was an excellent hearing, and it's one that i wish everybody on this committee could have gone to to see very directly the difference that moving toward alternatives and energy efficiency is making for the efficiency and the capacity of our fighting men and women out in the field to do their job. and secretary mavis, you made the point that national security in today's day and age is really about energy security. and if we don't have to be defending the straits of hormuz

and defend men and women around the world to defend foreign oil that comes from around the world. i was very impressed with some of your testimony and that we heard at the hearing. the federal government is the biggest energy user within america. the department of defense is the biggest energy user within the federal government, 93%ly all energy used is used by the department of defense and as you so rightly point out, so much of that is fuel to power our vehicle. and i know that there was an exchange earlier around the cost of biofuels, and i wonder if you could speak to the memorandum of understanding that you have with the department of agriculture and the department of energy to try and move forward to develop

a biofuel that is drop-in that will allow us to be more efficient and reduce the dependence on oil. >> thank you, senator. and it was good to see you all. the memorandum of understanding that the department agriculture and the navy signed was in the direction of the commander of chief and three of our departments to come up with a geographically disbursed, competitively priced biofuel industry for the country. the navy contribution pho thto would come from the defense production act which, as i pointed out a little bit earlier, explicitly mentions energy as one of the things that the defense production act could be used for. and i think it's important that

the requirements drop in fuel. we're not going to change the engines on our ships or aircraft, we have to have a fuel that will operate on the fleet we have today with the aircraft we have today. secondly, that this is be geographically disbursed effort, and third, that it help this industry reach commercial viability. we have seen the cost of biofuels come down dramatically just in the small amounts that we have been buying so far. we bought biofuels to test and certify our aircraft on, including the green hornet and the blue angels have run on biofuels. we made, as i pointed out at the hearing, the largest purchase, we believe, in american history, 450,000 gallons for use in the realm of the pacific exercise this summer.

the cost has been cut in half in the last two years just in those test amounts, and we are convinced that as the military brings a market here that the cost of biofuels will be competitive with existing fossil fuels. and finally, one of the things that we got to talk about at the hearing is that this really is one of the core competencies of the united states navy. we moved from coal to oil in the early part of the 1900s and we pioneered nuclear in the 1950s. every single time, there were concerns about was the navy trading one form of very certain

energy for another that was uncertain or more costly? every single time the change has proven to be correct. and so i appreciate your help, the opportunity to testify which represent both the navy and the marines in their effort, but also the opportunity to talk about how we are planning to use these biofuels and the way that we believe the cost will come down. >> thank you. and general amos, we also saw some very impressive demonstration of some of the equipments that the marines are using out in the field in afghanistan. and i ask one of your marine colonels, colonel schret, who was there, what had been the reaction with the marines on the

field after they were introduced to things like solar blankets, some of the lighterweight batteries and the generators that are now going into humvees. he said, well, the first reaction wasn't positive but once they realized it could help them complete their mission easier and more effectively, they're sold. so i wonder if you could comment on that. >> senator, i'd be happy to. marines are slow to change. 236 years of history unhindered by change and progress, but once we do, we get on it with reckless abandon. here's a case in point. those marines -- i remember an oif-1, after we crossed the border into iraq, one of the things we worried about and struggled with were batteries. i mean, honest to goodness, i would sit at briefs with three and four-star generals and we would be talking about batteries. and by the way, you couldn't get them and then once you got them, you had to carry them.

here's a case in point where those solar panels, the ability to solar panels, the ability to recharge your radio batteries while you're humping along a ridgelined in the helmut province, that's what sold it for the marines. it went from being 120 degrees outside and now sheters and now with a little ingenuity and energy initiatives, you can actually walk inside these things and it may be -- it may be 87 degrees but it might as well be -- you might as well be at the north pole. that's what these kid feel like. they really have gotten into it. it's exciting and from my perspective, we're just on the cusp it. i think there's so much more we can do and we're dedicated to doing it. >> my time is up. as a final comment, you'll not be surprised to hear i am also concerned about our four public

ship yards and the fact that this year's military construction budget does not again contain much-needed dollars for the portsmouth naval ship yard and we have requests for modernization report that we -- senator collins, ayotte and i included in the defense authorization bill last year and it's due back by december 1st. i hope that will be on time and we will see what your commitment is to supporting our public ship yards. >> it will be on time. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator shaheen. either of my colleagues have additional questions? senator bloomthal? >> yes, i appreciate the chance to ask a question to follow on the submarine force and about

the possibility of going back to the two sub as year program for 2014, which i strongly sport and i know we've talked about it a little bit. i believe that going back to that program would be cost effective in the long run, and i would just like if you would admiral greenert to comment on the possibility of alternative plans and the possibility for transitioning to that kind of 2014 two sub option. >> mr. senator, for some reason 18, we are requesting a block buy starting in '14, '14 through '18. we would request a multi-procurement authority. you can buy the reactor vessels, the turbines, the shafts at a

much better price, the vendors are more efficient, the workload and learning curve is more efficient, everything is more efficient and we have experience in this. and that's partly the reason why these submarines are coming in under budget and on time. what we're looking for is an opportunity to using fiscal processes to be able to, if necessary, incrementally fund this such that the savings we know we will accrue in the laterer years that those savings can be rolled forward, if you will and, therefore, applied to a submarine in 14. >> a second submarine in '14. right now our budget request has one submarine. >> i am eager to help you. i thank you for your excellent answer. >> thank you. let me close by commenting further on this energy issue, which i made reference to in my

opening statement, commentiding you, secretary. the army was here not too many days ago with batteries pointing out how much lighter the batteries are that they're now going to use with the troops and what difference that makes in terms of weight and security for our people, as well as energy independence for the nation. so you're going to find a lot of support for the energy initiatives that you've taken on this committee. there may be opposition to some and questions probably from all of us. but there's basically i believe most of us will support or at least i hope most of us will support the initiatives that you've taken and that the army is now taking as well. we've seen this before. we've kind of gone through this whole business before when we've tried to take some action on energy initiatives and energy alternatives, what we saw as the argument made.

well, heck, they cost more in the short run. well, of course they do. and that's why we can't just rely on the private sector to produce them. the private sector has a different goal than our military does and our government does. their goal is profit. our goal is the nation's security. those are not always the same. short-term profit is not always the same as planning for our nation's security. so what you have done here is taken some initiatives which are the right way to go. they fill in a vacuum that exists in the private sector. they fill a vital need. we cannot rely on the marketplace to take these initiatives because there's a short-term loss. they're not competitive in the short term. that's why you have to have these tests short-term run and i

want to add my voice at the end of the hearing and at the beginning of the hearing and support i believe these creative initiatives which are directly aimed at enhancing the security of our country. if there are no further questions, we will adjourn again with thanks to all you and good wishes for your continuing strong recovery, general amos. "washington post" foreign affairs columnist has the latest on afghanistan, the uprising in syria and the tenure of iran's current president. then american petroleum institute president discusses the cost of fuel.

and how farming and agriculture have changed over the past few decad decades. this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our web sites. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. coming up here on c-span3, health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius reveals the cbc new anti-tobacco campaign. and senator tom colburn of

flori coburn. and scholars will discuss the arab spring, religious extremism and the obama administration's policy for dealing with religious issues. you can see it live starting at 10:15 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. >> if there's anything that concerns the american family today, it's this -- our government hasn't caught up with the new facts of american family life. families have changed so why can't washington? new facts. moms working. nearly 65% of all mothers are working. part time. full time. all of the time. keeping the family together. making ends meet. making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable day care and the pay they

deserve. too often they can't get either. >> this saturday maryland's senator will become the longest serving senator. watch senator mccull ski's speeches. >> health and human services connect kathleen sebelius unveiled a new federal government campaign against tobacco use. it features people who have lost limbs and lungs because of smoking. secretary sebelius is joined by the surgeon general and the director of the centers for disease control. this is 35 minutes. and please note that