>> thank you very much. general amos, i understand that you recently signed a revision to a 15-year-old policy addressing hazing. you also ordered the service to track all hazing allegations and investigations and called on leadership to get more aggressive in confronting claims of abuse and instituted new protections for victims and whistle-blowers. general, i really applaud your attention to this very serious matter. can you discuss some of these new protections for victims and whistle-blowers? >> 's

true, i signed a new order out. i went back to look at, okay, let me refresh this, i was a bit surprised to find out it was as antiquated as it was. so, we did do that. it did put my fingerprints is the comment out of the marine corps on this on the entire matter. i required all leadership, all my general officers, all my commanding officers, to immediately put their attention and their leadership fingerprints on the matter of hazing to eradicate it. it has been -- it is like a cancer that is treated and gets beat back and you begin to feel good about it. and if you don't turn your -- if you don't keep persistent attention on the matter across the marine corps, all 202,000 marines, then it begins to show again and you have to treat it again. this is a leadership issue,

senator. clearly i'm not happy with it. and i have not said anything in motion with regard to whistle-blowers specifically. but the marine corps understands. they've gotten the message loud and clear that, number one, it's a leadership issue, number two, it's their responsibility, number three it's absolutely without exception unacceptable behavior. and if found out, that it's my full intention to prosecute it in every case. >> thank you very much for your efforts. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, admiral, mr. secretary, and general, for being here today. i appreciate it and your service our country. admiral greenert, admiral lockhart has described the ohio submarine as the base for our force. based on the questions you had with senator read, you said the

slipping of the virginia class production will exacerbate the shortfall that we're going to see going forward. i have a couple of questions for you. first of all, let me say that i'm very proud of the maintenance done at the portsmouth naval shipyard and the importance of that work when we think about the role of the virginia class submarine as the backbone of our attack submarine force. but it's my understanding -- i mean, this is obviously a very important issue for us, that the navy was only able to support 61% of the combat and commanders requirements for attack submarine in 2011, is that right? >> that's right. >> so, we're only currently in 2011 when the combat commanders ask for the support of the submarines meeting only 6 out of 10 requests. >> that's right, ma'am. they provide their requested. they're adjudicated within the

joint staff and then we get, you know, our distribution of providing worldwide presence. >> and the navy has a requirement for 48 attack submarines? >> that's correct, senator. >> and based on where we are, is it correct to say when we look at the build rates that are proposed that the navy will only have 39 attack submarines if we look forward to 2030? >> that will be the low point, yes, ma'am. >> so, we'll have a nine submarine shortfall in 2030 if we continue with the proposed build rate that we have in this budget. >> yes, ma'am. that's the depth. and there's a breadth to that too, of course, anytime you go below 48, there's a difference. it's also the width of that as well. >> so, this is a real concern. and i think what it also results in, of course, as i understand it, it could result in a 43% reduction in forward presence and a 60% reduction in undersea strike volume if we allow our

submarine force to go below this level, down to the 39. >> i can't validate the numbers themselves, but you're in the rough order of magnitude. it would be dramatic. it's very important. >> and this is at a time obviously where we're shifting our focus to the asia-pacific region and, of course, this is an important capability to have in that region. but not only in that region, but we've talked about the importance in the middle east and other areas around the world. >> yes, senator. and with the submarines we have, the asia-pacific would get the attention, so it's the rest of the world that we have to pay as you said particular attention to. >> well, we have other hot areas that we would want to do, not only focus on the asia-pacific but, of course, the middle east and other areas around the world, our own homeland as well, is that right, admiral? >> that's right, senator. >> well, i'm hopeful -- i'm very

concerned about the proposal in the '13 budget about where this will bring our production rate, and i think that's something that we have to look at very carefully in this committee. i have to ask you an important question, would you be proposing this production rate but for us handing you a number in the budget control act? >> this was a budgetary process. i mean, it was all about not enough money in '14. >> it was about just the number we handed you and nothing to do in terms of what we would need for capacity to protect -- to have a full, robust force of where we would want to be as we look forward, isn't that right? >> that is correct, senator. >> well, that's a real concern to me because we can't drive our national security interests particularly on something so important as our attack submarine fleet and also the overall size of our fleet by just being handed by a number by congressmen. are we taking on additional risk by doing this?

>> there is risk. as you mentioned, capacity is the primary. these are very capable submarines. it's the capacity around the world. >> i think that's something that this committee has to look at and address as we do obviously look at the authorization and further consider the proposals for '13. i wanted to ask all of you gentlemen, in particular general amos, last year the navy announced the plans to place 6 of the 16 ships from the 3 squadrons, maritime, prepositioned forces for the marine corps and to reduce operating status. this proposal was made at a time before the arab spring, before we've seen some of the unrest in the middle east that has come forward. and i was concerned about that reduced operating status at the time. in fact, general panter came before the committee and said that it required additional analysis before we went on

reduced operating status. but let's push forward to where we are today. we have three prepositioned forces. as i understand the '13 proposal, we're going to go from three to two. and in the area that we're going to take out one of the prepositioned forces is in the mediterranean. and just so people understand, you know, what areas that allows us for faster response time and because we have the prepositioned forces reddy to go there in terms of the equipment needed if we have to respond, that's the area of syria, egypt, israel, lebanon, tunisia, libya, the entire west coast of africa. there's nothing happening in that area of the world at all that we might want to keep a focus on at the moment. to general amos, would be with the marine proposal to eliminate one of these prepositioned squadrons? >> senator, discussion came

about the time i became the commandant, just about 18 months as we were looking, this was before the budget control act i want to put it in context. but i look at this thing, having looked at it for many, many years and said, okay, what do we really need as a nation. my instincts at that time were probably two squadrons. so, then the discussion began 18 months ago, do we need two, how do we do this sufficient, senator. i think we make adjustments on some of the areas that you just talked about, and we can be -- be more flexible, there's no question about it. but my concern with it going to two was once we made that decision, let's build them correctly. let's make sure that the two are what i would call enhanced. in other words, they have some of the newer ships that are available with greater capabilities and they have the

ability to off-load, use these things, training, not only training but also for contingencies. so, that's where i am. th vetwo. i was briefed last night that -- it hasn't come to the secretary of the navy for his thoughts yet, but among the two services they worked the details out where they have a pretty good plan the 13 ships out of the 2. that's where i know it as of today. i'm comfortable with two, i just want to make sure they are the right makeup. >> one of the things i would like to -- as you know in the last year's defense authorization i included asking for a certification for the readiness posture of reducing the status of one of the forces from yourself commandant as well as obviously some the chief naval operations and the secretary of the navy, and then to have the secretary of defense make a certification to congress that he felt that there was acceptable readiness, posture

would still be available. so, i'm going to ask that the same type of certification be done if we're going to reduce this. because we're not only going from a reduction, but an elimination. so, we need to understand what additional risk we're taking on with that and whether, in all of your esteemed opinions, that this is sufficient in terms of our readiness in a critical area of the world. >> senator, we are treating the requirements that is in the current mda about reduced operating status to also apply to the removal of one -- of one squadron, and that was the report that general amos referenced that will be -- the certifications that will be coming. >> very good. i appreciate that. and my time is up. i can't leave, though, without saying that i'm deeply troubled, admiral, that when you tell me that if we allow this congress sequestration to go forward that

we are -- our fleet could be in a position where it would go from 285 capacity to 235 when we know, just last year the chief of naval operations, your predecessor, had told us that the ideal capacity for our fleet to meet all of our needs is actually 313. so, i hope that we will act immediately on a bipartisan basis in congress to stop this sequestration. because when you think about our fleet going down to 235, that is an unacceptable risk to our country and our allies. and so i thank you for your testimony today, and i hope we work immediately so that this is not hanging over the heads of the department of the defense for you all to have to worry about and for our military men and women to know that we are behind them and we're not going to allow this to happen. >> thank you, senator.

senator baker? >> thank you, senator. thank you all for being here. thank you for being so patient. i think i'm the last man standing, so i'll try to walk through a couple issues. or second to last man standing. let me say i want to talk a little bit about the artic as you can imagine, but first i want to comment on the very early stages of this discussion about your research and your development within regards to energy. i will tell you, i'm going to be a huge supporter of your efforts at the defense department. now, i have some questions about some of the efforts that you are doing. but, you know, we go back to the '60s and darpa which is the defense advance research project, if you go back to the '60s, a lot of people forget that they decided to do some simple things. they just wanted to communicate between some of the different facilities, and lo and behold today we have the internet. now, you took an initiative, you actually hired someone out of

the private sector because you thought it was so important -- i say we, collectively. how important that was. and the military has been the lead in many areas that have advanced this economy in many ways. and i use that as an example, 1960s, when, you know, the military saw high value of communication and connectivity. and most people didn't even know what the heck we were talking about, but the defense department spent money, probably a lot of money in those early days, which we were probably criticized, i'm sure there was some criticism back then, but today what would we do without it. what you are doing in renewable and alternative energy and even though i will have some questions on the expenditures in taking the lead on these areas, is critical for the long-term financial and economic security. i was just in afghanistan, general, and, you know, i saw -- i think it was at boback and forward operating base, the power of the solar panels and

the change that had occurred through on-the-ground testing. and as the marines tell me all the time, we don't want to carry a lot of junk. we want to carry what we need to do our job. and when you can knock off a lot of pounds on the weight and transfer it off the backs of the marines and then they can do their job because they have better energy sources like solar panels and the utilization of the battery systems, that's powerful. that gives us a tactical advantage at least from my perspective. so, i want you to know from a person, from a state that produces a lot of oil and gas, we like what you're doing around renewable energy and alternative energy and research to help this country be more economically secure and from a national security perspective. so, i just want to -- you know, i -- you know, i hear this debate kind of out there because people wonder why you're in the business. well, because you're in the business of saving lives. and part of the work you do in the military is try to look at risk analysis, and you have high

risk when you move the convoys of diesel. and if you can reduce the risk, you save t it. so, i just -- it's not necessarily a comment. i just get very frustrated when i start hearing the noise out there of what's going on. so, again, i'll pause, and say thank you for the work you're doing on the ground. i mean, i was impressed by the technology. and the marines were excited about what they were producing and how they could do things that they couldn't do before in two- and three-day increments with energy sources and self-sufficien self-sufficiency. so let me pause there. let me get to the larger one if i can to the secretary and admiral, the law of the sea, do you support it? >> yes. strongly. >> yes, sir, i do. >> thank you. let me also say, we had general jacoby here of northcom, he was talking about the importance and the kind of evolving arctic and one of the agreements they were

working on, i think he was doing that day, as a matter of fact, between northcom and the coast guard to talk about and sign the agreement of a gaap analysis process and what we need. today you probably saw, maybe not, because you've been stuck here, the snow dragon, the icebreaker. sounds like an appropriate name. i can only imagine painted on it and all kind of things. they're moving up to the arctia. they see an advantage economically and militarily. can you give me your thoughts, first secretary and the admiral, what do you think of the arctic, are we prepared? i know you did an arctic study, are we prepared and if not, what do we need to do? >> senator, you accurately pointed out we released the arctic roadmap in 2009. and we are following that roadmap. both the cno and i have recently

been to canada to talk to our canadian allies about what they're doing in the arctic, what we're doing in the arctic, how we can better coordinate. the question you asked immediately before that, one of the things that two help the most is by improving the law of the sea. it would help us in terms of the rights of freedom of navigation. it would also help us as a nation establish our claims in the outer continental shelf. and the arctic, as you are far better aware than i am, but we have different nations competing for the same resources in an arctic that is going to be increasingly ice free in the summer so that you cannot only have navigation through there and you're already beginning to see that, but also extraction of

seabed resources. and so i think first thing we can do is become a signatory to the law of the sea conference. and, secondly, we are actively doing things like ice-x, where i went last year. we operate with the canadians and their operation nanook. but i think that our plan is to become more capable in the arctic over time as the arctic becomes more accessible over time. >> admiral? >> i back everything the secretary just said. i'm completely in line with that. i would add to that that as we organize, train and equip, operations in the arctic has to be a bullet, a factor of principle just like operating in the gulf. which unfortunately we didn't do right the first time, so we had problems with warm water, with

sand, you know, with grit and that. well, likewise, we need to continue to do nanook exercises winanuk exercises, keep that sort collaboration going on so we are comfortable in being in that domain. that means making sure our command and control can be supported in that part of the world. >> one of the things i know and i'm hoping for and maybe we could get it at a later time from you, maybe the arctic road map as you lay it out, where you any you are time wise on resources and how are you doing, b because obviously, when i look at the map, i want to see more numbers up here. china and russia are not messing

around. they see us as not capable because we do not have enough ice vessels. so we need to get an ideawe are that we need to fill, if that the possible in do in a written. my time is up, so let me say, we need to have a conversation about a deep u.s. patrolled port. from all the activity that is going on up there, we are lacking a facility up there. thank you very much, and as i said, did i not mean to get on the rant about renewable energy. alaska will be 50% of renewable energy, we understand the value of it and i'm glad you to do. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you mr. chairman and

thank you all for your service to our nation and general lamos, thank you for your endurance and tolerance with you. i know your back must be reaching a point of some pain anyway. but, glad to see you here as senator reid said, looking like all of us would like to look with or without the surgery. and let me say how much i admire and respect the success of our marines and our soldiers in afghanistan where i've recently visited despite all of what we see and all of what has been emphasized at the ground level in targeted high level leadership of the taliban and insurgery ants and the work

done, it has been very, very impressive. and i know you testified already to that effect. but i would under score it now. i gather that ieds, the roadside bombs continue to be a problem. >> and i wonder whether you feel we are making any progress in that area? >> senator, they continue to be the low grade, loi expense, highly effective weapon of the enemy and they are cheaply made as you know, and a little bit of fertilizer and technical know how, you can make something pretty bad. we have made conference, interestingly enough, we tried -- put a lot of money, the department of congress has and the department of defense has, different agencies have tried to find these things under the ground. interestingly enough, what be found to be the most successful

have been often the human eyeball, teaching observation skills. we have gone back to the way we did business in the past. we use a bamboo pole 12 or 15 feet with a small hook on it, and you drag the ground looking for a wire. dogs, we have tried everything from ground penetrationing radar to mine rollers. and mine rollers are still being successful. we repair them and they find the mines on pressure plated mines to roads that our vehicles go on. the one as the get us the most are the ones off the road, on the canal side, sides, foot paths and off areas where marines may patrol and sir, we are mindful, we teach people

what to look for, there's a series of ways to grow that experience and nothing replaces the human eyeball, it's still a high threat and you see our great young heroes up at walter reid because of ieds. >> and there's been little help in keeping the fertilizer from coming over the border. >> it's a big agriculture cal area where we are, you need fertilizer we do not need it to make ieds though. >> i want to ask a quick question about a program you and i discussed before, a transition assist answer program that you have commend ably in my view

have implemented for our marines. is that transition assistance, skill training, counciling, expanding and enhancing in the way you have plan to do? >> it is. it's in the debut sdajtages, wee unveiling it to the rest of the marine corp over this spring and summer. in a nutshell for those that took the old transition program that i went through years t cha completely new, let's get our veterans hired, how do we take that young marine that joined the service and make him a marine for life, such that when he or she finishes their tour, they come out the other side and have the greatest opportunity and chance to get a job to go to school, to learn a trade, to

start a business and those are the four main windows that we have path ways that we have set for our marines. it's a significant effort and it will take us -- we probably will not see the real benefits of this for another couple of years. i'm willing to wait. >> very exciting and very promising, and thank you for that. >> work. secretary mavis, i wonder, in light of the navy's need for strategic dispersal of under sea warfare assets and the commitment to keep 40% of the attack submarine on the east coast, if you can give us the 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

opponents of the strategy in terms of what you pointed out. the fact that we will be keeping attack submarines in a 40/60 split, at lan tlantic pacific, not just the pacific that we have the need for the attack submarines, it's not just the capability and capacity of these incredible war ships are needed, also, i want to thank the state of connecticut for -- they have invested about $40 million in to the sub base there to upgrade some facilities. so that we can maintain that base at the high rate of operational readiness that it

is. thats that been appreciated and helpful. >> thank you for those comments and i'll say on behalf of the state of connecticut, we have been proud to support that sub base, because it performs such an important mission. would you agree also that with the increasing trend toward unmanned underwater vehicles and counter mine warfare f importance of that base is only increase something. >> 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 your helpful testimony today. thank you. >> thank you, chairman webb? >> i think we are the only two people that will understand this, but when i think of the deep water port in alaska, it brought back memories of