said we are committed to finding a responsible solution to this challenging situation. i understand that the agency for toxic substance and disease registry has the lead in studying the concontamination at camp lejeune. is there anything that congress can do to expedite the care for the families and the service members for those who have contaminated? i know we have the bill that hasn't come forward yet. so that's one question. but then also, can you talk about the progress that the marine corps has made and to find those who lived on the base during that period? >> senator, i read the same comment from gerald kessler and i agree with him. we have spent $30 million since 1991 in an effort to try to bring science into this. there are allegations out there, i read them, i spent an awful

lot of time and effort. i'm committed as commandant of the marine corps to be faithful, to take care of my miles per hour. that's not just the ones on active duty, but all those who have gone before. the truth of the matter is today's science has not proven precisely yeah or nay with regard to the camp lejeune water and the affiliation with cancer. that's the job of the national academy of sciences. we have gone out, we spent $30 million. we have a website. i know you're familiar with. i published a new book, put it back on the website. with facts and communication tips. just in the last three years we added another 25,000 people to the registry. we're sitting at 179 folks who have registered that we provide information to and they can get it off the website. the key is to give them as much

information as soon as we know scientifically what the relationship is. we're committed to that, senator. and short of congress specifically going to a marine or marine family and authorizing, you know, on a unique basis care for that individual, i can't think of anything else short of waiting for the science. >> well, i appreciate the efforts you and the secretary mabus are putting towards this. i also wanted to ask general amos about the joint strike fighter which we know is essential to operate and operate and move seamlessly from the sea to the air. i don't need to tell you about the aircraft capability of short takeoff and vertical landing because we know that that is key to preserving the strategic value of the amphibious capabilities and i'm pleased that secretary panetta has removed it from probationary

status. it's scheduled to replace three aircraft currently in use by the marine corps which i understand is going to save $1 billion in operations and maintenance costs. additionally the timely fielding of the f-35-b will preserve the number of ships from which the u.s. can launch and strike aircraft. does the current production rate for the f-35 sufficiently address the projected strike fighter short fall and have the issues been addressed related to the tactical air integration? >> senator, the very last point on tactical integration, i'm a fan of it. we signed it a year and a half ago. not that we needed to sign an agreement, but to show the level of commitment between the department and the two services. i'm committed to it. i'm a fan of the marine squadrons on navy carriers and will continue to be that way. the amount of the production rate of six per year of my

variant for the next three years is satisfactory to maintain and we can maintain the strike fighter shortfall. we can maintain that at that production rate. if the production rate stays shallow beyond the next three years, then we'll probably have to go back and revisit and take a hard look at the strike fighter. we're managing it right now. it is manageable through this careful flying of the airplanes. management of the airplanes and the numbers are down well below 100 at this point. anything below that is manageable. so i'm convinced that we are probably in a good position right now. >> thank you. i wanted to move to sexual assault. both veterans and active duty service members have cited that the pentagon and military commanders are not doing enough to promote -- i'm sorry, to prosecute the sexual assault cases.

if it's true, the failure to provide just this basic guarantee of safety to women who represent over 15% of the armed forces is not just a moral issue, but a defining statement about the military. and the approach of our military. in the navy and marine corps today, what challenges do you face. how do you plan to overcome those challenges to create a culture where we can put sexual assault in the past? make that a problem of the past. and what further steps need to be taken to hold more of the perpetrators of these heinous crimes accountable for their actions? >> senator, you described what happens very accurately. it's a crime. it's an assault. it's an attack on a service member. we have -- the people who join the navy/marine corps swear to not only to protect the united states but also their fellow

sailors and marines. this is an attack on one of their shipmates and any amount of sexual assault is unacceptable. we have done a lot and we're continuing to do a lot. first, i established an office of sexual assault prevention, and in my office, reports directly to me. i see the person in the office on a routine basis. as a result of that, we have undertaken a lot of programs particularly in the most at-risk elements. the young sailors and marines who -- ages 18 to about 25. we have one program now that we require every service member as they -- when they come out of boot camp and they go into the "a" school in the navy and every single one does, they have three 90-minute sessions on this.

and we have found that at great lakes where boot camp and the "a" schools are that sexual assaults have declined pretty dramatically when we started this program. secondly i announced last week that we're undertaking an initiative called 21 century navy and marine to make sure that the sailors and marine corps, that the sailors have the tools to be resilient. we have found not just in sexual assault, but also in domestic violence, in obviously duis, in fitness, in child abuse, is the -- and in suicides is the presence of alcohol. and so we are undertaking programs to try to make sure that we catch a problem before

it creates a life altering or life ending or career altering or career ending event for somebody. we have run two pilot programs on this. one with the pacific submarine fleet in washington state. one at the naval academy. where we have tested for alcohol and all forms, domestic violence, sexual assault, suicide. duis, fitness. all the issues have gone down between 40% and 50% as a result of this program. so we're seeing some programs at work. they require very active command involvement. they require active leadership, you know, by the commanding officers, the sergeant majors. the command master chiefs. but we are going to change the culture.

and make sure that these attacks cannot be perpetrated and it's better to prevent one than it is to prosecute one. but if one occurs we will hold people accountable, to the maximum extent we possibly can. >> i certainly do appreciate your efforts in this and the on going programs. i'm pleased to hear that. also i want to tell you that i'm pleased with the efforts that you're undertaking from the renewable energy source for the navy. thank you. >> thank you, senator hagen. senator sessions? >> thank you very much and thank you all, gentlemen, for being here. as a member of the budget committee, i know that the cuts you're already undertaking are very significant and i know that the sequester would be catastrophic to the defense department. but it remains the law. the sequester is in law and will take effect unless congress

takes action. i don't know that it would be that easy to fix it. i just want to tell you i think the president and the white house team and defense department team needs to be thinking about what we can do because i for one do not intend to eliminate the sequester totally, as the president's budget basically does. i think we'll have to find cuts in other programs in the remaining 60% plus of the budget that's been protected from any cuts. that needs -- that's where we need to find some savings too. it can't all come from the defense department. that's a complex matter. i would warn you we're headed to that time and it could be a problem that we don't have a real solid plan to get out of it. with regard to navy ship building on the plan, you've got a four structure assessment coming up i believe, mr.

secretary, and you have stated you intend to reach an inventory of 300 ships by 2019. would this assessment -- how confident are you that it will maintain that as a goal based on the budget and other things? do you expect that the committee -- the assessment on group could come back and recommend even less than 300 ships? >> i don't know what the four structure assessment is going to come back at, senator, but i feel confident that having a fleet of 300 ships. around 300 ships will meet whatever structure or assessment or whatever strategy that drives that force structure assessment. and we do have that plan as you pointed out to get to 300 ships by 2019. >> well, one thing about it, i

may not be here and you may not be here in 2019. so plans when they get out too far don't have much reality to them. that's what worries me. i mean, we had a plan to have 316 ships and did have that many in 2001 when you took office. it had dropped to 283. and it was also taken as you noted from your remarks had gone down to 149,000 sailors. some of it is because we have better ships and need fewer people to man them. i have to give the navy credit for that. with regard to the literal combat ship, i'm concerned about the overall reductions in that budget in the future years of the defense plan. i understand it still remains a top navy priority to have 55

ships produced through that program. where are we in terms of cost and schedule for the lcs, mr. secretary or admiral? how does the current contract, the execution of the program compare with the initial purchase of the first ship in that program? and how do you see that program developing? >> senator, i'm very proud of the combat ship program. expensive. very high priced. >> first in class is always more expensive no matter how you build it. >> it is. >> what does it look like now? >> the price has come down from the bids on the -- on ships 5, 6 and 7. the bids, the initial bids have come down from that by 40% and

the price is coming down for every ship in this contract. we have a block buy of ten ships from each vendor. so a total of 20 ships. the tenth ship of each one will be significantly less expensive than the first ship. these are all fixed price contracts. so we're certain that we will reap these savings. we were able to get 20 ships instead of 19 as originally planned. and save $2.9 billion. and both shipyards are performing very well. the ships themselves as the c & o has mentioned is going to be one of the very important parts of the navy going forward. we're planning to forward deploy lcss to singapore. the first one next year in a proof of concept and then on a

more regular and permanent basis in the 2015 time frame. so we remain absolutely committed not only to the platform but to buying out the entire 55. for purely budgetary reasons. we had to slide two at the end of this five-year plan to make the budget. but we remain committed to buying the entire class of 55 ships as quickly as we can. >> briefly, general amos, does an lcs provide benefits for the marine corps? >> senator, it could. there's been discussion between them about what we call a marine module. we have not done anything with it yet. but i think the possibilities are there, absolutely. >> admiral, do you have any comments on that ship line?

>> well, combined with the mission module it will be a quantum leap in something like my countermeasure. we kind of mow the grass, and finding mines, neutralize them. what we'll do is at the same time find them, localize them and neutralize them with unmanned vehicles and the volume will be three times the volume that we have today. so as we look at the challenges that we consider in the world today, the strait of hormuz and otherwise, imagine the capability enhancement. >> i know we're facing a lot of challenges with regard to the navy plans and the defense department plans. less air force planes, and also less joint high speed vessels. i'll submit you written questions about the joint high speed vessel but it's a popular ship by the commanders who benefited from it?

>> it has, yes. the west pack express which is what it's based on has been successful. so there's great anticipation by the commanders for the joint executed vessel. >> well, it is being reduced. and maybe we can examine that. what are your thoughts about that? >> well, the -- what we looked at that and said, hey, i think we need 21. what if we recruit with the maritime sea lift command people. with that it becomes 16 requirement to provide the same presence. we said if we operate these forward, if we forward station them, they're there. we can do that, we can get by with ten. we did a study on that. that's where the ten comes from. that's how it worked its way in that direction. subject to change in the world and the strategy, we think we're good with ten, so do the commanders, sir. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator reid? >> thank you, and thank you for

your service to the nation and for your naval services. admiral greenert, your budget includes and secretary mabus includes a proposed delay of the ssb and x by two years. last year the navy testified that they needed the original schedule to maintain strategic deterrence patrol requirements which begs the question if this postponement is in effect, can you maintain the level of strategic systems patrolling during the transition from "y" class to the new class? >> today, senator, we have 14 ohio class submarines. two are in overhaul so that leaves with us 12 operational. with that there are ten or nine available at any given time for strategic command. we feel due to this delay we will ride a period where we'll

have ten operational. sometimes nine. so we'll have a similar risk there. we have to watch it very closely because at that time frame, in that future. i'm talking about the late '20s and '30s we'll have older ohio. so we have to watch it carefully. but right now we think that we can mitigate that risk. >> and in -- in thinking forward, what assumptions are you making because, you know, frankly you pointed out with the age of the fleet, if you're assuming sort of standard operational availability that assumption might not be very good ones. so are you making any heroic assumptions that fill the gap on paper? >> well, being navy nukes, with it we don't try to be -- we don't try to be heroes. >> i disagree. you're heroes.

>> but the long term maintenance will be complete on the class at that time. we'll have shaken all that down. so far the returns on the extension of the ohio class, because that's what we're talking about in the time frame are good. we have to pay attention to the sea water systems, the hull talking about in that time frame, are good, and we have to pay attention to the sea systems, the hull measurements and the newt rutron measurement. we've done this before, but not on this class of ship. >> let me ask another related question. we touched upon it in some private meetings, and the ohio replacement is part of the broader issue of the nuclear triad which for both strategic reasons and for economic reasons is going to have to go into significant re-evaluation. it seems to me, as i've said before, that given the historic relative inas a ruvulnerability

missile submarines, and given the fact that this is really the only new strategic system that is being planned actively and funding being afforded to it, delaying it might have implications for the overall triad in terms of, how do we maintain it, particularly if we find ourselves on the air and landside with not enough assets or -- so this raises a huge question. i don't know if you have any comments today on that topic. >> that's a good question. we looked at the force structure, the nuclear strategic force structure, the bombers and the submarines. so the two-year delay is not -- we're comfortable with that in the department with what we have to deliver as it stands today. as you know, there is a study under way, post-nuclear study. pending the results of that,

we're comfortable. but we need to bring the ohio replacement in. it's important. it is the survival piece of the triad, as you said, and the department has been pretty clear on that to us, in general. >> changing subjects from ballistic missile submarines to attack submarines with a constant theme, the virginia class within your budget, we're doing two a year, and i thank you gentlemen and your predecessors for working on that. it took many years. but we're slipping on one of the boats and that causes problems. it causes problems, i think, in the overall cost of the programs, and let me ask you, the secretary, or the cno whether you would concur that will add additional costs to the program over time, and then what steps you might take to mitigate, for example, if we could include an additional ship in the multi-contract allowing

long-term purchases. that might be the most effective way to deal with that. either the cno -- >> there's an operational cost that i'll quickly allude to. there is snn years, the requirements of the global commanders, and we have a deficit in the '20s and '30s. this will exacerbate that by moving the boat from 14 to 18. that's regrettable. 14 was a hard year for us. we retired ships early in that year more than any other year. so if we could work a procurement process using a fiscal arrangement where we could -- and we will ask for multi-procurement in that class as stated earlier, and we have good data on our block buy where we have saved substantial amounts of money. as you alluded to, the work force learning curve is high, the vendors are good, and we're getting these submarines in early. if we could find a way to incrementally fund this, we

believe -- we are confident there is substantial savings, and we would get a tenth boat for less than at cost. >> so there is a cost saving in terms of doing this contractual arrangement, and there's also the operational costs you'll have to bear because you just don't have enough ships capable of going to sea. so there are two costs that can be mitigated by this process. is that accurate? >> yes, sir, there is a mitigation capacity and a cost factor in these. >> and i presume that the industry is seriously engaged with you to try to find a reasonable way to get this done. mr. secretary, if you want to comment. >> yes, we're working within industry. we're working to try to find innovative ways to fund this so that we can meet the mitigation that you and the cno have talked

about. >> thank you. my time is up. you look great. i wish i looked that good without an operation. keep it up. tell those marines to keep going. thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator reed. senator wicker? >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, i was very pleased to receive word the other day that a memorandum of agreement had been signed for the lha 7 american class amphibious ship. it is very important for our future freedom of the seas as we leave -- well, as we draw down forces in some areas of the world and focus on the asia pacific region. this will be a lynch pin in the american force. i assume we will see that final contract concluded within a matter of weeks?

>> senator, we anticipate that final contract before the end of april. >> excellent. thank you very much. well, let me ask you, then, both of you, secretary mabus and admiral greenert, about the ship isbuildi -- shipbuilding indust base. your main concern is getting the job done, but we also have to be concerned about the employment peaks and valleys that we may see, and i noticed in your testimony, secretary mabus, we're not going to be back to 300 ships till 2019. the current report says we'll have new construction of 41 ships. this is a decrease of some 17

ships from the previous fit-up. considering that and the fact that we're not going to even get within 13 ships of our requirement until 2019, what is that going to do to the so-called employment valleys, where employment at the shipyards is here, and then it dips down, and then we're expecting it to be able to come back and have the capacity to go up to a previous level. how is that going to play out? >> you're absolutely correct. the industrial base is one of the things, particularly in shipbuilding, that we have to protect. once you lose those unique skills, it's very hard to get them back when you need them. one of the things in terms of that, we want to make sure that

we have an industrial base that provides as much competition as possible so that we're not only protecting the industrial base but we also protect the taxpayers in terms of how much money we pay for ships. today we have 37 ships under contract, which for -- i believe i'm correct here -- all of our shipyards will keep them at a fairly steady manning pace for pasthagula, for example, they have a dd 51. they have the hla 57 that you pointed out, they have lpd 26, and they are -- we're in negotiations over lpd 27. and if you take all those and you project them forward,

there's still going to be, at any time, in an industry like that, some peaks and valleys, but we think we've smoothed it out, the maximum sent that we can. in terms of our other shipbuilders, we only have one yard remembered that lds those auxiliaries. they now have or request for about one chip per year, which will keep them stable, but we keep a close eye on the industrial bals and ol. it not the welder out there, it the overhead. it's the amount of mo