ship the support services. and we keep a close eye on this and when we in your concern for the industrial base, and we certainly share that concern. >> admiral, if sequestration kicks in, what's it going to do to what secretary mabus was just talking about. and then, secretary, i'll let you answer that question also. >> we talk about versatility, and that's the ability to ramp up if need be, but you have to have an industrial base to do that. in my view, if sequestration kicks in, we will lose the capabilities that secretary mabus referred to in some shipyards. i don't know -- if you do -- when i do rough math, i'm looking at not 285 ships in a

given year, i'm looking at 230 ships. we don't have enough structure to accrue that kind of savings without reducing procurement. so i'm very concerned about an industrial base that would be able to adjust from that, from sequestration. and it would be very difficult to keep a shipbuilder that could be owe. >> say that again about 230 ships. >> we have 285 ships today. you do rough math, you look at the kinds of numbers we talk about. where i'm at today, it's just a simple application of math from where we are today. we could be at 235 ships. >> mr. secretary? >> skres trags has two big problems, th

problems that there's been a lot of conversation about, a lot of testimony about before you. one is the amount. but the second is how it is implemented without regard for strategy, without regard for priorities rkts and you simply have to take a certain percentage out of every. does it for shipyard, and if we have every some already there to help out for that we would have to take money from. so for both reasons, and the way. i believe that secretary panetta described it as catastrophic, the effects.

sg . >> thank you. thank you, senator wicker. we're going to take a 10-minute break. you've been on the panel and considered the most distinguished leaders of our country and i want to thank you very much for your tireless efforts in leading the men and women of our navy and marines for our country. i also want to recognize and

thank the military members and their families for their outstanding service. mr. secretary, it's always good to see you and speak with you, and i always wish you well. in your written testimony, mr. secretary, you indicate that the naval academy received nearly 7,000 minority applications for the 2014 class, and it's double the number for the class of 2010. can you discuss what the navy is doing to achieve this significant cadence as well the benefit of a larger pipeline of minority offices for the navy

and marine corps? >> thank you, senator, and i will return the good wishes and very good to see you. the naval academy has had an t outreach program going now for several years to make sure we get as diverse an applicant pool as is possible. we shouldn't allow -- everybody should be accorded the honor of defending this country through military service. as you pointed out, the number of minority not only applicants but also acceptances has gone up dramatically. we have, outside the academy, taken action to make sure for both the navy and the marine corps that we are gathering in

highly qualified, diverse background americans, not just diversity and ethnicity or national origin but also in terms of geography, in terms of backgrounds, in terms of educational experience because we believe we will be a better fighting force having that diversity of points of view that we bring to bear on any issue. the final thing -- well, next to final thing that i would note is that we have also expanded naval r.o.t.c., returning it to some schools such as harvard, yale, columbia where it has historically been but where it has been absent for 40 years. we're bringing naval r.o.t.c to other schools like arizona state and rutgers to make sure that we do reach the widest population

possible in that. and finally, the other thing we've got to do in the military is not only get these young, diverse americans to sign up, but also to remain and make the navy and marine corps a career so that the diversity at our higher ranks will mirror the ones at our lower ranks. >> thank you very much, secretary. admiral, good to see you, too, and first i applaud the decision to fully fund a ship and depo maintenance accounts. the navy is taking steps to improve maintenance work on its surface ships so as to mitigate problems and material readiness that have come to light in

recent years. admiral, can you talk about some of the improvements, how they will affect some of the ship maintenance work? particularly talking about pearl harbor and other shipyards as well. >> hello, senator. the biggest change is called the surface management program, and we have it in this program, actually reinstituted it into the surface program. it's laying out the key and critical maintenance procedures that need to take place when we bring a surface ship in for maintenance to ensure that it gets to its expected service life. it involves going into the tanks looking at the turbans, the

shaft, the shaft seals, those long-term items that you might be temtd npted not to look at a that we didn't look at in the past and found emergent problems coming up. then to see to it when we get that maintenance we get it done. so we have the right planners that can lay out what needs to take place so we're efficient when we bring the ship in. >> thank you very much. general amos, i understand that you recently signed a revision to a 15-year-old policy addressing azy. you also ordered the service to begin tracking all hazing allegations and investigations and called on leadership to get more agressive in confronting claims of abuse and protection

for victims and whistle blowers. i really applaud your attention to this very serious matter. can you discuss some of these new protection for victims and whistle blowers? >> senator, i haven't -- it's true i signed a new order out, and when i went back to look at -- okay, let me refresh this. i was a bit surprised to find out it was as ant quiiquated as was. we did do that, it did put my fingerprints on the entire matter. i required all my general officers, all my commanding officers to immediately put their attention and their leadership fingerprints on the matter of hazing and 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 keep persistent attention on the matter across the marine corps, all 202,000 marines, then it begins to show again, and then you've got 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 regards to whistle blowers specifically, but the marine corps understands, they've gotten the message loud and clear that, number one, this is leadership issue, number two, it's their responsibility, and number three, it's absolutely, without exception, unacceptable behavior. and if found out, it's my full intention to prosecute it in every case. >> thank you very much for your

efforts. >> thank you, senator. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, admiral, mr. secretary and general for being here today. appreciate it and your service to our country. admiral greenert, admiral lockleer has described the virginia class submarine as the backbone of our attack submarine force. based on the line of questioning you just had with senator reed, you said that 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 of the portsmouth naval shipyard, the excellent work done there on the virginia class submarine and the importance of that work when we think of the virginia class submarine as the backbone of our attack submarine force. but it's my understanding -- this is obviously a very important issue for us -- that

the navy was only able to support 61% of the combatant commander's requirements for attack submarines in the year 2011; isn't that right? >> that's right. >> so we're only currently in 2011 when the combatant commanders asked for support attacks, asking essentially 6 out of 10 requests. >> that's right, ma'am. they provide requests. they're adjudicated within the joint staff, and our distribution providing worldwide presence. >> and the navy has requirement for 48 attack submarines? >> that's correct, senator. >> and based on where we are, is it correct to say that 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 as well. it's also the width of that as well. >> right. 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 we also have to pay, as you mentioned, particular attention to. >> well, we have other hot areas that we would want to be able 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. isn't that right, admiral? >> that's right, senator. >> i'm hopeful -- i'm very concerned about the proposal in the '13 budget of where this will bring our production rate, and i think that's something 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. it was all about not enough money in '14, our toughest year. >> it was about 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. >> that's a 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 a number by congress. 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 this committee needs to look at that and address it and look at the authorization and further consider the proposal 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 of the squadron maritime into reduced operator status. before we've seen some of the unrest in the milgd east that has come forward. and i was concerned about that reduced operating. it required additional analysis before we went on reduced operating stat us. let's push on from where we are today. as i understand the '13 proposal, we're going to go from 3 to 2, and in the area we're going to take out one of the prepositioned forces is inned mediterranean, and just so people understand what areas that allows us for faster response time because we have the prepositioned forces ready to go there in terms of the

equipment needed if we have to respond, that's the area of syria, egypt, israel, lebanon, ta tanisia. was it the marines' proposal to. >> senator, discussion came about the time i became what i am today. i want to put it in context. i looked at this thing, having looked for many, many years, and i said, what do i understand to be from do we have?

i think we make adjustments on some of the narz you just talked. we'll have to be more questionable, no doubt about it. but my concern. let's make sure that in other word words. training, but. it was brief last night that -- and it hasn't come to the secretary of the navy for his final decision yet, among the that -- that's where i know it.

i just want to make sure they're defended in the certification. i asked for the certification rez iness, reducing the status of one of the. obviously from the chief of naval this he doubted tlfts. i'm fw so many. we need to understand what additional risks we're taking on with that and whether, in all of your he is teamed opinions that this is sufficient in terms of our readiness in a critical area of the world. >> something, we are requiring

the operational status to be removed from one squadron. -- the decertifications that will be coming. >> good, i appreciate that. my time is up. i can't leave, though, without saying i'm deeply troubled, admiral. then when you come up on to the. my fleet could be in a position where 2 we know, just last year, your predecessor had told us that the fi nl and that we will.

. our fleet going down to 235, that is an unacceptable risk to our country and our blir we work immediately so that this is not hajing over the gleds. but we want to know that we're behind our men and women and we don't want this. . second man last man standing. i want to say a little bit about the arcty kas. integrate. your research and development with regard to energy. i'm going to tell you i'll be a huge supporter of your efforts

at the defense department. i may have some question about some of the efforts you're doing, but if we go back to the '60s and darpa, a lot of people lo and behold today, we have the internet. you actually hired someone out of the, when i say we collect e collective. we've been an area to advance this economy in way ways the navy saw a high volume of connect activity. the defendant said a lot of money of which.

so i think what you're doing in alternative and renewable energy, even though a i think it's critical for a long-term national security and economic security. i was just in afghanistan,. . the power of the solar panels and the change that has occurred through on the ground test tg. when you look we got to weight on the because they had. tha thaet. i want you to know from a state

that pro dusz a lot of oil and gas we like what you're doing around renewable to be secure from a national security perspective. i hear this debate out there because people wonder why you're in the business. well, because you're in the business of saving lives. part of the work you do in the military is try to look at risk analysis, and you have high risk when you move those convoys of diesel. if you can reduce the risk, you save lives, and that's how i look at it. so i just -- it's not necessarily a comment. i just get very fratd when i start hearing. thank you for the work you're doing on the ground. i was excited by to do things

that weren't there. . let me get to the larger one puck. the law of the sea. do you support it? >> yes, strongly. >> yes, i do. >> let me also say we had. she was talking about the importance and. with you. . snow dragon, which is an icebaker from china, an appropriate name. i can only what. . can you give me your thoughts,

mr. secretary, and admiral, how do you road map which was released by the navy fofr your tax bar. are we prepared and if not, what do we do? >> senator, you accurately pointed out we released the arctic road map in 2009, and we are following that road map. 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 would help us the most if by approving 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 shift, and the arctic, as you are better a wa ware 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 you can not only have navigation through there and you're already beginning to see that, but also extraction of sea bed resources. so i think first thing we could do is become a signatory to the law of the sea kmrchs. secondly, we are actively doing things like isex, 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 and bake. >> admiral? >> i back up everything the secretaries have said. i'm completely in line with that. it has to be a bullet, a factor, a credential, bine we saw each morning. likewise, we need to continue to do nanook exercises with the canadiens and nor weejs. and that includes critical infrastructure, make sure our command in control can be supported in that area of the bor borld. the arctic operations has to be a factor in that.