the sectarian -- last year in the defense authorization bill we in section 1022 created the national sea-based terrence fund, which was designed to help you to build a high-class submarine. can i skwask both of you how you intend to use this fund and in general your plans for the replacement of the ohio. mr. secretary, if you want to begin. >> we very much appreciate the establishment of this fund. the ceo and i have been talking for some time now about when we begin to build the ohio class replacement in 2021 if it is a

pure navy bill, it will devastate some part of the navy either our shipbuilding or readiness or something, because the high cost of these and because we don't recapitalize them very often. if you look back in history there is precedent for either making this a national program because it is the most survivable leg of our deterrence or building another ship to accommodate it. the freedom in the early '60s to late '60s and the maritime maybe in '72 it was increased pretty dramatically to build these submarines. to show you in '76 to '80, the

navy ship fund doubled. our fleet still climbed by 40% because it simply wasn't enough to do both. >> admiral green? >> senator, first of all i think it's a great start. i think we need to pursue clarity of the intent of the congress. what i mean by that is the legal ramifications for sources of the fundings we could put in there. is it just other navy shipbuilding accounts? is it just other navy appropriations, or do we mean the whole department of defense could contribute to this fund which in my view, would be great. >> thank you very much. in my view, it would be great, too, and that was the intent i believe. the clarification we'll try to produce for you, sir. joan dunfort, again, in the beginning we talked about the fight program. the expert fighting vehicle was

canceled. we've had several different concepts, and this has spanned the career of several command commandants. now we're in this new development, and seriously, your comments upon what you see as the challenge, what are you trying to accomplish by this, and how do you avoid sort of, the fate of the preceding vehicles which we spent money on but could never deliver? >> senator, thanks. we've been work forg some timeing for some time, as you alluded to to replace the amphibian vehicle. we've been looking at the cost we can afford and the ship to shore capability, that high-speed deployment capability. it turned out we couldn't reconcile those three, so the decision was made to break the program into thirds. the third is to address the need for ground tactical vehicles without adequate protection for our marines on shore right now, so that vehicle would be moved from ship to shore in a

connector. the second phase would be to get our vehicles to at least have the same capability as the amphibian verks amphibia amphibian vehicle, meaning it could deploy from ship to shore. if we could reconcile those three variables i talked about or continue to make improvements to the second phase which is a vehicle at or greater than capability of our current vehicle. the reason we are at where we are is we simply couldn't reconcile the three variables. >> so you are focusing first on a vehicle that will be basically have some limited forward capability to get a short distance in low surf and then fight on land with all the protections we've seen against ieds and those things and all the lessons we've learned? that's the first phase. >> that's exactly right, senator. we expect our vehicles will operate 90% of the time ashore,

so this first phase vehicle is used for ground mobility. >> and the second phase -- >> i was out to the arvada test center about three weeks ago to look at the current state of the vehicles. quite frankly, in most cases though we've asked for a vehicle that provides adequate ground mobility and not necessarily a self-deploying vehicle all the individuals right now that are competitive in the process have a vehicle that actually i think, may get pretty close to the second phase that we require. >> thank you very much. and just finally, mr. secretary, the director of operation test evaluation has raised some concerns about the surviveability of the lcs. and also the ones that have been modified to operate as friggerts.

have you specifically supplied the requirements for the modified lcs, and are those requirements much different than the initial requirements of lcs? >> the small surface task force looked at that and did upgrade the survivability by things like hardening the area around the magazine, around various combat systems. cno has pointed out very accurately in the past, the best way to survive is not to get hit, so we've upped the defense capabilities of that ship, and it's also a very fast ship, to keep that. it's important to keep in mind that this is a small surface combat. the new upgraded ones that be designated a friggit, but they're not destroyers, they're not cruisers, and they have a very different role to play. but the survivability for a

small surface combatant particularly with the upgrades rgsupgrades, meets our fleet requirements and the requirements we've set. >> thank you, gentlemen. we have good attendance up here, so we'll be talking about a lot of systems and i'll start off on one, admiral greenert that i think has changed quite a bit and that's the jsow program. i think a year ago they were talking about adding 4,400 or so of the jsows, and that was in the '15 budget. i don't remember, what is the current inventory? how many more would that represent when you said 4,400? >> i have to get you those numbers. i don't have them handy here. >> is it like 2,000 now? >> we benchmark against the combat requirement and again, i

got to get you the number. >> that's fine. but i guess my point is if we were talking about projecting in last year's budget 4,432 who of the jsows for the life of the program, which would have included at that time, because we have in this budget or had in this budget 200 to be bought, then all of a sudden, at least it was to me the program was terminated. i just wonder what happened that caused that not to be a necessary component as it was before now? >> we had to take some chances, and i'm not happy, we don't have enough munitions. we felt we were at the combat expenditure, we watched very closely how many we used during the year. when i say combat, we have enough for what we believe would be the model number, and can we reconstitute the line, and we felt we could. so we're taking risk. it's not good. >> that's a good point.

you're adding risk by having to do this. you would prefer not to. >> i would prefer not to. i have risk in other munitions that are just as bad. it's not a good picture, senator. >> that's right. senator reed talked about general dunford, about the f-35. just to elaborate a little bit more, that would actually be there in replacing the f-18s, is that correct, and the ea 6bs? >> and the avh senator. it will replace three aircraft all of which are over 23 years old. >> 23 years old the f-18s the e-16bs 27. you're satisfied this will be met in getting rid of the older? it will do that? >> it will do that but this

actually doesn't just replace the f-18 or the eav26. it's a transmission capability. it will do everything those three aircraft will do, but in terms of the environment, it will do a significant amount more for the marina and ground task force. >> you talked about -- admiral greenert, you talked about the pilots, that we have a pilot shortage. you've talked to your -- the air force and the problems that they're having right now. are your problems similar to theirs? >> they are. what happens is people get deployed, they're flying all the time. in fact, they're flying so much working up quickly to go on deployment, some of them say, i can't even get a will done. then we come back here and they sit on the tarmac and there's a super hornet they would love to be flying, but we don't have the funding to provide that. then they say, what's with this? it's not what i signed up for. >> that's the same thing general

walsh talked about. >> yes, it is. >> it's the same situation. tell me if this is true because i remember bringing this up kind of comparing the cost of replacing some training versus retention. as i understand the 10 years of the retention bonus was around $250,000. that's in the air force. is that comparable to the navy? >> it's comparable. we have the same thing. >> also the training, if you take them to f-22 capability is going to be something like $17 million. we look at the economics of this thing, and obviously it's far better if we can retain these people rather than to go through training. have you thought of anything specifically that would help you in that respect? >> we have, yes, sir, and so we use the term we want to optimize what we call our training plan our fleet response training plan. you hit the nail on the head. it's getting the flying done

more consistently throughout. keep them, if you will, busy proficient that they feel a part they have a predictable future out there instead of a cycling process as they get ready to deploy. >> that's the message i get when i talk to those. we know there is a lot of competitions with the airlines we know in the training that it's a supply and demand thing. >> senator, excuse me. a consistent budget will really help us be able to do that. consistency is key. >> absolutely. i understand that. and you said general dunford senator mccain asked you some specific questions about it, but you said and i wrote it down, funding below the president's budget will require a new strategy. you sansanswer aided a couple questions about the specifics, but what would a new strategy look like? what are we talking about? >> senator, what i really meant was on a day-to-day basis we

wouldn't have the marines deployed to meet the allies part of the strategy and to response to the crisis part of the strategy. and we would have fewer forces than would require to meet a single major contingency, so in my mind that does, from a marine corps perspective, drive the need for a new strategy. >> i understand. >> so it's a capacity issue as well as a readiness issue. >> my time has expired, but if you want to expand on that for the record please do because that is something we would need to be equipped with here. >> we'll do that senator. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for your service. i appreciate it very much. i'll take a little different twist than this. there is not a person i know in west virginia that is not extremely proud of the military we have and have served with distinction, and truly is proud to have the greatest military the history has ever recorded. with that being said i set my first meetings in this armed

services committee, and at that time we had joint chiefs of staff and admiral mullem was here, and the question was asked of him, what is the greatest threat america faces? i thought i was going to hear his depiction of around the world terror we were facing. he didn't even hesitate. he said the finances of our country is the greatest threat we face. we're at 18 trillion and growing. we'll grow another half a trillion this year. with that being said people back home in west virginia want us to be responsible, and they asked the question, and they said, you know we hear that our military, our department of defense, will spend more than the next seven or eight countries combined. how come we can't do it more efficiently or more effectively? and if money is the problem, we have to make sure we have the money to do it but are we using our money wisely? through procurement, we're trying to get audits, why everyone has a different platform.

everything seems to be siloed if you will, rather than integrated. i don't know if you all have a comment or an answer to that, but it's hard to go back home and explain -- i think the question is a little under $600 billion this year for fiscal '16. is the request 585? and i think just for the navy yours has gone from 691. your question has a connotation in it because of the way it's admin administered and if we quit intervening and let you do your job, it might be a little better. i appreciate that, and i know it's hard to make those comments, but is there a way we can do it more effectively and efficiently, and what can we do to untie your hands and let you

do it more financially but let you do it with what little ability you have? >> first you're absolutely correct that we as a military have to be efficient have to be effective, have to use the taxpayers' money very efficiently. my father was the cheapest human that god ever saw fit to put on this earth i think and i am his son. and so we have been using the tools that this committee and this congress has given us things i talked about, firm fixed price contracts, things like that. i'll show you a chart. here's what we have to do to buy anything. you can't read it, i can't either from here. it is -- it's spaghetti. it's a labyrinth that you have to go through. you could help us by taking out

some of those things. by -- make us focus on what's important, and that's the outcome. we are also looking at things like contracts. the navy spends about $40 billion a year on contracts. and until a couple of years ago we could not track that money from the time you authorized and appropriated it until it got to the contract. we can today. and we're saving today 10% a year, so $4 billion a year on contracts. we're going to do better than that. those are hard things. those are not easy things. the last thing is that there's really four parts to the department of defense. there are five parts. there are the four services, the three departments, army navy air force. but there's also the department of defense, the defense agencies

that are all overhead and they have grown far, far faster. >> let me say one final thing because my time will be running out real quick and i'm so sorry. but every time we talk about a lack of resources or money, general and admiral both, it's always reduction of force, how it's going to affect the people on the front line. but when we look at you all's staff, your staff keeps growing and growing and growing even though you talk about reduction of force. it doesn't make sense why we go to the front line immediately and have a reduction of force when the staff has made no sacrifices. >> can i take a shot at that sir? >> whoever. >> i'm going to defend my two service chiefs here. their staffs have not grown. the uniforms and the civilians in the department of the navy

have not grown. in fact from '14 to '16, we have a difference of 10 civilians. we're not growing. in fact, the marines are shrinking, the navy is staying steady, and the staffs are saying steady. they are going down. we're doing a 20% reduction in head kwaurt headquarter staff. but again, it's what we call the fourth estate the department of defense agencies things like the defense finance and accounting service things like the defense logistics agency, and their contractors have just grown exponentially. and so that's where the growth is coming. it's not -- i'll speak just for the department of the navy. it's not in the department. >> thank you. secretary mabus, maybe we'll have time to get back to that point, but let me go ahead with

my planned questions. admiral greenert, we sort of decided on this rebalance to asia before the latest provocations from russia, before isis took over so much territory territory. if sequestration returns in october, what sort of gap will these cuts create between america's asia rebalance strategy and the already important tasks of deterring russia and defeating isis? can you highlight to this committee the role amphibious ships will have in these completions? >> one of the top priorities we have is presence. so other than funding the sea-based strategic deterrent, i need to make sure we're present

around the world. my point is we'll pursue forward presence. you won't see much reduction under a budget scenario in our forward presence. most of the rebalance to the asia pacific is what we call forward naval force in japan singapore and guam. those will continue to in fact, increase. our distribution around the world is we are increasing the forces in the european command as we look at how we're going to deploy in the future strictly for the reason you stated with the instability and the africom and ucom region. it's not dramatic but it's there. amphibious forces play a real part, the ability to react quickly to counterterrorism and piracy and defend our americans abroad, especially in our embassies. >> so the asia pacific rebalance won't take a hit from

sequestration, and our european presence will not take a hit from sequestration. those hits will take place elsewhere. >> those hits, if you will, will take place in our ability to respond to supplement those forces forward. and those forces forward won't be as modern as they need to be. we'll have dramatic decreases in modernization. >> joan dunford, as you know i've been worrying aloud about afghanistan. general dempsey told our committee last week there is a terrorist network that stretches from afghanistan to nigeria and we've got to keep pressure on it throughout its entire length. he went on to say, i think afghanistan is and will remain an anchor point for that pressure. do you agree with that, joan dunford? >> senator i do agree with

that. i think afghanistan is a counterterrorism partner and its counterpart is absolutely critical. >> am i right, then to worry about the current plans to draw down our forz inces in afghanistan, to worry that's a more political concentration rather than the facts on the ground. >> my understanding from listening to carter's secretary and general gamble's testimony is they're all reviewing the current plan in light of the points you just made. >> i hope we do. last week before the committee, i spoke out to dempsey and carter that things are heading the right direction in afghanistan. i don't know if the people appreciate that. we've made great gains. they want us there as a stabilizing force, and i just

hope that we're not about to throw away what progress we've made. secretary mabus, you and i have been friends for a long time. remarkable testimony actually. very profound statement that you had, which you of course, had to abridge during your oral remarks. you mentioned what thomas payne said about the cause of america is in a great measure, the cause of all mankind, i almost want to substitute the word cost there. and it seems that it falls on the united states of america. you also correctly say, for seven decades the united states navy and marine corps have been the primary protector of this international system. we're doing it for everybody else. there is a sound basis in this proposition that prosperity is directly linked to the united states navy. thank you to our military and our navy. we've kept the sea lanes open,

you say. we've kept navigation open for anybody engaged in peaceful and legitimate trade. as the president said, we have been the anchor of global security. this is for you but also for our friends internationally listening to this. we are going to have to insist on more of a contribution from our international partners. we keep the lanes open for them. our friends in europe our nato friends, our other friends in europe are depending on what exactly you're talking about, and i would just say we are going to have to collectively come up with a plan to convince our partners in international security that it is in their interests, too, to make the financial sacrifice to afford all this protection in the

world. would you like to comment on that, mr. secretary? >> first to say, we have been friends for a long time, and second to say that it's one of the reasons we're pursuing these partnerships, and that's a message you just gave that i take to countries around the world, that we can't do it by ourselves, and that they have to pay their fair share of any burden. and as part of that, to be inoperable with us, to exercise with us, to make sure that we go into things together. and one of the things that -- one of the tangible things that's happening right now is the french aircraft carrier charles de gaulle is in the arabian gulf conducting strikes against isis. that's the sort of partnership that not only we need but the world needs. >> thank you and i've gone way over. i hope that i speak for senator

herono, my ranking member on sea power, that you'll take the time to address the points you made in that very confusing chart. and if there's suggestions you have that we can cut through that red tape and make a procurement of important weapons systems a little easier and a little more favorable to our fighting men and women i hope you'll get that to senator herono and me. >> i'd be very happy to. thank you, senator. >> senator is correct. he's gone way over. senator donnelly. >> thank you mr. chairman i have taken warning of that comment that you just made. mr. secretary thank you for your service, and i want to tell you, and you already know you have a great team sitting there with you. general dunford, admiral greenert, thank you for everything you've done for our country. we are extraordinarily blessed to have you on command and we appreciate it. i also want to mention mr.to mr.

secretary and admiral greenert, i want to take a moment to recognize the superior action of the navy forces. it is exceptional. you have created a standard of excellent performance and it has not gone unnoticed. as a nation we really feel in your debt for having done all of that. now i want to ask you about suicide prevention. it's been such a challenge for our services. it's been something we've all worked on together and what i want to talk about is physician assistance. they have a great reputation in the mission, a great reputation for medical care and the first is to admiral greenert and to secretary mabus and i'll get to general dunford second. but to admiral and mr. secretary, what are your

thoughts about expanding the service's use of pas specializing in psychiatric care to fill some of the provider gaps that we see? >> it's an excellent idea. we've looked at things like that. i have to go back and take another round through that. clearly we can use more folks to help us with the resiliency in the psychological arena. >> sir, i'm a big fan of physician assistants nurse practitioners, people we can get out in bigger numbers to help with some of the this resiliency. as you pointed out, suicide is one of the big challenges we face, and not just in the military. it's the second leading cause of death of americans 18 to 32 years old. >> it is a staggering and scary statistic. and general, you've done a great job in em bedding mental health providers with the expeditionary

units. what are your thoughts of the military physician assistants helping in the military with psychiatric care? >> i think my answer would be similar. it's my sense i would be supportive of anything that would increase the capacity to deal with the resilience of our marines and sailors and also their mental health. >> thank you. mr. secretary, as you know, in indiana we work on parts protection. what kind of threat do you see that being in the years ahead? >> it's something we have seen in the past and it could be critical in the future. it's important for us to stay on top of that because some of the counterfeit parts that we've detected, the crane found earlier were critical parts in our submarines, for example. you can't take chances on things like that. and it's one of those capabilities that we have absolutely got to keep up, and it's part of the acquisition strategy that we've got to have

adequate oversight. i'll go a little bit further here in that our acquisition work force, people at crane, people around the country that oversaw things like this went down pretty considerably. since 2010, we've been rebuilding that work force to do exactly some of those very specialized skills like that. >> general dunford, the marines have played such a strong role in anbar province in iraq over the years. a lot of extraordinary relations were created between the marines and the sunni tribes. as we take the battle to isil can you give me an update as to what role the marines are playing in terms of trying to cultivate those long-term relationships because they're so critical to our success?

>> thank you, senator, and we do in fact, have forces in anbar province today. we've got two 25-man training teams with the iraqi division. we have a ground force and that force right now is focused on supporting general austin's counter-isil efforts. in addition to supporting those, we have the embassy in baghdad, and we support the strikes that go in both with carriers and the joint force aircraft. we support the strikes to go into iraq and syria with the v-22 so if something did happen we would be in a position to recover aircraft and personnel. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your service. i would like to follow up a little bit on what senator imhoff was discussing and in particular, admiral greenert

you were responding to the mission munitions questions. are your munitions sufficient to support current operations and the defense strategic guidance plan? are there individual munitions whose inventories, either present or projected, which are insufficient to meet the requirements, and if so what are they and what is being done to address the shortfalls? >> for operations today, we have sufficient munitions. for operations in the future my benchmark year our benchmark year, is 2020. there is a series of missions we have to do. they're outlined on the card that i gave you where they're effectively based upon the war plans. we have insufficient munitions in 2020 even in some munitions in the president's budget. they are air to air. they are surface to surface, if you will cruise missile. some of our air to ground, and

as senator inhoff mentioned, the joint standoff weapon, the jsow. the air to air has two elements, a longer range and medium range. both of those are shortfalls. in our lightweight torpedo we have a shortfall. in our heavyweight torpedo, we have a shortfall. the shortfall is the commandant believes we need enough to reload so you're not standing around going we won, but we're empty. that's kind of the baseline sir. >> we have adequate ammunition today. we've taken risk in ammunition that would be needed for major contingency as we've dealt with the budget challenges. the three major areas we have shortfalls are in our javelyn systems and tow systems. the other areas are in rockets our artillery system rocket for artillery, and there are a

number of other areas of ammunition we're short. those are the main areas. again, it's been a decision we've made as we try to balance risk. for the marine corps, as i mentioned in my opening statement, we always ensure that our units deployed have the wherewithall to accomplish the mission. what we end up doing is taking a risk at home station and against contingency. that's exactly what we've done in the case of ammunition. >> thank you. secretary mabus you pointed out in the procurement process the complications and the added costs that come with that. are there programs that would benefit from cost reduction initiatives such as multi-year procurement or block bys that don't currently have those authorities? if there are, would you care to elaborate on them? >> senator, thanks to this committee in particular thanks to congress we've got multi-year authority on things

like the virginia class submarines where we bought 10 submarines for the price of nine because of that multi-year. we've got a multi-year on the marine osprey v-22s, and it's driven down the cost. we have a multi-year on our destroyers which has also brought down the cost. any time we can do that we very much want to and appreciate this committee. expanding those authorities to do that for weapons systems, for things like that, would certainly be helpful. but it's some of the things as i said in my opening statements just basic business concepts getting more competition in doing some of these longer term

things so that industry knows what we're going to buy so that they can make the investments up front in infrastructure and job training so that they can buy things in economic order quantities so that we can drive the costs down. and the chart i held up just shows some of the steps that we have to go through, even if we get a multi-year, even if we get a block by, we have to go through this very convoluted process that really adds no value at the end and it doesn't give us a better weapons system. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i'll yield back my nine seconds. >> you're a hero. very thoughtful. senator bloomenthal, you have an extra nine seconds. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking all three of you for your extraordinary service to our

nation, and admiral greenert, particularly my personal thanks to you for your numerous visits to connecticut and your strong advocacy of our navy strength particularly when it comes to submarines. and i know that all of us on this committee and the american people join me in gratitude to you. i want to ask a question about submarines the virginia module which i think is critically important to the virginia class submarines that we're going to be procuring. as you know, the virginia paylo module adds significantly to the number of tomahawks that canning prepared, i think it's 70%, which is especially important at a time when the number of boats in our fleet diminishes to

minimum or below minimum strength. so i am wondering whether there is the possibility that that acquisition program -- i know that the virginia pay load module virginia class subs are going to be procured in 2019 and in a subsequent year, one whether that program can be accelerated so more of the virginia class boats have the vpm and are able to increase their capacity to deliver that kind of attack. >> we're going to look at that senator, and i think in april/may, we'll be done studying that. we'd like to do that. we have to look at the technical risk associated with that. if it's feasible, we'll give it a good try to get that done. if we go to that year, '18, we're into -- the secretary just mentioned a block buy, we have a

block buy in there so we'll have to transition that bridge, if you will, to try to manipulate such a major part into a block buy. i don't know what it will do to the vendor, but we'll have to study that. >> what do you think is the timetable to make that determination? >> by may we should have an answer. we'll be very close with your staff and make sure they know how it's coming along. >> if you could keep us informed, i would appreciate it. >> will do. yes, sir. >> let me move to an issue that i know concerns all of you, the impact of post-traumatic stress that care for our men and women in uniform. general dunford, i know you've been very cognizant and attentive to this issue. are you satisfied that this budget has enough in the way of resources to deal with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury which as you also know, is the cause of

not only threat to readiness but also suicide and other effects? >> senator, we consciously protected those programs as we built the president's budget in 2016, but i would tell you again, it goes back to what happens with bca levels or sequestration. it will become increasingly difficult to protect those kinds of programs as well as a number of other programs as we draw down the budget even further. >> on that topic, secretary mabus, the connectivity on the number of personal health issues has been challenged in this very room by the va's officials and by other members of the department of defense. i wonder whether there is more that you can see being done to

better relate and transfer information that is important to disability claims to health care in the va and so forth. >> absolutely, senator. that's one of the critical things we do particularly for our wounded or our injured as we move them from active duty to the va. we've got a goal in days of how long it takes to move someone. both navy and marine corps are under that goal. we're doing it faster. but the goal is not a quick goal. it's too long. and we need to get better at that. we need to get better at having systems that talk to each other between d.o.d. and the va. but it is something that we're very very conscious of.

in trying to eliminate some of the duplication in terms of disability determination that both d.o.d. and the va run. sometimes they do the same things just at different times. >> thank you. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chair. gentlemen, thank you so much for being here today. i appreciate your service and your willing to testify before this committee. general dunford i would like to start with you sir. the budget we have right now in front of us reflects a switch from land-based to large operation scale battles back to a quick reactionary force for the marines. i know that the marines are going to adapt accordingly, they always do that very well. but i do worry that our forces are going through a lot of uncertainty with financial constraints constraints. and we seem to be caught off guard by our adversaries.

our enemies are capturing stockpiles of weapons some of which are the m-16s and the m-4s. and we have been using this individual weapons system for 50 years now. it was developed in 1964. this still remains our soldier and airman's basic rifle. and that puts us at an equal playing level with our adversaries on the ground. is it possible that while we're taking a look at advancing our ships, modernizing our ships modernizing our aviation platforms, within the budget is there room to move on advancing individual weapons systems that put us at a technological advantage over our adversaries? >> senator thanks for that question. that actually is one of my greatest concerns. we know historically the marine corps needs to invest a minimum of 11 or 12%, and that's fairly

small, of our overall obligation authority into modernization and capability development. this year we're at about 9%, so it's lower than it has been historically. i am concerned but today i think we're doing a pretty good job of resetting our capabilities to the fight that we had yesterday. i'm not satisfied we're investing enough in the capabilities that we need to fight tomorrow. what you're suggesting is modernization of things like weapons systems. i would say this. i agree with your point that we need to be able to do that but i also would just make a point that it's not just the weapon it's who is behind that weapon so it's still not a fair fight even if the enemy has the same weapon we do. it's the marine behind the weapon that makes the m-16 most effective. but your point about increased investment in these areas, that's one of the sacrifices we've made as we continue to fight the fight and make sure deployment has what they need. we have taken a risk in our development.

>> thank you, you're right, it is that marine behind that weapons system and making sure we're training them appropriately and having the means to do that is extremely important. one thing that i would love to address to both admiral and to you as well, general and secretary secretary. in the statements we talked a little bit about the total force that we have out there which would include not only our active duty personnel but those reserve members that are being used as operational forces and i would love to hear you elaborate a little bit about the role that our reserve members have played in backfilling for your components. >> well i would be remiss if i didn't acknowledge this is the 100th anniversary of the navy reserve this year. in fact, just a few days ago. so happy anniversary to the navy reserves. >> happy anniversary. >> we are absolutely unable to function without our navy reserve today. they've gone from sort of folks that were there for a strategic

force in case of the big war to now they are a part of our total force. they do our logistics, all of our logistics a lot of our medical, they're in cyber in a huge way. as we go to the unmanned and the remote areas, there are operators in waiting and a lot of them are integrating fully in that regard. they do a river on force. that means our high value units, our submarines and ships out around the world, and they do building partnership capacity. so there are other areas that they are working their way into. so very effective force woven into the fiber of who we are today. >> thank you. >> senator thanks. our ability to meet the combat combatant requirements on a day-to-day basis and in response to a major contingency is in response to the readiness of our navy reserve. to the point where we look at our requirements over the next couple years, we have an

integration plan to meet those forward ready requirements every day. when you use the term operation reserve, it means we're using it on a day to day basis to meet not only routine requirements but a reserve that could respond to an unexpected major contingency. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your service and a particular aloha to admiral greenert this being your last force posture testimony. secretary mabus as you know i am very committed to rhettthe rebalance of the asia pacific, and we had a conversation yesterday about that between you and me. it is really important that our efforts to maintain stability in the asia pacific area is important to our national security even as there are kwligts arising in other parts

of the world. as you stated in your testimony quote, we must have the platforms in the right places to ensure our friends and allies understand our commitment, end quote. so the rebalance has to be more than rhetoric and as we discussed yesterday, i trust that the navy, as it updates its strategic laydown and disbursal plans will ensure that future plans reflect the rebalance in terms of equipment, personnel and partnership opportunities, and i certainly look forward to further discussions with you. secretary mabus, do you think that this budget reflects our continued commitment to the rebalance with sufficient specificity? >> senator, i do. the commitment to the rebalance is real it's absolute and you can begin to see the things that are already happening. you're seeing the second deployment of an lcs to singapore, and by 2017 we'll

have four lcss in singapore. the crews will follow in on the ships instead of the ships coming back home. today you're seeing more than a thousand marines rotationally deployed to darwin, australia, and within the next year or two, that will go up to a full nearly 2500 marines special purpose marine air ground task force. you're seeing the plans we have for our equipment both ship and aircraft, in the region. we're going from about 25% of our fleet in the pacific to 60%. i think the important number is that the fleet is getting bigger. so that 60% of this fleet is going to be bigger than the fleet of the past.

we, in this budget specifically have the resources to carry out that. but i will echo admiral greenert and general dunford. this is the minimum that we have to have in order to do not only the rebalance but all the other missions that we're called upon to do. >> thank you. i think i heard your response to senator donnelly's question about your concern about counterfeit parts, and i believe you said you do have a concern about that. i just wanted to ask you one question, though. you do have a question about counterfeit parts? i heard that correctly? >> yes. >> so i was just wondering whether you were aware of any technological product that can be embedded in parts to ensure that it is not a counterfeit part.

>> senator, i'm not aware of any specific chip or whatever that you can embed in it. what i am aware of is that our quality control folks in places like crane, indiana that the senator was talking about, are exceptionally good at spotting those counterfeits. >> i'm aware of a particular product that i would look to talk to you further about in a different context. regarding your energy efforts we do need a sustained long-term commitment to research and development in this area and meeting our energy security needs and preserving the superiority of our forces in the face of energy supply challenges in the 21st century are important goals. in your testimony you highlighted that 2009 energy goals which means using energy

more efficiently and diversifying our sources of power, and certainly i agree with your efforts. could you give us an update briefly on the 2009 formal energy goals and how does the president's budget proposal support these energy goals? >> be happy to. the biggest goal was by no later than 2020 at least half of all energy both afloat and ashore will come from non-fossil fuel sources. the goal is to make us better war fighters. in terms of our basis, we will be there at the end of 2015. it will -- and we're saving money by doing it. we will have a gigowatt of power into our bases by the end of 2015. in terms of afloat, we will buy no alternative fuels unless it's absolutely cost competitive with traditional fuels, but that

seems to be the case even with today's low oil prices, and we are moving pretty aggressively to do that. we've demonstrated, we've certified all our ships, we've certified all our aircraft on this. in terms of efficiencies we are making great strides in efficiencies, and the president's budget supports both the diversifying of kinds of energy and also the efficiencies. >> thank you, and i appreciate the indulgence of the chair. i have gone over.

could expedite that and it's possible to do that. i also wanted to follow up admiral, in your prepared statement you noted our naval shipyards and depots are critical to maintaining war fighter readiness for the force and i certainly agree with that. and in order to have a strong attack submarine fleet we need to ensure that those submarines are maintained properly and quickly and that they are combat ready. and one thing that i wanted to ask about is making sure that the facilities we have are prepared to do that and doing that in the most efficient way so that we can save dollars and get things done sooner. i know senator king shares my pride with the work done at the portsmouth naval shipyard. and in fact the workers at the shipyard have actually been producing things -- ahead of schedule the maintenance just recently in

april of last year, they undocked the "uss topeka" days ahead of schedule. 20 days ahead of schedule. in june following maintenance availability, the workers at the portsmouth naval shipyard returned the "uss california" to the fleet 14 days ahead of schedule. and in september they delivered the "uss springfield" back to the fleet ahead of schedule and under budget. and one of the things they have brought to the attention of my office is that they are doing this with facilities that are frankly outdated in some instances. working in structural shops on average are over 100 years old and have deteriorated to the point of partial failure. for example the heat treat forge area was recently condemned. and the buildings have exceeded their useful life. so the fact that they are delivering faster and under budget even with these facilities can you imagine what they could do with more modern facilities?

there is a military construction project that has been submitted for reprogramming. it's called p-266 structural shops consolidation. it will address many of the problems that i just talked about. and it will achieve efficiencies, improve working conditions, most importantly save money and time which i know we're all looking to do and result in submarines being sent back to the fleet even more quickly. and i'm confident if we're able to do this it will allow them do an even better job. and they are doing incredible job now. admiral another not expecting you to be very familiar with all of those projects offhand but this is a very important one to our shipyard and i think that will most importantly drive cost efficiencies and results for the navy. so i would like an update on where this reprogramming request sits and obviously i don't need you -- if you have now great. if you don't, if that is

something you could submit to our office as quickly as possible. i'd appreciate it. >> i'll take it for the record and get you a complete answer senator. >> thank you very much. i also wanted to follow-up just to ask you in general about the importance of the navy civilian workforce. and what see in terms of this, many of them as the economy improve trs competition for the types of skills that they have, that they are able to work obviously on such important equipment like our attack submarines or other equipment, then we're going to see more competition for their skills, and we want to make sure that they stay in the navy and able to serve the navy. can you talk to me about the strength of the civilian workforce, how do you see recruitment going forward? and what are the challenges we face there and any concerns you may have? >> thank you, senator. in terms of the public shipyards

like portsmouth, if you want to see the effects of sequestration, you don't have to look any further than that. there was a hiring freeze in place because of the sequestration. so as people left they could not be replaced. there was a furlough. that some of them were exempt from but not all. there was the government shut down when they couldn't work. and because of all those things we've got a backlog in those public shipyards. they do great work but they have to have enough of those artisans, enough of those people with the specific skills, to do it. and again, that is a great tangible example of not only the effects immediately of sequestration but how it stretches out. because it will take us until about 2018 as the cno said to

recover from that. the civilian workforce writ large, we wouldn't have a fleet to put to see without those civilians. and we lost 12 civilians, killed in the line of duty at the washington navy yard. so they are in every way an integral, vital part of our navy and the marine corps. >> thank you mr. secretary. admiral? >> ma'am, this morning there is a great article on what the director for office of personnel management is trying to do for quick hiring. we are trying desperately to hire people into the shipyards. it is hard. the sequestration has hurt us and the gourdion knot to get through is incredibly hard. >> and these are incredible people. i've had a chance to meet many of them. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chair. admiral greenert i want to associate my comments.

it must be -- i'm sure you are very sad that is your last hearing before the committee. but you have had a long and distinguished career. i want to thank you. secretary mabus your dad should have metmy dad. i can remember my dad standing in front of me on the long distance telephone looking at his watch, watching the time go by. i think they had some spiritual kinship. admiral greenert, the arctic is an important area of policy. i know you have been looking at it. the navy developed a strategy. do you see the arctic as an emerging area of the strategic importance, national security importance, to this country? >> senator i do. i think we need to look at it deliberately and understand it. therefore things like isecs, we need to do it more frequently, get industry up there and study the place. find out when is it going to melt. what are the sea lines of communication that will open? are there territorial disputes?

who has them. are there threats? russia is increasing their military presence sort of makes sense and that that is where a sea line of communication is. but, also how do we survive up there? our ships, our aircraft and our people. >> i think just a simple example about infrastructure, ice breakers. we have one heavy duty, one medium duty coast guard. the russians have 17. ice breakers in the arctic. and if we're talking about innocent passage, trade ice breakers are the highway builders, if you will. and that is an area, i know it is not a naval question but that is an example of how we are really not adequately i believe developing our strategic interests in that region. again, for secretary mabus and admiral greenert, it strikes me that one of the issues that really isn't talked about. we talked a lot about sequestration and i don't have to pile on on that subject.

we all agree it is serious risk to the national security of this country. but the industrial base. you can't turn off and on a shipyard. one of the things that worries me is i look at charts from bath iron works, for example, in maine. that if we don't have the workload, the employment drops down. if a skilled shipbuilder leaves to go to some other area of the country or some other profession. they are gone and you can't just turn that back on. secretary mabus is that something that concerns me? >> concerns me every day. and one of the reasons i said in my opening statement and the larger statement to the committee that i will protect shipbuilding to the maximum extent possible. because it is not reversible. if you -- if you don't build a navy ship one year, you never build it. it is not something that money the next year can make up. and it is primarily because of that industrial base. if you lose those highly skilled

workers and their unique skills,. they are not easily learned. in fact i was -- senator reid said i was at kwanzaa point with a key lane for the "uss colorado." they recognized more than 10 people who were celebrating their 40th anniversary at that shipyard. that worked there for more than 40 years. the so the industrial base if you lose the high quality, high skill shipbuilders, you don't get them back. and you see the effects today in terms of bath or some of our other shipyards. what you see are the effects on our fleet ten years from now, 15 years from now, 20 years from now. and it is something that i've said, evidently i used a term nobody else had used much. but i'm going to protect shipbuilding till the last dog

dies. we're going to try to stay there partly for the industrial base -- >> and one of the problems is the long lead time means that shortchanging we're doing now is going to have the effect 5, 10 years from now. i remember learning in drivers ed that if you are going above a certain speed your headlights won't illuminate the wall in time for you to stop. and effect there is a wall out there that we're very close to hitting. we just won't know it for about 10 years because of decisions we're making now in terms of the shortsightedness of this sequester policy. >> we are living today with decisions that were made 10, 15 years ago in terms of the size of our fleet. the people sitting in all of these chairs 15, 20 years from now will be living with t the decisions we make today. and as i said, in shipbuilding

they are not reversible. >> well you ended your prepared testimony with a quote from theodore roosevelt about the navy as an instrument of peace. from that same speech, roosevelt said something applicable to the discussion today about readiness. he said the veteran seaman of our warships are as high a type that can be found in any navy waters in the world. unsurpassed in daring and resolution and readiness and thorough knowledge of their profession. this is teddy roosevelt a hundred years ago. to build the finest ship with the deadliest battery and to end is it afloat with a raw crew, no matter how brave they are individually would be to ensure disaster if a foe of average capacity were encountered. this is the payoff line. neither ships nor men can be improvised when the war has begun. general dunford, i would assume this is all about readiness and training and the irresponsibility of our not

solving this funding problem so that you can have your men and women ready. >> absolutely, senator. that is what you expect from the nation's ready force. when you call us, we're there. as i mentioned earlier when you called us for today's crisis we respond actually today. and that is what it's all about. >> thank you gentlemen for your service. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and thanks to all the witnesses. admiral greenert i add my comments to those of my colleagues about your service and we'll miss you at these hearings. you've been very, very helpful. we all appreciate that. on sequester i can't resist, secretary mabus, since you started talking about how cheap your dad was. i've done a lot of budgets. i've done them as the managing director of a, you know, law firm with lawyers in three countries. i've done them as a mayor. i've done them as a governor. i'm the only governor in the history of my state -- this is a

sad accolade not a good one. i'm the only one that left with a smaller budget than the one i started with because of being governor in the worst recession in 75 years. sequester violates every principle of good budgeting that any competent manager in the public or private sector would follow. period. full stop. sequester violates every principle of budgeting that any competent private or public sector manager would follow. i am proud that one of my first votes as a senator in february 2013 was to eliminate the sequester. i know how to find budgetary savings. i've done it my whole life. but non strategic across the board cuts can be done with the slide rule. it is not about the application of human judgment. and any budgetary philosophy that says we don't care about human judgment and we're just going to do the across the board cutting is foolish. i've watch us have rare

discussions on this committee where i think we've all come to bipartisan consensus about afghanistan. and let me make an analogy that. a calendar based strategy is a bad idea. a conditions based strategy is a good idea. and i just want to analogize that to our budgetary reality. we're either going to be sequester-based and say, well, we're obligated to follow caps the congress put in place in august 2011, before we saw the degree of cyber attacks from northern korea, before we saw vladomir putin go into ukraine. before isil was gobbling up territory in iraq and syria, before boko haram was slaughtering thousands upon thousands of people in africa. we're either going to be sequester based and ignore all of that or we're going to be conditions based. and i would like to to ask all

of my colleagues we decided that we'd like to be conditions based not calendar based. and i would say for purposes of funding on military and other priorities let's be just as conditions base and let's not grab on to some bizarre, incompetent, budgetary theory and elevate that over the security of the nation. that is just my editorial comment and what i intend to do as a member of the budget committee, as a member of the armed services committee, and certainly in any floor activity about budget or appropriations. i want to offer some praise to general dunford and admiral greenert. in your written testimony you both talked about something really important. which is helping your marines and sailors transition from active life to civilian life. the transition of people into a civilian workforce where only 1% of the adults have served in the military. so there isn't a natural understanding or what a gunny sergeant does for what an e-5 is. the care about that transition, which is something that i think

the dod has generally woken up to more recently as we've had iraq and afghan war vets especially enlisteds with unemployment rates that are unacceptably high, i think you've all come a long way in the last couple of years in being really intentional about this. and in both of your written testimonies you talk about efforts that have been under way to help folks get credentials that match civilian work skills and help people think in a more significant way about that transition. general dunford knows i have a son who's an officer in the marines. and about two weeks into taking his first platoon he called me up and i said dad my nco, who is the guy i'm really relying on has just told me he's leaving in two weeks, and he doesn't know how to find a job. and if you wait until someone is at the end of their time and try to cram it all into their head and help them figure out how to transition the last couple of weeks, it's not going to work very well. but if you start on day one and make that a priority, it will work a lot better. and our marines will be marines

for life and our sailors will be sailors for life. and i give you all a lot of credit for making that a priority. and your written testimony today attributes to it. one question i want to ask that may be a question for the record because it may involve classified information. i'm concerned about the stability of the government of bahrain. the fifth need is headquartered in bahrain. and that fifth fleet is not only important for our defense, but it keeps open sea lanes in an important part of the world that allow shipments of oil and other shipments that affect the global economy. the instability of bahrain in my view causes me significant concern about the long-term viability of the fifth fleet there, as its headquarters. certainly the security of the lives of those americans serving but also whether that is, you know -- can we have a fifth fleet strategically positioned there given that instability? and maybe for the record i would like to ask if you could just offer some thoughts appropriately classified, if

need be, about what the instability issues, what threats that poses and what the navy is doing to consider how to mitigate those threats. if you could admiral greenert. >> i'll take that for the record and give you a complete answer, senator. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator kaine. and i thank you also for your eloquent dissertation on sequestration. and i totally agree with it. i thank you for that. senator. >> mr. secretary, admiral, general, thank you very much for your years of distinguished service to our country and for all of the men and women you represent. the sailors, marines and the civilians. i was an army guy myself. general dunford i've had many of your marines tell me that the army stands for ain't ready for marines yet. that's not true, is it?

>> it just may be senator. >> shocking revelation. well there is no substitute for having a army but also no substitute for having a navy and marine corps constantly on watch around the globe. that is never in peace time phase because it's always deployed somewhere. we're very grateful for what y'all do. admiral greenert you have written and spoken in other forums about the concept of payloads not platforms. could you give us a truncated simple version of what you mean by that and how it informs the procurement plan for the navy in the future? >> we're a capital intensive service. so when we build a ship it is there for 30 years at least. and a bit longer to. put an integrated, complicated system in there, inside -- weapons system in such a vessel. when you want to change it i you have to take the ship out of service for 18 months to two years. we can't do that anymore. by can't afford to take it out of service. that is one. two, the industry and technology is moving so fast. they can put together a weapons

system that can come in in a modular fashion. so the deal today is put together a platform they call, one that has enough cooling, volume, persistence and time at sea and the ability to support the upgrades, quick, fast upgrades. the enterprise was our first aircraft carrier in 1961. its first mission was the cuban missile crisis. its last mission was off afghanistan in 2012 and it had the most modern systems we had. a platform with several changes of payloads. so that is where i'm getting at. it applies to aircrafts and it applies to ships for sure. >> general dunford. would you care to comment on how that concept may or may not apply to a ground force like the marine corps or for that matter the army. >> i'd like to take for the record. i'm not sure i can answer that. >> okay. admiral greenert would you like to comment? because obviously the navy and

air force are much bigger platform platforms. more capital intensive investments than general dunford tends use in the marine corps that the army uses in its ground operations. >> the payloads and platforms my support for general -- i'm a supporting entity for the marine corps. when i build an amphibians ship it has to be able to expand to bring in the marine systems as they evolve and expand. so it is very much a part of what i support for joe dunford there. and in fact we fell behind in that regard. as the marines went ashore in afghanistan and iraq, we didn't evolve in our ships. and now we're making that adjustment working together. >> thank you. i also would like to associate myself with the comments of senator cain and senator mccain about the impact of sequestration. in particular the impacts on readiness. i'd be curious to hear about the time line that you think may be required to get back to full readiness in your two services. >> if we have a predictable

stable budget at the right level, which we believe the president's budget is minimally there, we will be back where we need to be in 2018 for carrier strike groups and 2020 for amphibians readiness for supporting general dunford. >> our time line is roughly the same. sometime between 2018 and 20. but that very much is dependent on future budgets as well. >> would you care to comment on the status of morale for sailors and marines especially in the last two years in a sequestration environment. >> when sequestration hit morale it was hard on them. it was a hit. they were angry. they didn't understand what is this? what did i do? so the now the families are angry. they have gotten over that. today they are anxious but morale is good overall. it is not very good. and it is not poor. it is good. they understand that we're

looking out for their basic needs and we're providing the ready forces when they deploy. but there is a great anxiety out there and if we go back to that i'm not exactly sure what is going to happen. i lived this through the late 70s and early 80s. >> on balance we have very young force. i'd probably describe the reaction as angst at this point. they are concerned. where i'm mostly concerned are the mid grade staff ncos and mid grade officers looking to the future of uncertainty and would make decisions to leave the marine corps when we want them to stay. >> thank you. thank you all again for your service. and thank you again for all the hard work of the marines and sailors you represent do, as well as their families since there is no peacetime navy and marine corps and you are always on watch. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all very much for being here. secretary mabus and admiral greenert and general dunford. and thank you for your service to the country. admiral greenert we're going to miss you but we hope you'll be back in another capacity at some point. as we were discussing before the

hearing started i had as you all know, the great opportunity yesterday to embark with the "uss new hampshire" submarine to go out for the day, to dive with the submarine. it was -- it was really an experience of a lifetime. and i very much appreciated that. and i was especially impressed by the dedication and the professionalism of our men serving on that submarine, as on all of our submarines. impressed by the team work that they all experienced. as they pointed out to me, that a submarine only runs if everybody works together. and the cook knew as much about the ship and how it's laid out and the operations as the people in the operations room. so it was very impressive. and one of the things that became clear as we were discussing with folks about

their experience on the new hampshire was that while general dunford can appreciate this, a lot of the discussion during the wars in afghanistan and iraq has been about the toll that that's taken on our fighting men and women. and one of the things that was clear yesterday and not because anybody on the new hampshire complained about it. but the toll that the reduction in our ships and their capacity has on the men and women who serve on those ships. because the deployments increase just as our deployments increase during iraq and afghanistan in a way that i think is less clear to the american public and the toll that that takes. and i wonder admiral or secretary mabus if either of you would like to speak to what that shortfall in our ship capacity

the impact that that has on the men and women who are serving on those ships. >> you explained it very well, senator. there is a commitment, a covenant we have for providing ready forces forward around the world to be what we like to say where it matters when it matters. if you have less ships to distribute, those out there will stand the watch longer. we have a phenomenon we were trying get out of as we were just describing how long it would take to get a readiness right. that is when we had sequestration all of our maintenance slowed down. naval shipyard, puget, all of our shipyards slowed down to kind of parade rest, as we like to say. so now we're trying to get that back up. get the workforce back, because many left as the result of sequestration. somebody is out there standing the watch. and that is that longer deployment waiting for the other folks to get their maintenance and training down to come out and relieve them. that hurts and takes a while.

>> senator, in the early '90s we had about a 400 ship navy. and we had on average 100 ships forward deployed. today we have a little less than a 300 ship navy and we still have a 100 ships forward deployed. you explained it very well. sailors are going out for longer. they are staying for longer. one of the things that we've been working on is trying to make those deployments more predictable. and not just the deployments. but the things, you know, as we were talking about. the training the maintenance and the surge capability when they come back. it is called the optimized fleet response plan. we're doing it for our carriers first and strike groups. we're going to do it for our amphibious ready groups next. but it's trying to do that. 3sh and the last thing i'd like to stay is that one of the reasons that i remain so committed to

ship building, to getting the right number of those gray hulls, so that it will ease some of the stress on the sailors that -- who -- the men and women who sail in them. >> thank you. well one of the things i neglected to say that you all know is that the "uss new hampshire" is a virginia class sub. and one of the things that was very exciting to hear from folks on the ship was that they always feel very good when it is the portsmouth naval shipyard who has done the work because they do such a great job at the shipyard. so i had to put that plug in for the portsmouth shipyard, because they do such great work. i'm really out of time but mr. chairman if i could ask one more question. thank you. secretary mabus last september the departments of energy navy and agriculture awarded contracts to three companies to construct and commission biorefineries to produce drop-in

fuels to help meet our transportation needs. drop-in biofuels. can you speak to why you think this is so important for the navy? >> it is important because it makes us better war fighters. it is important because it takes fuel away as a weapon to be used us against us. all you have to do is look at the head lines about crimea or the ukraine, europe today and russia using fuel as a weapon. and we're trying to avoid that. it will also help us smooth out some of these huge price swings in the oil and gas market. and finally, i'm a big believer in the free market. i think you need competition in things like fuels. now, we are -- we will not buy any alternative fuel unless it is absolutely price competitive with traditional fuels. the other two requirements that we have, one is that it be drop-in.

as you said. we're not changing engines or settings. and third that it take no land out of food production. so we're looking at second generation, third generation bio fuel production. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator graham. >> thank you all for your service. what's the morale in the marine corps like, general? >> senator, it is high. >> yeah. well it should be high. because you are the finest fighting force on earth. and i want to tell the marine and the navy better days are coming to the families. we're going to get our act together in congress. i don't know exactly how yet. but we will. we're not going to leave you hanging. we're not going take modernization off the table so you can't fight the next war effectively. and we're going to somehow solve the problem we've created. so just hang in there. keep your chin up and focused on the mission.

general, do you agree weed be smart to leave a residual force behind in afghanistan if conditions require it? >> i do, senator. >> from a navy perspective, admiral, do you believe that the threats we face are growing as i speak? >> i do. absolutely. >> do both of you agree that there are more terrorist organizations with more capability, with more safe havens, with more weapons, with more desire to attack the homeland than any time since 911. >> i do. >> i do, senator. >> when it comes to iraq and syria, you do agree with me that if we take isil on -- and when i say "we," the united states and the region, that we must win? >> yes, senator. >> how many marines were involved in the first battle and second battle of fallujah? >> the first battle senator was about two regimental combat teams in the order of 6,000.

the second battle was about 14,000 u.s. forces. that is marine and soldiers. >> so do you agree with me without that capacity it would have been very difficult for the sunni tribes to prevail over al qaeda and iraq at the time? >> without -- absolutely center. >> okay. so we're about to fight a bigger force. and how many members of our military do we have in iraq today? >> senator, i don't know the exact numbers but i think on the order of 3,000. >> how many of those are marines. >> we've got about 500 marines, senator that are actually on the ground in iraq. >> do you agree with me, both of you, that isil represents a threat to us, not just the region? >> i do, senator. >> do you agree admiral? >> yes, i do, senator. >> so anybody who thinks that defeating or destroying isil is their problem, not ours, is making a huge mistake? >> i agree with that, senator. >> where he have to prevail, yes senator.

>> do you agree it's in our national security interest to make they're not only are they degraded and destroyed, they don't come back? >> i agree with that senator. >> do you agree with me the best way to ensure that you degrade and destroy isil is to have some american ground forces to help the regional forces? >> senator, right now i think it is critical that we provide u.s. support. and i think as you know we're waiting for general austin to make a recommendation as to exactly what the support would be. >> doesn't that guarantee the highest chance of success is to have some american capability on the ground enhancing our regional partners? >> certainly my perspective would be as a link to our supporting capability. >> do you agree with me that any marine or soldier sailor, airman who participated in these operations would be protecting the homeland? >> i believe that senator. >> if somebody died trying to deal with isil in iraq or syria, they would have died on behalf of protecting their nation? >> they would have died in protecting our national interests is clear, senator.

>> do you agree with me that if we don't stop isil sooner rather than later, the likelihood of another attack against this country grows. >> >> i think it grows but i think if we don't stop them there will be destabilization in the region as well. important for our national interests. >> do you worry about the king of jordan if they don't get slowed down or degraded pretty quickly? >> i do senator. >> do you admiral? >> i do, senator. yes i do. >> so to both of you and to those who serve under you, i am sorry that some of you may have to go back. i regret it more than you will ever know. but i think you know better than anyone else why you may have to go back. and the only commitment i will make as a senator from south carolina is that if you go back, you go back to win and that we

get this right this time. thank you all for your service. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you, thank you all for being here. i sometimes neglect to say how much respect i have for all of you. i'm so busy getting after something that i forget to tell you. so let me do that before i get after something. admiral greenert, i'm dismayed about the fat leonard scandal. i'm dismayed because it rips at the fabric of honor and integrity that defines our military. and one of the things that i have tried to do since i was allowed to join this important committee is make sure when we have those moments that this consequences go to the very top. instead of hanging out at the

middle or the bottom. which has sometimes occurred. when there is a scandal like this. so what i would like you or secretary mabus to speak to the accountability of those at the top of the chain of command for this conduct that occurred on their watch. >> the leonard francis scandal is that -- >> correct. >> well, senator, we're going to hold people accountable that violated either the law or a navy ethics. i've already issued letters of censure to three admirals. one three-star and two two-star admirals. the two two-stars elected to retire. the three-star had already decided to retire. the one thing i think is

important about this situation is that the reason this was uncovered is that we set up financial trip wires that gdma went across. so red flags were raised. ncis investigated this for three years with no leaks. we during that investigation found that an ncis agent was furnishing mr. francis with information that -- they sent up some false information to him. and it led to mr. francis believing that the investigation had been shut down, and allowed us to arrest him on american soil. he has implicated a number of naval personnel.

we are at the -- on the timetable of the u.s. attorney's office in san diego, in terms of how quickly we get to these things -- and that's been a frustration because we have -- it's taken a long, long time. but i've set up a consolidated disposition authority. so if somebody was found not to be criminally liable, we're taking a look at them to see if they violated navy ethics. we are -- we are stepping up ethics training for c.o.s, x.o.s, people in areas of responsibility. we've completely overhauled our procurement requirements and regulations in terms of husbanding these services that gdma provided. we're auditing that on a routine basis. and one thing i do want to say

though. is that, you could have all of the ethics training in the world. if somebody doesn't know it's wrong to steal, somebody doesn't know it's wrong to take a bribe, they missed something at home. >> right. >> and what we have to do is set up a system that will catch them. and will hold them accountable. and you are right. it is up and down the chain. and i think that by the first actions -- i not only took the actions to censure three admirals but i've taken two more with access to classified information based on allegations. i don't know if those allegations are correct yet, but in order to protect the integrity of the service. finally, senator, unique among the services when we make a change in command when we do something to a senior officer, a

c.o. or a flag officer, we announce it. we try to be completely transparent about this. partly is because of what we can -- the learning effect that will have on other people. but partly because people need to know what's happening in the service. we have not seen the numbers go up. but because we announce it, we tend to get more scrutiny. >> well i appreciate that. i appreciate that you all have done this. i wanted you to know i'm very interested in how all of this shakes out. and if there is anything i can do to prod the u.s. attorney into doing justice in the most efficient and effective and time sensitive way, let me know. i don't have much time left. i do want to ask a couple of questions that you all can respond on the record for me at a later date because i don't

want to hold up the senator from alaska. one is obviously the electronic capability platform as it relates to the growlers. i know you testified last week admiral about the shortage of two to three squadrons. i'm very concerned about that. i would be concerned about that if these amazing aircraft were not built in st. louis because of the capability of the electronic battlefield that we face now. and i would like you to respond to what -- i'm worried that this joint study that's going on now won't be completed in time for us to really evaluate whether the needs jointly even exceed what you have said which is two to three squadrons in terms of a shortfall. so that i need on the record. and for you general dunford i'd like an updating on how the realigning of guam is going. this is something we've worked on in this committee and when i used to chair readiness this is something we talked about a lot.

if you would get to the committee and specifically to my office where we are with the realignment of guam and what the situation is on that i would be very appreciative. >> we'll get that information to you, senator. thank you. >> i know everybody's covered sequestration before i got here. but for what every other senator said about sequestration, me too. thank you. >> senator sullivan. >> thank you mr. chairman, and senator mccaskill. i might get a highlight of your final question as actually one of my first questions. so gentlemen, i appreciate your service. and your frank testimony. general dunford, i also appreciate your highlighting the bang for the buck component of the marine corps' spending and war fighting capability. 6% of the budget, 21% of the infantry and battalions. i think that is important for the american people to understand and recognize. i do want to follow on a number

of the general questions from senator wicker, hirono, mccaskill. on the redeployment, the pivot to asia in particular with regard to some of our ground forces. and ar as part of this committee's oversight responsibility i'll be heading to the region relatively soon to look at some of the issues in terms of cost, training, readiness, deployment capabilities as it relates to the guam redeployment but also other issues. i would just like general dunford, from your perspective, how -- what are the issues we should be thinking of when we're looking at that? and are you satisfied with how that redeployment is going? as you probably know there is some concerns about that. and i think they have been consistent concerns over the years. >> it clearly is one of the more important issues we are grappling with right now is the pacific.

i this i maybe break it into three pieces. first would be capacity. and for the united states marine corps what the rebalance means is 22,500 marines west of the date line. and we're there now. as we've drawn down the force in iraq and afghanistan we've reconstituted our unit deployment program and get the numbers back for our third marine expeditionary force back to what they ought to be. the second piece is reposture of forces, relieving pressure in okinawa and building up forces in guam and as the secretary talked about, forces in australia as well. so there's several pieces. the guam piece, the australia piece and then forces will go to ewokuni japan and others to hawaii as well. we're just getting started with that this year in president's budget '16. there is a training range in guam. that's one of the preconditions for us to bring forces down to guam. we'll bring a total of 5,000 forces to guam eventually. we are rotating this spring another force of 1,000 marines into australia with an eventual plan to bring that number up to 2500.

but i think in terms of the issues that you should be concerned about, one clearly is the progress for the futenma replacement facility and how that progresses in japan. because that's going to be critical. we have to have the futenma replacement facility in order for us to leave our current futenma air station. and then make the redeployment to guam, as well. and properly support the marines that are in the area. the other piece is lift in the area. we're going to better support the combatant commander's day-to-day requirements. by disaggregating -- in other words by moving to guam and moving to australia, we get better coverage in the pacific on a day-to-day basis. but thin in the contingency we've got to aggregate those forces for example in a conflict on the korean peninsula. one of the real critical things we're working on in the department of navy with the secretary and cno's help is the additional lift that would be required to move marines around. so there's enabling capability and the first is lift. amphibious lift and other forms of lift to move marines around both for training and for contingency purposes. and as well the training

facilities and quality of life support in guam over time. but all this is a -- we're a lot further -- i've touched on this for the last ten years, senator, and we're now finally starting to pour concrete, we're starting to actually move forward with the plan. i feel much better about it than i have in recent years. >> thank you. i want to follow on a question senator king had talked about in terms of the arctic. i'll be a little more blunt. we have a dod 13-page strategy, and yet when you look at what the russians are doing in the arctic, it's actually impressive. impressive but disturbing. i'm sure you gentlemen are somewhat familiar. general dempsey mentioned in testimony with the secretary of defense last week, the russians are looking at four new arctic combat brigades, as our u.s. army is thinking about pulling them out of the arctic.

i think that would give vladimir putin a lot of joy. they are building new airfields, 13 new airfields, conducting long-range air patrols with their bombers off the coast of alaska. again, they have incredibly six new icebreakers coming, five more planned to add to their fleet of 40. meanwhile the united states is thinking about an additional one to our fleet of five. does it concern you particularly when we talk about keeping ceilings open? there's going to be a very, very important ceiling open in the northwest arctic passage there, and has the navy given any thought to this in terms of particularly adding icebreakers to the navy shipping fleet if we're going to be remotely, remotely competitive with the russians in the arctic that they have stood up a new arctic command.

and they are all in in the arctic. and it's not 13 pages of paper. it's concrete. it's ships. it's airfields. and we're thinking about removing forces from alaska. and i think we're number five or six in the world in terms of icebreakers. it seems to me a ludicrous situation that the navy should be concerned about. >> well, the purview of the icebreakers is the department of homeland security, the coast guard. so if we split that, then we'll be clobbering our strategy. although it sounds like a petty answer, you know, somebody has to be in charge here. right now, it resides with the department of homeland security. am i concerned? yes, senator, i am concerned, because for us to take our combat ships up there, we have to work in conjunction with that and make sure that we can get up there as well. so we have to look at hardening of our hulls, and we look toward that.

and it's not just surface ships that we tend to focus on, it's the aircraft and undersea domain. as i mentioned earlier, we've increased, i've directed the inyees in our exercise capacity up there, and our activity up there. and we are spending a little bit more. it's modest right now. exercising with the norwegians, with the scandinavian countries, and with canada in that arena to get used to operating up there. >> mr. secretary, any thoughts? >> as the ice melts in the arctic, our responsibilities clearly are going up. we just -- cno and i just issued the new navy road map for the arctic. we updated it. i stopped through the university at fairbanks, at the university of alaska fairbanks, in terms of, it's not just platforms and it's not just capability, it's what we're facing up there.

we not only have less ice, but it's freezing in different ways. so as we send our submarines up there, they don't have a whole lot of clearance both above or below. and the ice is forming in different ways that are beginning to be a hazard to navigation. but as the cno said, we are -- we're upping our exercises, we're upping our research into the area. we're moving in terms of hardening hulls, in terms of war fighting capabilities. as you know, we have a s.e.a.l. unit on kodiak specifically focused on cold weather combat. every s.e.a.l. goes through it, right after they come out of b.u.d.s.

we are concerned about it. we're trying to move on it. but it, again, is one of these things that in this budget situation, you have to make some very, very hard choices. and we don't have the capability that we would like to have in the arctic. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> on behalf of chairman mccain, let me thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony and for their service to the nation, and the navy and the marine corps, and adjourn the hearing. the hearing is adjourned.

and some live programming to tell you about today on the c-span networks. coming up later defense secretary ashton carter will talk about cybersecurity challenges facing the u.s. he'll be joined by the head of u.s. cyber command in maryland. live coverage starts at 12:15

eastern on our companion network c-span. and later more road to the white house coverage. have remarks from senator rand paul, kentucky republican will speak at bowie state university in maryland. you can see that live at 1:00 p.m., that will also be on c-span. and here's a look at some of our other campaign 2016 coverage. coming up this weekend. this week c-span is in new hampshire for road to the white house coverage of several potential republican presidential candidates. tonight beginning at 7:45 eastern live on c-span, we'll take you to a house party in dover, new hampshire, with former florida governor jeb bush. on saturday just before noon, live on c-span, wisconsin governor scott walker at a republican party grassroots workshop in concord. and sunday night at 9:35 on c-span, senator ted cruz at the annual lincoln/reagan dinner. road to the white house 2016, on c-span.

here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern c-span2's book tv is live from the university of arizona for the tucson festival of books featuring discussions on race and politics, the civil war, and by the nation magazine writers with call-ins throughout the day with authors. and sunday at 1:00 we continue our live coverage of the festival with panels on the obama administration, the future of politics and the issue of concussions in football. and saturday morning at 9:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3 we're live from longwood university in farmville, virginia, for the 16th annual civil war seminar with a story and authors talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. and sunday morning at 9:00 we continue our live coverage of the seminar with remarks on the surrender of the confederacy and the immigration of confederates to brazil. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org. and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400.

e-mail us at comments comments @c-span.org. or send us a tweet@c-span, #comments. join the c-span conversation, next it's a look at emerging world markets. you'll hear from mexican investor and entrepreneur carlos slim who "forbes" magazine ranked as the richest person in the world from 2010 to 2013. joining him are an afghan media entrepreneur and editor of reuters americas. from the conference in santa monica, this is about an hour.

good afternoon, i'm krishna kumar, i'm the director of labor and population, a research unit within rand. our mission is to aid policy making through research and analysis to improve the socioeconomic well-being of people around the world. i hope that doesn't sound too narrow a mission statement to you. the rapid growth of emerging economies in the last couple of decades has lifted literally hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and rand is happy to contribute to understanding this unfolding story and policy making to aid it through our work in several emerging economies. it's my pleasure today to introduce our panel this afternoon, carlos slim eleu is a

person and businessman involved in a varied group of companies. he's honorary life chairman of grupo carco. he served as vice chairman of the mexican stock exchange and as a fill onth roppist he's contributed to latin america, and he's an alumni of rand. saud moseini, mobi group is a leading media and entertainment company focusing on emerging markets. they work in south and central asia, the middle east and beyond. he's been considered as one of the most influential thinkers in the world by both "time" magazine and "foreign policy" magazine. welcome, mr. moseini. >> our conductor today is the regional editor of americas and reuters and leads a team of more

than 500 journalists in bureau from toronto to buenos aires. in previous roles at reuters, he built the first financial news service for the middle east during the early years of the oil boom. welcome mr. kandarpar and thank you for this panel and we look forward for a stimulating discussion. thank you very much. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, and to our panelists. i wanted to start talking about changes in emerging markets, but it is discovered in the course of our pre-panel discussions that we actually have a fundamental disagreement about what the title of this panel should be. to carlos, to start with, why do you disagree with the term emerging markets? >> i think it is not important, but i was telling him that it is more important to tell emerging countries than emerging markets. that's the difference, no? emerging countries and there are markets that are already big ones that are developed, but the countries are not developed.

that they grow without development or other circumstances. that was just the commentary that i made to you. >> right. and more broadly speaking, the conversation around emerging markets has changed quite a bit in the last couple of years and we've had ten years of steady growth and seemingly immense opportunities for portfolio and direct investors. saud, i would like to come to you, if i may. what's the big shift that's happened in the last couple of years in terms of your view of the world's emerging markets? >> well, we're on the frontier markets because we've invested in very different countries and in new york and london and elsewhere would totally ignore people like us five, six years ago in looking at us and approaching us because i think they see limitations in the previous emerging markets and the frontier markets provide

another opportunity and some of the markets we're in are growing 20% to 30% per annum which is the media sector. so i think there's a lot more interest and a lot more money and of course, there's the appetite for risk nowadays. >> and the kind of risk that you have to take on has also changed. as a person who is a direct investor in these market, what's your perception of how that risk has changed in latin america? >> i think more than talk about risk, we need to talk about change. we are living in a new civilization, the civilization of services and it is as strong the change or maybe more, this new technology and knowledge that has changed everything and we are in the service society and a tertiary society and the agricultural society.

in the agricultural society, people live, 80% of the people live in rural areas and in the industrial society and mainly in the 20th century that begin with the modernity of the society with the electricity and the engine, there were a lot of experiments about how to manage the society with the different models like fascist, capitalist, and pa, pa, pa, pa and they were very costly because they were moving without the direction and with a lot of dictatorship, et cetera, with the exception of u.s. born with three of them democracy, but at the end of the day including u.s. need to have the civil war between the industrial north and the agricultural south. one sustaining the slavery and another with it, so the industrial society used to have the exploitation of people and

today we still have many societies in the agricultural age at least in some part like china. china maybe has 600 or 700 million people in the agricultural society, in rural areas in auto consumption and they need to have a different political model that is already a modern industrial country or a technology. they're having a difference because we are getting in a new society and it is interesting because all of our countries including u.s. and the developed countries because it was in the 19th century when they move from rural and agricultural society to industrial and urban societies and everyone grows, and u.s. 170 years ago and 70% of the people were working in rural areas and today it's 2% of

the population is working on that way. that phenomenon is now doing by many countries and that's why millions of people every year, many millions are getting out of poverty because they are getting in the new societies and moving to urban societies, et cetera. mexico grow from 33 to 82, 6.2% every year because we moved from a rural and auto consumption and agricultural society to an urban and industrial society. that's what they do in china. china is growing because of that. they are moving from rural areas and agricultural production, auto consumption to new societies and each society has different paradigms. this society has very different paradigms and the whole thing that this new society is very,

very -- how can i say, generous. very generous because it is sustained in the welfare of the people. in the past you need to have as much to have land and slaves the better. today, as you have more customers and more markets and bigger economies it is better. you need that. the other people get on welfare because they will be a stronger country when you have participation. >> and where do you see that debate going on in latin america now? >> my concern is latin america, the leader doesn't understand what is happening and they don't have a direction. it's everywhere. if you look the books of, let's say, alvin toffer has 45 years and the ideas of all these concepts has more than 40 years and the only country that is moving in this direction is

china and there is still so much confusion in so many countries and they love to find this in some of them. i think the big challenge is cultural and the lack of leadership. who knows where to go? >> right. and in particular, a final question for you on this. in particular, do you have that view of brazil, as well, where you've just been through elections and a big debate about the various aspecs of the economic model? >> no. it was not a big debate of the economic model and the economic model is the same in brazil and brazil has been a country that for many years with the governments, dictators and they have very clear the paper of private investment and entrepreneurs and they support always the development of businessmen and that's why the best, best business community in latin america is brazilian. it doesn't matter if it's cardozo, it doesn't matter the dictator.