Hearing Of The Defense Subcommittee Of The Senate Appropriations Committee - Fiscal Year 2010 Budget For The Department Of The Navy

Statement

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

SEN. INOUYE: Morning. The Subcommittee means to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2010 budget request from the secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Raymond Mabus the chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead; and the commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Conway.

I'd like to welcome each of you and extend special greetings to the secretary. This is your first appearance before us.

For fiscal year 2010, the president has requested $156.4 billion for the Navy and the Marine Corps, plus an additional 15.3 billion (dollars) in supplemental wartime costs.

Although the secretary of Defense has proposed a number of terminations and delays in major weapons systems, relatively few of these decisions would have an immediate impact on the Navy or Marine Corps.

In fact, the $9 billion in growth in the Navy budget is 50 percent greater than the growth in the Army and the Air Force combined.

The budget supports many Department of Navy priorities, including truncating the DDG-1000 in favor of additional DDG-51 destroyers, continuing production and tests of the Joint Strike Fighter, accelerating the production of Virginia Class submarines next year, and completing the growth of the Marine Corps to 202,000 personnel.

Despite the growth in the budget, there is bound to be controversy over other investment decisions. Funds for shipbuilding are not sufficient to achieve a 313-ship Navy. Our carrier fleet would be reduced to 10 by year 2040, and it will be very difficult to purchase (more ?) littoral combat ship within the statutory cost cap.

While plans for sea-basing and amphibious warfare are getting additional scrutiny, the expeditionary fighting vehicle program continues unchanged. Many have questioned the cancellation of the VH- 71 presidential helicopter and others are asking whether enough F/A- 18s are being bought to close the Strike Fighter shortfall.

These are but some of the controversies before us this year. It is also clear that next year will be even more challenging, as the administration has warned that the 2011 budget will have additional spending constraints.

Future decisions will be guided by the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review, which are now under development. Yet there has already been a shift in balancing the demands of the current fight with the preparation for future threats.

Today's fight involves supporting a surge in Afghanistan, managing the drawdown from Iraq, meeting irregular -- (word inaudible) -- such as terrorism, drug smuggling, and piracy.

Each of these missions require different capabilities, some of which have been funded in base budgets and others were loaded into supplemental appropriation requests.

For the first time, the administration has submitted both pieces of the DOD budget at the same time. This will give Congress a clearer view of what is needed to support our war fighters.

And the Subcommittee welcomes the testimony of our witnesses on these matters, in addition to their views on the fiscal year 2010 base budget request. And I -- the full statements of each of the witnesses will be included in the record in total.

And I'd like to now turn to the vice chairman for any remarks he wishes to make.

SEN. THAD COCHRAN (R-MS): Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join you in welcoming this distinguished panel of witnesses to our Committee hearing to review the Department of the Navy's budget request.

Mr. Secretary, it is a special pleasure to welcome you in your new capacity as secretary of the Navy. We look forward to working with you closely to respond to the challenges facing the Department of the Navy.

As everyone knows, this new secretary served as the governor of our state of Mississippi with great distinction, and we appreciate his public service.

The Navy and Marine Corps team has been a very important part of our national security organization. And throughout history they have performed their missions in a very impressive fashion, and continue to contribute to the safety and security of all Americans.

We need to be sure we provide them with the funding needed to continue to carry out their missions in the way they have in the past.

The Department has performed with a high degree of professional distinction, and we congratulate the individual members of the panel on the roles they have played and will continue to play in carrying out our national security responsibilities.

Thank you.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much.

Senator Bond, would you wish to say something?

SEN. KIT BOND (R-MO): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yes, on this subject I do have a lot to say.

But I appreciate your holding the hearing, and I welcome good friends -- the secretary, the admiral and the general. This is very important and I will ask some questions.

And Admiral Roughead, you know where I'm coming from. In the Navy Posture Review you stated, "Navy and Marine Corps carrier-based FA-18 aircraft are providing precision strike in support of the forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The F/A-18 E/F is the aviation backbone of our Navy's ability to (project ?) power ashore without bases that infringe on a foreign nation's sovereign territory.

"At the rate we are operating these aircraft, the number of our carrier-capable strike fighters will decrease between 2016 and 2020, which will affect our air wing capacity and effectiveness," close quotes.

And Admiral, I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I'm baffled and concerned and stunned about the budget recommendation to under-fund the Super Hornet.

The inventory of strike fighters currently falls short of the number that we have heard you say in the past is required to support fully the requirement of the Navy air wings and the Marine Corps air wings. In March of this year it was projected, if no action is taken, the Navy strike fighter shortfall will increase to 243 aircraft in the next decade.

But instead of dealing with that, we saw a recommendation for $4.4 billion in the long-delayed, over-budget, and so far unavailable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the JSF, which at best, as the cost continues to escalate past $150 million, you could buy three F/A-18s for every one F-35 or JSF, save hundreds of millions of dollars, and get a multi-year, which would bring the price down.

We have seen that -- in the past that we can't afford to make these sacrifices and short-fund the operations that we know are needed. So I will be asking questions about that.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. INOUYE: I thank you, sir.

And now may I call upon the secretary?

SEC. MABUS: Mr. Chairman, my distinguished home state senator, Senator Cochran, and members of the Committee, it's an honor to be here before you with Admiral Roughead and General Conway on behalf of our sailors, Marines, civilians and their families.

Two weeks ago, two weeks ago today, I assumed the responsibilities as secretary of the Navy. In this very short period of time it's been my privilege to gain firsthand insight into our nation's exceptional Navy and Marine Corps.

This Naval force serves today around the world, providing a wide range of missions in support of our nation's interests.

I'm here today to discuss with you, as the chairman pointed out, the FY 10 budget, the various missions of the Navy and Marine Corps, and some priorities of the Department.

The Department's fiscal year '10 budget reflects commitment to our people, shaping our force, providing adequate infrastructure, and sustaining and developing the right capabilities for the future.

The ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review will also aid in shaping the Department's contribution to the national effort in the future.

As I have taken on these new duties, my first priority is to ensure that we take care of our people -- sailors, Marines, civilians, and their families.

Thousands of brave Marines and sailors are currently engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands more carry out other hazardous duties around the globe. These inspirational Americans volunteered to serve and they are protecting us and our way of life with unwavering commitment.

We must show them the same level of commitment when providing for their health and welfare and that of their families.

Last week I made a visit to the National Naval Medical Center- Bethesda and visited with our wounded. It was both a humbling and inspirational experience. It reinforced the enduring commitment we owe them in terms of treatment, transition, and support.

Programs such as the Marine Corps Wounded Warrior Regiment, the Navy's Safe Harbor Program, advances in treatment of traumatic brain injuries, and programs that offer training and support and stress control must continue to be our priorities.

Today our sailors and Marines are serving and responding to a wide variety of missions, from combat operations to humanitarian assistance and maritime interdiction.

The Navy has 13,000 sailors ashore and 9,500 sailors at sea in Central Command's area of responsibility. More than 25,000 Marines are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our civilian force is also heavily engaged in supporting these operational efforts.

We have to ensure that the Department of the Navy will continue to meet these missions while investing to provide the right Naval force for future challenges.

Real acquisition reform, too, has to be a priority. The Department of the Navy has begun to implement the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act and is ready to use this Act and other tools to try to ensure that we get the right capabilities, on time and at an affordable cost.

I look forward to working together with you in our shared commitment to our nation and the Marines, the sailors, the civilians and their families. On behalf of all of them, thank you for your commitment and your support.

And I look forward to your questions.

SEN. INOUYE: I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

May I call upon the chief of Naval Operations, Admiral -- (inaudible)?

ADM. ROUGHEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, distinguished members of the Committee, on behalf of the 600,000 sailors, Navy civilians and their families, thank you for your continued support and for the opportunity and the honor to represent our Navy alongside Secretary Mabus and General Conway.

Today we have 40,000 sailors on station making a difference around the world. We are more versatile and agile than we have ever been, with approximately 13,000 sailors on the ground in Central Command, to include SEALs, explosive ordnance disposal technicians, Seabees and many individual augmentees.

The 2010 budget balances the needs of those sailors around the world. Our current operations and the needs for our future fleet, in accordance with our maritime strategy.

However, we are progressing at an adjusted pace. Our risk is moderate today, trending toward significant because of challenges posed by our fleet capacity, operational requirements, manpower, maintenance, and infrastructure costs.

Our Navy is operating at its highest levels in recent years, and while we remain ready and capable, we are stretched in our ability to meet additional operational demands while balancing our obligation to our people and to building the future fleet.

We require additional capacity to meet combatant commander demands and to maintain our operational tempo. A fleet of at least 313 ships is needed, along with the capabilities that include more ballistic missile defense, irregular warfare, and open-ocean anti- submarine warfare capabilities.

These needs drove the decision to truncate the DDG-1000 and restart DDG-51, with its blue water anti-submarine warfare capability and integrated air and missile defense, and also to procure three littoral combat ships this year.

As I articulated last year, our Navy must have a stable shipbuilding program that provides the right capability and capacity while preserving our nation's industrial base. The balance among capability, capacity, affordability, and executability in our procurement plans, however, is not optimal.

I continue to focus on the control of requirements, integration of total ownership costs into our decision making, maturing new ship designs before production, and pursuing proven designs -- the use of common hull forms and components and longer production runs -- to control costs as we build the future fleet.

To best maintain the ships we have, we reinstituted an engineering-based approach to maintenance for our surface ships through the surface ship life cycle management activity.

Meanwhile, our Board of Inspection and Survey teams will continue to use our internal INSURV process to conduct rigorous self- assessments on the condition of our ships and submarines.

All that we made -- all that we do is made possible by our dedicated sailors and Navy civilians. I am committed to providing the necessary resources and shaping our personnel policies to ensure our people and their families are properly supported.

We are stabilizing our force this year by seeking authorization and funding for an end-strength of 328,800 sailors, including overseas contingency operation funding for 4,400 individual augmentees who are in today's fight.

We continue to provide a continuum of care that governs all aspects of individual medical, physical, psychological and family readiness to our returning warriors and sailors. In 2008, we added 170 care managers to our military treatment facilities and ambulatory care clinics for our 1,800 wounded warriors and their families.

In addition, we continue to move mental health providers closer to the battlefield and are actively working against the stigma of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Achieving the right balance within and across my three priorities of the future fleet, current operations, and people is critical today and for the future. I ask Congress to fully support our 2010 budget and identified priorities.

Thank you for all you do and your continued support and commitment to our Navy.

I look forward to your questions today.

Thank you very much.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you, Admiral.

And now may I call upon the commandant of the Marine Corps, General Conway?

GEN. CONWAY: Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran and Senator Bond, thank you, sirs, for the opportunity to report to you on your Marine Corps. My pledge, as always, is to provide you with a candid and honest assessment, and I appear before you in that spirit today.

Our number-one priority remains your Marines in combat. Since testimony before your Committee last year, progress in the Anbar province of Iraq continues to be significant.

Indeed, our Marines are in the early stages of the most long- awaited phase of operations, the reset of our equipment and the redeployment of the force.

Having recently returned from a trip to theater, I'm pleased to report to you that the magnificent performance of our Marines and sailors in al-Anbar continues across a whole spectrum of tasks and responsibilities.

In Afghanistan, we have substantially another story, as thus far in 2009 the Taliban have increased their activity. The 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade and Air-Ground Task Force, numbering more than 10,000 Marines and sailors, has just assumed responsibility for its battle space under Regional Command South.

They're operating primarily in the Helmand province where 93 percent of the country's opium is harvested, and where the Taliban have been most active.

We are maintaining an effort to get every Marine to the fight, and today more than 70 percent of your Marine Corps has done so. Yet our force remains resilient, in spite of an average deployment-to- dwell that is slightly better than 1:1 in most occupational specialties

We believe retention is a great indicator of the morale of the force and the support of our families. By the halfway point of this fiscal year we had already met our reenlistment goals for first-term Marines and for our career force.

Our growth in the active component by 27,000 Marines has proceeded, and two and a half years now ahead of schedule, with no change to our standards. We have reached the level of 202,000 Marines and have found it necessary to throttle back our recruiting efforts.

We attribute our accelerated growth to four factors: quality recruiting, exceptional retention levels, reduced attrition and, not least, a great young generation of Americans who wish to serve their country in wartime.

Our Corps is deeply committed to the care and welfare of our wounded and their families. Our Wounded Warrior Regiment reflects this commitment. We seek, through all phases of recovery, to assist in the rehabilitation and transition of our wounded, injured or ill, and their families.

I would also like to thank those of you on the Committee who have set aside your personal time to visit with our wounded warriors.

Secretary Gates seeks to create a balanced U.S. military through the efforts of the Quadrennial Defense Review. We have always believed that the Marine Corps has to be able to play both ways, to be a two-fisted fighter.

Our equipment and major programs reflect our commitment to be flexible in the face of uncertainty. That is to say that 100 percent of USMC procurement can be employed either in a hybrid conflict or in major combat.

Moreover, we seek to remain good stewards of the resources provided by Congress through innovative adaptation of our equipment. The tilt-rotor technology of the M-22 Osprey is indicative of this commitment.

We are pleased to report that this airframe has continued to exceed our expectations through three successful combat deployments to Iraq, and now a fourth aboard ship.

Beginning this fall, there will be at least one Osprey squadron in Afghanistan for as long as we have Marines deployed there.

The future posture of our corps includes the realignment of Marine forces in the Pacific. As part of the agreement between Tokyo and Washington, we are planning the movement of 8,000 Marines off Okinawa to Guam. We support this move; however, we believe the development of training areas and ranges on Guam and the adjoining islands in the Marianas are key prerequisites for the realignment of our forces.

We are actively working within the Department of Defense to align USMC requirements with ongoing environmental assessments and political agreements.

Finally, on behalf of your Marine Corps, I extend my gratitude for the support that we have received to date. Our great young patriots have performed magnificently and have written their own page in history. They know as they go into harm's way that their fellow Americans are behind them. On their behalf, I thank you for your enduring support.

We pledge to spend wisely every dollar you generously provide in ways that contribute to the defense of this great land. Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to report to you today. And I look forward, sir, to your questions.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much, Commandant.

Mr. Secretary, the events of recent days have been of much concern to many of us. For example, in North Korea, there's a lot of saber rattling and a lot of promise breaking. We've had tests notwithstanding our complaints and our sanctions. They seem to ignore everything and continue on and now testing a missile that has a capability of reaching Alaska.

And on the other side of the world in Iran, similar rattling does on, notwithstanding the United Nations, notwithstanding the pleas of Europeans and Americans and such. The Iranians seem to move merrily along with their testing.

Taking these and event such as piracy into consideration, do you believe that we have enough ships to do the job? I ask this because I've been on this committee long enough to recall that it wasn't too long ago when the goal was 600. Then it became 500-something, came down to 400, now it's 313. And I believe we have about 280.

What are your thoughts, Mr. Secretary, as you come in just two weeks old? But I'd like to hear your thoughts.

SEC. MABUS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you just pointed out, the number 313 came out of the last Quadrennial Defense Review, and that number is supported by the CNO at the time, who is now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen. It's supported by Admiral Roughead, the current CNO, and put it in his statement.

You're correct in that we have about 284 ships today in the active fleet. We do need a fleet of 313 ships, and it points out the need to take some strong steps in acquisition reform. If we continue to build evermore exotic, evermore expensive but evermore fewer numbers of ships, we simply won't have the numbers that we need.

At some point, even though these ships are far more capable than the ships in the 600-ship Navy, for example, the individual capabilities, you can't put one ship at the same place, one ship at two places at the same time.

So if we are going to have a forward-deployed Navy, which I believe we should, if we're going to have a Navy which can respond to whatever crises or whatever events it needs to respond to, then we have an obligation to make sure that we get enough ships into this fleet and to do so to bring down the costs of these ships, to make the schedule stay on time and to make sure that we have sufficient ships to meet any eventuality that we might face.

SEN. INOUYE: Admiral Roughead, do you have any additional comments to make?

ADM. ROUGHEAD: Yes, sir. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I've maintained for some time that 313 is the floor with regard to fleet capacity.

But I would also submit that this budget that is before you really begins to address the direction where we have to go. The truncation of the DDG-1000, which we began some months ago, and the restart of the DDG-51 line, which has terrific ballistic missile defense capability, and we're seeing those types of missiles being tested by Korea, by Iran, and they proliferate globally. That is exactly the direction where we have to go.

The three littoral combat ships that we have in the budget are able to operate with our high-end forces. But I would submit, they're ideally suited to the maritime security missions that we see in the counterpiracy operations. So our budget really does begin to take us there.

The start of the joint high-speed vessel line is also important to us and to the combatant commanders so that we can get at some of these challenges.

But I would also say that in order to get to the 313, it's not just about the acquisition that's represented in this budget, but it's also in our ability to take the ships that we have today and allow them to achieve their full-service life, because most of the ships that we have in service today will be in service in 2020. So maintaining that force is also equally important.

SEN. INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, another question. In order to maintain these ships, do you believe that our depots, our shipyards are up to par and prepared?

SEC. MABUS: Yes, sir, I do. And I think they will continue to be as long as we work with them to ensure a stable industrial base, to make sure that we have a trained, skilled workforce in place by making sure that our shipbuilding requirements are made known to them, that they are able to invest in the equipment and the people that we will need, and to give them the stability that they need to provide this incredibly vital service.

SEN. INOUYE: Admiral, you got any thoughts on that?

ADM. ROUGHEAD: As I've mentioned, Senator, I think the maintenance of our fleet is what also allows us to achieve the 313 level. And the public shipyards that we have, that are so much a part of maintaining our very high-end forces, our nuclear submarines and our aircraft carriers, absolutely key. And then the involvement of the private sector that we call on throughout the country is extraordinarily important and allows us to achieve that force level and readiness that's so important to the Navy today.

SEN. INOUYE: Commandant, at this moment, South Korean troops are on alert. The alert status for that peninsula is four, I believe, just one less than the top. Taking those things in consideration, do you believe that the projected number in our force is sufficient?

GEN. CONWAY: Yes, sir, I do. There are plans that we can't talk about in an open hearing that would provide for our ability to respond to an additional major contingency such as Korea would represent. And although there is a level of risk associated with our ability to, I think, conduct and complete those war plans, we think that our forces that are present today would be able to do that.

There would be issues, sir. We have equipment that would have to be moved all over the globe in order to be able to satisfy those demands. The force structure would not be as organic as we would like. There would have to be a level of ad hoc conglomeration of forces, if you will. But in the end, I am convinced we would prevail.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you, sir.

Senator Cochran.

SEN. COCHRAN: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, we're grateful that you are a person who's had experience personally in the Navy and now assuming responsibilities of the secretary of the Navy. I wonder what experiences you've had as a Naval officer that you think will be important to you in carrying our your responsibilities as secretary.

SEC. MABUS: Well, Senator, I do think that time that I had spent in the Navy was some of the most profound times that I've spent in my life. The Navy has changed a lot in the nearly 40 years since I was a surface warfare officer onboard the USS Little Rock. And it's changed almost totally for the better -- the training level, the caliber of recruits that are coming into the Navy, into our forces, the education that they are getting once in, the commitment that they have to the Navy and to the country, the deployment tempo, which is much higher and more flexible than I was in, allowing us to get ships to places faster and better equipped. The thing that CNO talked about, about maintaining our fleet, has improved so dramatically since that time.

But I think the thing that my experience in the Navy I hope I have brought with me is the importance of the sailors, that it doesn't matter in the end how capable our equipment is if our sailors cannot match that equipment. And in today's Navy, I'm happy to say that I think we have as fine a trained force as the world has ever seen.

SEN. COCHRAN: Thank you. I think that's an eloquent and important assessment for all of us to understand. I think the leadership we have in the military today is so much more sophisticated and impressive in terms of intellectual and educational fitness for these hugely important jobs. I think we're very fortunate to have the benefit of that kind of leadership in the Navy and Marine Corps and at the civilian posts that are important to the management of these important assets.

General Conway, I notice that the Department of the Navy is looking at the LPD 17 amphibious ships and the T-AKE dry cargo ship hull form for joint command ship replacement responsibilities. What, in your opinion, are the key factors in determining which hull form is suitable? And do you believe that survivability is a critical factor?

GEN. CONWAY: Sir, we have examined it and made recommendations to the CNO and also to the Secretary of the Navy on the value associated with a consistent hull form, both for purposes of the R&D associated with what would otherwise be new hull forms and with regard to the sustainability and maintenance factors that exist with a single-hull form. And we have been a proponent of maintaining the LPD 17 form throughout the near term with regard to additional command control ships. We think that that would be beneficial for the shipyards. We think it would be beneficial for the ultimate product that's produced there. And we think it would help to provide for the numbers of amphibious ships that we need, that we see that we need, both for forcible entry.

And it was interesting that the chairman's question in reference to these areas where forcible entry could be necessary, but also for purposes of day-to-day requirements that we see on the part of our combatant commanders.

Interestingly, the numbers come together to be about the same for both of those types of requirements. They will be discussed in the Quadrennial Defense Review. And we see it, I think, as our collective mission to make sure that there's clear understanding that amphibs are not just high-end capability. They have very much a role in the low- end scheme of things, on a day-to-day basis in support of combatant commanders.

SEN. COCHRAN: Thank you. Admiral Roughead, we first met down at Pascagoula, Mississippi when you were assuming command of one of the new ships being built, the Ingalls. What personal experiences did you have as a result of that responsibility that have shaped your views about ship-building and the efficiencies and the importance of taking advantage of new technologies and helping ensure that we can protect our naval interests around the world?

ADM. ROUGHEAD: Sir, thank you, sir. And I would say the first thing that I took away was that the strength and the viability of our Navy depends on the American shipbuilder. No one builds ships as capable or as tough as the American shipbuilder. That was my first takeaway, and I have not lost that sentiment ever since that time.

I would also say that it's important that we get production runs as consistent and as long-running as we can, that we should look at every opportunity to take advantage of designed hull forms and adapt them to other uses, as you mentioned, with regard to command ships.

Command ships have to be survivable. We have to make sure that they have the capacity for the type of function that will be performed on them, and that they also can be modified at the least cost to fulfill those missions. But I think it's extremely important that we get as much commonality as we can in our fleet. It will reduce operating costs, it will reduce maintenance costs and logistics costs, and I believe we need to continue down that path.

SEN. COCHRAN: I had the pleasure of spending several years as a reserve officer following active duty in the Navy, and I enjoyed the opportunities of going back to Newport, Rhode Island, for example, and being on the staff of the faculty at Officer Candidate School and continuing to be involved.

Do you still have a strong reserve program, utilizing the experience and talents of former active-duty officers in reserve activities or do we -- is that a wise investment? What is your impression of the naval reserve mission today and how it complements the activity duty forces?

ADM. ROUGHEAD: Senator, we are one force today.

The integration of our active component and our reserve component is as close as it has ever been. And, in fact, most of the individual augmentees that have gone into the Central Command area of operation over the past eight years are reserve sailors and officers.

We cannot be the Navy we are today without our reserve component, and the way that they move into our active force after having served in an active capacity is absolutely seamless. And the importance that we place on our reserve programs is extremely high, and the Navy that the secretary was referring to as being as professional and as competent and as agile as it is today is a function of that active/reserve integration that has taken place.

SEN. COCHRAN: Senator Bond?

SEN. BOND: Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. And to the commandant, our congratulations on the excellent job that you have done in al Anbar. We had a CODEL over there in May of '07 and saw not only were they clearing the area, but hold and build, which is the new wave of the smart power use of our military is working so well, and that is a great credit to the leadership up and down the line as well as to the Marines who did it.

And it is a great story that has convinced many people, as they now see how it results. And, Mr. Secretary and Admiral, again, I congratulate you on the support you're providing to the sailors, the SEALs and the Marines in the field, and particularly for what you're doing with the wounded warriors.

I've had some opportunities, not by planning, but to spend some time at Bethesda, and I have visited -- I have visited the wounded warriors there and seen the great care, and this is truly outstanding. And in reference to the dealing with the PTSD and the TBI, just so important. It's something we're going to have to continue to address because it really sneaked up on us.

But I need to go back to the point I made in my opening statement: cutting production of the one effective carrier-based aircraft, the F/A-18, that we have from 45 to 30, and only nine of those are going to be combat aircraft. The rest are Growlers.

Right now the Joint Strike Fighter is behind schedule, way over budget, only 2 percent flight tested. Under your most optimistic circumstances, what kind of contribution can the JSF make to that shortfall on the carrier decks in 2016 through 2020, Admiral?

ADM. ROUGHEAD: Senator, we have just, in this budget, put in the money for the first carrier variants of JSF. JSF is extraordinarily important to where we are going with naval aviation because we can never, in my opinion, have all of one type of an airplane on our carrier deck.

There should always be a generational movement taking place so that in the event there's a problem in any particular airframe or type of airplane, we don't ground an entire wing. So we have to get to JSF. We are the last service to take delivery of JSF, and that begins in 2015.

As we looked at our 2010 budget, what we did with what I'll call the 18 line -- that includes both the Growler and the Es and Fs -- was to put in the budget what we needed for our electronic attack, and then also, as we balanced across our programs, to put in place the nine Es and Fs because, as you know, in the Quadrennial Defense Review, all of the services that fly tactical aviation are going to be conducting the review.

We will look at where we are collectively and where we must go in order to continue to provide the capability and capacity in our air wings. That may be through life extension programs, but that's what we're going to examine in the QDR.

SEN. BOND: Well, very respectfully, Admiral, you are deciding to cut off the E and F production before you have even proven that this JSF -- called by some a "joint strike failure" -- if you read the GAO reports, that's been so far behind schedule, it's been over production costs, and it is now -- it's only 2 percent flight-tested, and you haven't even thought about seeing whether it can land on an aircraft carrier.

To me it looks like you've made a bad bet if you have not proven something that can take its place and you're cutting it off. To me, the first rule of digging is if you dig yourself into a hole, stop digging because this is a bad decision made a number of years previously to put all of the production of the JSF into one company.

And, unfortunately that line is not producing. And I cannot believe that you can ignore reality and say, until we know that we have a follow-on plane, we ought to keep the plane that is working. And as I recall it, there was a requirement in the law that you produce by March 1st of this year a report on the costs and benefits of a multi-year procurement of the F/A-18.

You can get at least three for what one JSF would cost you. When is that report coming out, and if anybody looking seriously at the need to keep something until and unless the JSF can land on a carrier?

ADM. ROUGHEAD: Well, what we have done, Senator, with the 18 line, to include both the Growler and the Es and Fs, is that we, in the '10 budget, have more than what is the sustaining rate for that 18 production line.

So as we go in to the QDR, we have not stopped in '10 the 18s. We still are working on that second multiyear that allows the production to continue. And when we get into the QDR discussions on tactical air write large, I believe that we will be making the decisions we have to make while we've preserved the manufacturing of the F-18s.

SEN. BOND: Well, I would -- and as a final question for the secretary, I certainly appreciate your speaking about the need to protect the defense industrial base because if we go down the same path that our fine ally, Great Britain, has gone, and they have -- their industrial base was allowed to atrophy, so they can no longer build aircraft and they're struggling to build ships, and we are -- unless somebody rethinks the tragic decision that was made to go with only one TAC air producer.

Unless that decision is made in the QDR, we're going to find ourselves in a real hole. And why is it acceptable, in your view, to have only one production line for attack air fighter, attack airplane?

SEC. MABUS: Well, Senator, I will echo what the CNO just said in terms of making sure that the E and F production line in the FY10 budget is at a level that can sustain that production and sustain that workforce and sustain that industrial base through FY10 as we go into the -- go through the Quadrennial Defense Review to see what our tactical air requirements are, just as the CNO has pointed out.

And so I think that you do have that capacity maintained though the industrial base and though the trained workforce by this buy of F- 18s, both the Growlers and the E and Fs.

SEN. BOND: Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I hope in the QDR there is some realism that strikes and that you do take a look at the costs. We'd still like to see that report due March 1 of this year on the 18 because you can continue to make good, sound investments unless and until you prove that you do have an alternative. And I hope you will keep that -- take that into serious consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I've filibustered long enough and I'll let you take on. Thank you.

SEN. INOUYE: You did a good job. Mr. Secretary, there is a vote on, so that's why we're moving in and out.

Commandant, by the year 2014, your 8,000 Marines and 9,000 dependents are supposed to be out of Guam -- out of Okinawa into Guam. However, we're concerned with the relocation of Futenma. Apparently the prefectural government is against the location. Is the time 2014 going to be kept, or do we have to extend that?

GEN. CONWAY: Sir, we hope so. At this point, the Futenma replacement facility, which the Japanese are at least on schedule to build for us off Camp Schwab, which is near the middle of the island, is very much a keystone to that 2014 date.

There are some preliminary efforts that are underway, but if you have seen that space -- and I think you have -- it will require a tremendous amount of fill into the sea, into some fairly deep water in the sea, at some, I think, fairly significant expense to the Japanese government.

So we watch and encourage their efforts very closely because, again, that sort of kicks off the game for other things that will take place associated with the move. And so I think that will be the primary determinant as to whether or not we're able to maintain the 2014 date.

SEN. INOUYE: The estimated costs of movement, if I recall, was about 10 billion (dollars) and now it's been estimated to go up to 15 billion (dollars). Is that correct?

GEN. CONWAY: Sir, I haven't seen the 15 billion (dollars) figure. In the initial negotiations with the Japanese government, it was on the order of about $6 billion-plus for the Japanese government and $4 billion-plus for the United States government.

Our independent estimates, if you will, for all of the required training, infrastructure, family, quality of life issues associated with that move put it closer to about 12 billion (dollars), from our perspective.

We have floated those figures past the folks in the OSD. They are taking them under advisement. We're looking at how the Department of Navy might be able to afford that kind of money in the out years. The discussion, I think, is on the table as to whether or not that ought to be a corporate bill for the Department of Defense as opposed to a Navy-Marine Corps bill.

But we think that the cost estimates are significantly greater than initially estimated, but I have not heard a figure of $15 billion to date.

SEN. INOUYE: Do you believe Guam is a better place than Okinawa for your troops?

GEN. CONWAY: Sir, Guam has advantages for us. It is U.S. soil, and to the degree that we have a level of certainty in terms of U.S. forces, presence in the Pacific for 50, 75 years, assurance, I think it is very positive in that regard.

In some ways it moves us farther away from some critical engagements, but in some ways it puts us closer to some other engagements in the South Pacific Basin. So we support the move and we're, at this point, trying to make sure that it does happen along the timeline that's been suggested, and that the training requirements associated with putting 8,000 Marines in Guam are necessarily taken care of in advance of the move.

So we're engaging, sir, but at least at this point we're trying not to spend a lot of money until such time as, again, we see that Futenma replacement facility start to give us relief and move out of Futenma.

SEN. INOUYE: Admiral, one thing that very few of us anticipated was piracy, and now it's a new job description for you. How are we coping with pirates?

ADM. ROUGHEAD: Yes, sir, we've kind of come full circle since our origins as a navy, and I give great credit to our sailors who are performing the counter-piracy mission, the rescue that they performed on Maersk-Alabama. And the return of Captain Phillips I think speaks volumes about the value and the quality of training and the contributions that are made every day by our sailors in that part of the world.

I'm pleased that since the 7th of May there have been no successful piracy actions in the area around Somalia. I also believe that our counter-piracy effort has drawn navies of the world more closely together in a meaningful way than ever before.

Not only do we have NATO that is contributing, the European Union is contributing, but we have Indian ships and Chinese ships and Malaysian ships, Turkish ships. In fact, the commander of Task Force 151, our Counter-Piracy Task Force, is Turkish admiral.

So it has really brought the focus in. That said, the real solution to piracy, as we saw in Southeast Asia, is a solution that must include the maritime dimension, to be sure, what we're doing today, but piracy will not be eradicated unless there is the ability to provide for some governance ashore, for legal action to be taken against those who commit piracy, who finance piracy.

So there must be a two-pronged approach: the maritime piece that we're doing today, but there must be an effort to get some form of lawful behavior ashore in Somalia and to go after where the networks are operating from.

SEN. INOUYE: Is Somalia cooperating?

ADM. ROUGHEAD: Somalia, in my opinion, Senator, right now does not have the capacity or the capability to cooperate. The lack of governance there is going to be a problem for some time.

SEN. INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, do you have any final thoughts, because I'd like to submit all of my questions for your perusal and response.

SEC. MABUS: I look forward to getting those questions, Mr. Chairman. And my final thought is just to once again express our deep appreciation to you and to this committee for the support that you have given our sailors and our Marines over the years and that you continue to give to them and to their families as they go in harm's way for all of us. Thank you.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank you very much, Admiral Roughead. Thank you very much, General Conway. The committee will stand in recess until Thursday, June the 4th, and at that time we'll hear from the secretary of the Air Force and the chief of staff of the Air Force on the FY2010 budget request.

With that, thank you very much.

(Sounds gavel.)

Source