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 dont 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 wasnt enough to do both. Admiral green . Senator, first of all i think its 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
Privilege of operating. Admiral greenert cannot be here due to a death in his family but im joined by the very able vice chief, admiral michelle howard. Uniquely, the navy and marine corps provide presence around the globe around the clock. The nations first line of defense. Presence means we respond faster. We remain on station longer. We carry everything we need with us. And we do whatever missions are assigned by our nations leaders without needing anyone elses permission. We have always known americas success depends on exceptional navy and marine corps. Article one of the constitution, which you quoted mr. Chairman authorizes congress to raise an army when needed. But directs it to provide and maintain a navy. From the first six frigates to our growing fleet of today from tripoli to afghanistan sailors and the marines have proven the founders wisdom. American leaders across the spectrum have understood the vital significance of the sea power. We deploy in peace just as much as in
The state of colorado and the workforce men and women of for your presence there. And i thank you for that. On the Virginia Class Program along with the virginia payload module and the ohio replacement, as we faced significant budget challenges, secretary, can you tell us how is your ability to keep those programs on track at the president s budget level or if we have to drop back to bca levels or even worse, how is it impacted if sequestration goes into effect to keep those programs on track . Especially given the challenges we face with the submarine forces declining if we dont keep those on track just at the same time our adversaries in china especially are increasing their size of their fleets. Thank you, congressman. The Virginia Class Program is a model program. As you know we signed a ten boat multiyear, where we got 10 submarines for the price of nine because of this committees support in allowing us to do the multiyear. To break a multi year because of lack of funds, that is p
Screeria nigeria. As chief of Naval Operations and id like to thank you, admiral green ert, for your 40 years of distinguished service to our navy and i wish you and darleen all the best in the future. In the last three months, some of americas most strategic thinkers have offered this committee a clear, unified assessment of worldwide threats and u. S. National strategy. As dr. Kissinger testified on january 29 tth, the United States has not faced aid more diverse and complex array of crises since the epped of the second world war. The actual global challenges we face are compounded by the limitations of the budget control act and sequestration, which were a selfinflicted National Security crisis. Indeed, all four of the military Service Chiefs have testified that defense spending and sequestration levels would put american lives at risk. Now more than ever, a strong navy and marine corps are essential to our nations ability to deter adversaries, assure allies and defend our national
Employees. We have a body of law and several years at least of experience. But title 7 has been worked out perfectly but its very controversial. One of the things that developed quite late sometimes 50 years after it passes. For example, right here, weve been told that title 7 can be used in terms of Sexual Orientation and gender identity. Nobody would have thought that in 1964. And maybe thats the right way to interpret it, or maybe its the wrong way. But its wrong to suggest that the language is not going to be a problem, because its not a problem now. Thats not the way statutes work. I understand that but i think its more important in your considerations to address what is the real problem now that we are trying to ameliorate. I think thats the wrong approach. We have a problem we have to deal with it right now. Lets go with whatever good language we have. We want good language. That wont be abused in the future. We want it to cover only the things we want it to cover. Do we have th