 Okay, welcome to Coronado and the beautiful Lowry Theater. We all do appreciate your time here. It is my distinct pleasure to introduce the 75th Secretary of the Navy. He is a naval officer, a lawyer, a statesman, and a pretty fine actor as we've seen in the movies and on TV too. How about a great big Coronado round of applause for the honorable Ray Mavis. Thank you for that introduction and thank you all for being with me today. Y'all standing up, sit down. You know, forgive me a little bit. I can't see much from these lights. I'm going to be pretty brief and then I'll take questions from you and afterwards, if anybody wants to stay and take a picture or prove to your mama that you actually went to work today and that I actually showed up, I'll be happy to do that too. What the United States Navy gives to America is presence. We are everywhere and we're not just in the right place at the right time. We're in the right place all the time. We give the president, we give our leadership options. Options to respond to things like the storm in the Philippines, but also options for things like Syria. We didn't have to surge equipment, we didn't have to surge people. We already had ships in the Eastern Met, we already had ships in the Western Pacific. But to keep doing that, to keep doing that presence that we have given this country for the last 238 years, we've got to work on, I put them into four more P's. People, platforms, power and partnerships. Y'all represent the greatest expeditionary fighting force the world has ever known. We have the most skilled, the best trained, the most dedicated, the most competent force that we have ever had. And we've got to make sure that we keep that. We've got to make sure that you've got the tools that you need. Those big gray hulls on the horizon reassure our allies. They deter the people that may be our adversaries and they provide those options. But you've got to have enough of them. On 9-11, 2001, the U.S. Navy had 316 ships. By 2008, after one of the great military build-ups in American history, we were down to 278 ships and we were shrinking. And at some point, even though the ships we were building had a lot more capabilities than the ones before, at some point quantity becomes a quality all its own. You're not going to be everywhere you need to be. You're not going to be deployed in places that we may need, the country may need us to undertake a mission. In the four years before I took this office, the U.S. Navy put 19 ships under contract. That's not enough to protect the industrial base on the road at NASCO. It's not enough to halt the decline in the size of the fleet. Since I've been Secretary, the first four years we have put 60 ships under contract with a smaller top line. And we're on track right now with the plans that we've got to get back to 300 ships before the end of this decade. Every shipbuilding program that we have, and we've got aviators in the Saudis, every aircraft program that we have that the Navy controls, I believe is in great shape. We're doing stuff like a lot more competition, multi-year contracts, driving the price down, making sure the quality is up, giving you the tools that you need to do, the jobs that the country is asking you to do. Third is power, energy. Using fossil fuels is a military vulnerability for us. And that's why I've come up with the goal that by 2020 at least half of all naval energy will come from non-fossil fuel sources, and that's a flow down the shore. Now, even in America, produced all the oil and gas that we needed, oil is still the ultimate global commodity. So every time a Syria breaks out, every time some guy says, I'm going to close the straits before it moves, price of oil goes up, sometimes $10, $15 barrel. Every time it goes up a dollar, it costs them maybe $30 million in additional fuel costs. So in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012, we got a bill of $2 billion in unbudgeted excess fuel costs, because price of oil just went up quicker than we had anticipated. Now, there are only a couple of places to go to get $2 billion. One is in operations. So we train less, we steam less, we fly less. If the bill gets too big, we build fewer ships, we build fewer aircraft because we can't afford to power them. I don't think either one of those is a very good idea. So we've been focusing on platforms and power. And we're on track to do that, to get to that 50% goal, because we need a stably priced American-made source of energy for our basis, whether it's wind or solar or fuel cells or fuel thermal or hydrothermal wave and for ships at sea. And we need to be more efficient in the way we use energy. And we're doing that. And finally, partnerships. Partnerships is working with industry like NASCO. Partnerships is working with cities like San Diego. Partnerships is also working with countries around the world. In the first four and a half years I've been in this job, I've been to 107 different countries, and we're doing something with every single one of us. You can surge people. You can surge equipment. You cannot surge trust. Getting to know people, training with them, operating with them, exercising with them, builds that sort of trust. So that's the way I sort of organize my thinking toward this, and I hope that I believe we are making progress on all these. The other reason I wanted to talk to you is to thank you for what you do every day. The jobs that you do every day on behalf of America. The importance of those jobs cannot be overstated. I wish I could give you an absolute, with some absolute certainty, what's going to happen in Washington. We got a budget deal in December that if the appropriations bills are passed, we'll take us through 2015. And that's a good start, because under sequestration and under the continuing resolutions that come from not passing budget on time, we just couldn't plan. We didn't have any certainty. And we were forced, we were almost mandated to make pretty dumb decisions. We weren't putting money against strategy. Now the American people have got every right to believe and to expect that defense spending will come down. We're coming out of two wars that have consumed more than a decade, but we ought to be smart about it. How we cut, what we cut. Sequester continuing resolutions really don't let us do that. So it's a good first step, but it's important to remember that it only goes through 2015, and it could be back in the same place. It's also important to remember that since 2005, we have never, since 2005, had a budget passed on time. For the Navy, that's almost as damaging as sequestration, because you can't put a ship in a shipyard under a continuing resolution to get repaired because that's called unused art. You can't spend any money on aircraft maintenance. Than you did the year before, or different aircraft maintenance, than you did the year before. Because that's when you start getting to spend money on it the last year. We've got to not work from crisis to crisis. Give us some flexibility. Give us some adaptability and the ability to put money against strategy. To put money against this defense strategy that is so maritime. And we'll be fine. As I said, we've got a little certainty we're able to plan a little bit because this runs through the end of 2015, but the issue is still there. And because of what you do, you deserve the American people. Deserve more certainty than that about the people that they're asking to take on the job of protecting them and this country. So to all of you who serve, thank you and thank your families for doing that. This, and I'm repeating myself, but this is the greatest, the most flexible, the most adaptable, the most legal and greatest expeditionary fighting force. The world has ever known. We have to keep it that way. All right, who's got a question and how am I going to see you if you do? I have a tradition. First question gets a call. Can you please use the microphone? Thank you. We should have people. There you go. Thank you. Testing, testing. Good afternoon, sir. My name is Aviation Maintenance Administration in the hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Been in the Navy for about a year and a half and I'm stationed onboard USS Ronald Reagan. My question for you today, sir, is kind of the deal with what you were talking about with the spending and benefits. I know that recently there was a bill passed and I don't know if it's been on the Commander-in-Chief's desk or not about the, about our retirement getting cut for 20 years of service for about a percent for 30 years of service. My question being is, why is it that we, that now we'll be getting less than 50% of our pay for 20 years and 75% for 30 years, yet members that represent us in the House, the Senate work two years, get a six-figure salary and they walk away with that until the day that they hit the earth? I'll deal with the first part of that question. I'm going to let them explain the second part. Number one, my understanding of what Congress passed in terms of retirement was that it was not a reduction in retirement, it was a reduction in the speed of increase in terms of cost of living allowances. And I do have to say, well, first, whatever requirements some of you joined under the current one, that's the one you're on retirement. There looks to be another way that there's a type of retirement system that will happen where not to make guesses about what Congress is going to do or not do, but everybody on active duty is my understanding would be grandfathered in. This system would be the one that you will retire under if you spend your career here. But if we don't get a handle on paying benefits, personnel costs, there can be a lot fewer of y'all. Only place we've got to go if paying benefits and that counts retirement get too high is to cut personnel. That's it. There'll be a lot fewer sailors. I don't think that's a very good idea. We'll also build fewer ships. We'll build fewer aircraft. And we're there. Personnel costs are going to eat up half of our budget. And so the choice we're making now is whether we give you the tools to do your job whether we keep the force that we have today. And we've got to get a handle on things like health care costs for working age retirees who have health care through where they work. Right now, if you're a civilian and you're part of health care for your employer, you're going to pay somewhere $4,000, $5,000 a year for you and your family. If you're doing tricare as a working age retiree, you're going to pay about $500 a year. That's a deal. It's also eating up budget. It's also eating into how many sailors we can have. Eating into how many weapons we can buy. I don't think it is unfair to ask people to pay a little bit more. Particularly if you tear it, particularly if you say the increase for your health care cost as a retiree will depend on what your retirement is. So if you retire as an E7, you're going to pay less of an increase and if you retire as an O8 or O9. It will still be the best deal available. But if we don't do this, if we don't, I mean, this is the point we're at. There's no getting around it. The budget is coming down. American people have got a right to expect the budget is going to come down on the fence. And if pay benefit and retirement keeps going up, there will just be a lot fewer sailors. There will be a lot fewer platforms. That's a trade you want to make. I think we've got to be fair. I think we've got to keep our promises. And I think we've got to keep faith. But I also think that it is not keeping faith if you make somebody leave because you don't have the money because those benefits rose too fast. So you probably don't agree with me. That's where I am. Good morning, sir. Thomas Merrill for the USSS6. OSSA coming from Poteet, Texas. My question to you, sir is we know times are tough. We know the economy is tough. We know that I experienced it back home before I joined the Navy. What is there a plan out there to still improve our Navy even though our budget is falling? Thank you for the question. Absolutely. Part of what I talked about is we make cuts. What we've got to do is cut things that are less essential. What we've got to do is make sure we put money into the warfighter. Make sure we put money into the platforms that we need. Make sure that we're funding the strategy. And to do that, we've got to have a great Navy. We've got to have a great Marine Corps. And I talked about how much the Navy shrank. Between 2001 and 2008, we had 49,000 fewer sailors in 2008 than we did in 2001. And during that same time, the Marines grew and the Army grew. And that makes sense because the Navy was in the Navy for years. But now that we're drawing down and the Marines are getting smaller. The Marines are going from 202,000 to about 174,000. The Navy to provide that presence has got to get bigger in terms of platforms, in terms of where we are and what we did. So, yes, it can't be derailed if the budget sequestration comes back in or if we keep not having budgets on time. I'll just go and walk up to the microphone because I really have a trouble seeing how long. Good afternoon, sir. Wyandt 3 Shirley. USS Essex, LHD2. Sir, is there a possibility that all four branches of the military will wear the exact same uniform in the future? Uh, no. Yeah. I think what brought that question up is Congress has mandated that we quit having as many camouflaging forms. And we got until, I think, 2017 or 2018 to come down on the number. And I think they said no more than three or something. But that's very different from all uniforms. Y'all didn't join the Navy to wear an army uniform. So... Thank you, sir. Thanks. Mr. Secretary, aviation electronics technician, first class, Brandon Mosley from Bend, Oregon. My question to you is in regards to the USS Ronald Reagan. We have a couple of other officers to ensure that the radiation exposure from Fukushima is not exceeding that of the Geiger readings they're getting inbound and outbound. Um, well, number one, during the, um, during the relief effort, we had a lot of monitors on the Reagan. Um, we... that was a special mission. Number two, during that relief effort, we did the best, um, that we could do in terms of keeping the Reagan out of the, um, and supporting ships. Another ship that came, uh, we had ships that came up from, um, Sassbow and other places into that relief effort, keeping them out of the main plume. Uh, same thing for the pilots and the aircraft that went in to deliver relief supplies. And we have, um, continued to make sure or to monitor the radiation levels. Now, the levels that the Reagan was exposed to and, uh, during that time and the other ships that were in there, uh, were, were way within normal specs. We're gonna keep watching. We're gonna make sure that there's, um, nothing, nothing there, but we try to do that not only for that sort of thing, but for all sorts of health issues and potential, um, problems for, for people. You, you work in a, uh, just day to day. If you're on board a ship, there's probably hazardous environments. I mean, one person explained to me when I was on my ship, said, yeah, you're on a steel ship, in the middle of salt water filled with high explosives and electricity. Uh, sometimes it's not a good combination. We take these things very seriously. I have not seen anything. And nobody in the Navy, to my knowledge, has seen anything that indicates that there is a problem, was a problem, or be a problem for the, uh, level of radiation that, uh, that the ships that responded to that disaster will have. But that doesn't mean we're not gonna keep watching very closely to make sure that's the case. Hello, sir. I'm Bianca Blanchard from, uh, U.S.S. from Oregon, LSS, and Blanchard. And my question for you is, now that, um, enlisted women are eligible for submarines and seals, for the women who are interested in taking that as a career path, why for those career paths in the future? Um, mainly, talk to your detailer, volunteer. Um, I mean, I was one that made a decision to put women on submarines. And, like you said, we're, we've done every class of submarines now for officers, and we're moving to do it for, uh, enlisted. And that's not something that's gonna change. That's not something we're gonna reverse. So, there is a career path there. And, uh, you know, if you want to, if you want to give your name to one of my aides out here, um, we'll make sure that you get the information. But mainly, if you want to do that, uh, you do it like any other. If you're changing your rating or want to want to go to, um, to do something different. Talk to your detailer and volunteer. And we need you. So, hope you do. Good afternoon, sir. I'm MCSN Younger, station here. I'm MCSN Younger, station here at Ampace West. And, um, I have a question from the, uh, the online viewership. So, um, I'll ask, what is the biggest challenge facing the Navy now? Well, I think, I think we talked about it. The biggest challenge is making sure that as we draw the budget down, making sure that as we, um, spin less on defense, that we keep the force that we have. We keep the level of skill, the level of training, the level of education that's represented here today and out around the fleet. Second, that, um, that we keep giving you the tools that we need to do, that we are smart in how we, in how we cut things, how we cut the budget, how we reduce the spending. Um, it's not an argument to say we shouldn't be reducing. It is an argument to say we need to be smart about how we do this. We need to be flexible. We need to be adaptable in how we do this. And, given that flexibility and that adaptability, we will keep the great Navy and the great force that we have. Hello, sir. Uh, petty officer 3 class, Evan Kenney, from Slade, Ohio. Continuing on with the topic of budget, I was wondering if you'd be at all in four or supportive of reinstating a gold standard, um, possibly auditing and maybe eliminating Federal Reserve as they are currently diminishing the value of our dollar and the Petra dollar is resulting in us going overseas, more troops, um, Iraq playing for no reason, really. Um, I'll just be real frank with you. We made the decision on that in the 30s. Uh, it's not going to happen. And it should. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, sir. I'm Wyanty Thomasy from the Unmanned Helicopter Reconnaissance Squadron 1. Um, my current command is actually being disestablished due to lack of funding. And I've been assigned to the LCS community. Upon researching this community, I have found nothing but negative responses to it that it doesn't appear to be capable of fulfilling its mission that it was made for. And my question to you is, is this new platform going to be able to accomplish this mission or are we pumping funds into a failing program? Um, the LCS, tutorial combat ship, uh, program started in 2002. First two ships were built were experimental ships. Uh, they were built with research and development dollars, not shipbuilding dollars. Those two ships are out there today. The freedom just got back from a deployment to Singapore. And one of the things you have to expect from a first ship of the class, and we've got two variants. We've got one built in Wisconsin, one built in Mobile, Alabama. Um, is that you're going to have some issues. And it did. Uh, first ships of the class, these two first ships of that class had some issues. Now, we've taken those, and we've taken lessons learned, and we are putting it in the next ships that are being built. And we're building, we're going to have 24 LCSs. We've got that many under contract right now, or in the water right now. They're modular. So you put weapon systems on, you take them off. As technology changes, you change those weapon systems. You don't have to change the ship. You don't have to pull into a shipyard and spend eight months there changing a weapon system. You pull next up here and you spend a couple of days doing it because it's modular. I think a ship that the LCS is one of the big futures of the Navy. It's a very fast, very shallow draft. It can go places and do things that no other ship than what we've got it can do. And to answer your question directly, yes, it's going to be a fulfilled mission. And there are missions that we don't know about today that LCS is going to meet. Um, you know, it's had its critics. Some in Congress, some in the Navy. Um, but if you look back when we started building DDG-51's the Arleigh Burke class, incredible criticism against that. In fact, one guy said if you go on an Arleigh Burke class destroy you, you ought to get submarine because you're going to sink. Well, that obviously had been the case. When we built the Virginia class submarines, the very first of those, same thing, huge criticism. LCS doesn't look like any other Navy ship. The fields are different. Need and it's built different. Yeah, you're going to have critics. But yes, that ship can do the job and it's going to, I think, show why it's going to be one of the backbones of this fleet. Because yet we're still coming up with concepts of operation. The weapons system is still being developed and but they're already, the weapons system, we've got subsea, anti-submarine, anti-mine and anti-surface. A lot of those weapons systems for LCS are already better than their counterparts that we've got on ships today and they're getting better all the time. We're doing something called spiral development. Everyone is going to move from the one before. We're also crewing those ships differently. The three, two, one, three, three crews for two ships. One training all the time. It allows us to keep ships forward. It allows us to do that present. I think LCS number one is here to stay and number two is going to be a very important part of the Navy in the future and I think that 20 years from now whatever the new ship is in we'll get the same sort of questions about it but not about LCS then. I'm going to do one more and then like I said, if y'all want to I'll come down in front if you want to do. First I got to ask some people to run my lives, my staff, if I can do that. Okay. So one more question. I am information systems technician third class John Booker of the USS Ronald Reagan and with RIMPAC taking place this year I was wondering what are your thoughts on RIMPAC and the effects that it has on naval operations of the international community. I apologize. I'm going to ask you to ask a question again. I was getting some sort of reverberation and I was catching about every second or third word. There you go. Thanks. Plus I'm an old guy. Great question. Y'all probably heard the first time but the effects of RIMPAC and the effects that it takes place and the effects on the international community RIMPAC the largest maritime exercise in the world over two years off the coast of Hawaii. A lot of y'all have participated in. One of the best examples of we've got over 20 countries sending ships or sending people to RIMPAC learning to be interoperable with these folks learning to how other countries operate learning how other countries do things getting to know them I think it's one of the most important things that we do and it's particularly true with our allies that send ships here it's also true we may not be our allies China's coming to this world let them see some of our capabilities and ask them to assume some of the responsibilities that enable power all to have don't be surprised in terms of how people operate so I think exercises like RIMPAC and that's the biggest one but the exercises that take place almost every day all across the globe to allow us to operate with other navies no matter how big we are we can't do it alone and we've got to be interoperable I'm a big fan of things like RIMPAC and oh by the way for those of you who saw the movie Battleship the guy who said RIMPAC