 Admiral, thank you and thank you all for being here. I appreciate the introduction to General Williams who's here somewhere and who left me an Alabama football on my desk. It, when you hit it, it plays the Alabama fight song. I've learned to quit hitting it. Admiral Luce, our energy partners from the Navy and Marine Corps, from academia, industry and the media. Thank you all for being here and I'm honored to be with you. Energy reform is one of three areas along with acquisition reform and unmanned systems where I have focused and will continue to focus my attention during my tenure as Secretary of the Navy. Changing the way we do business, looking to an energy secure Navy and Marine Corps. This Navy and Marine Corps of the future with its security and leading the federal government in energy initiatives is what we must do. Energy reform is a strategic initiative. And the stakes are very high. As a nation and as a Navy and Marine Corps, we simply rely too much on a finite and depleting stock of fossil fuels that will most likely continue to rise in cost over the next decades. You know the statistics better than I do. The United States consumes 25% of the world's oil but controls production of only 3%. National governments or state run oil companies control 77% of world production and 16% of the top 25 oil companies are state run. Over 20% of the world's oil transit the straits of Hormuz and 3.3 million barrels a day go through the Gulf of Aden and oil just last year approached $150 a barrel. We know that oil is a limited resource. We buy from volatile areas of the world. Over time the price keeps going up and the use of oil creates harmful environmental effects. To a certain extent we have ceded a strategic resource, one that is difficult to guarantee to other nations. We have ceded this to other nations who are allowed to exert disproportionate influence as a result. This creates an obvious vulnerability to our energy security and to our national security and to our future on this planet. Moving from strategic to operational and tactical concerns fossil fuel consumption has a deep impact on our forces and our force structure both in terms of the resources required to get fuel and to move it to the ships, the tanks, the aircraft, and the equipment that need it and the sailors, marines whose duty it is to protect the ships or convoys moving the gas. We do not have operational independence and we are tied to a vulnerable logistics tail. Commandant of the Marine Corps General Conway said it best during a Marine Corps energy summit a few weeks ago when he described the fully burdened cost of a gallon of gasoline delivered to a piece of equipment in Afghanistan. It turns out that when you factor in the cost of transportation to a coastal facility in Pakistan or airlifting it to Kandahar and then you add the cost of putting it in a truck, guarding it, delivering it to the battlefield, and then transferring that one gallon to the piece of equipment that needs it. In extreme cases that gallon of gasoline can cost up to $400. In the drive for energy reform and this is crucial, in the drive for energy reform the goal has got to be increased war fighting capability. Too many of our platforms and too many of our systems are gas hogs. Of the top 10 battlefield consumers of gasoline only two are attack platforms. We also continue to make investments and acquisition decisions to build and procure increasingly complex systems that demand ever increasing amounts of energy to power them. In order to lower our reliance on fossil fuels we need to improve the efficiencies of our systems and develop platforms that operate as a system of systems are integrated together and reduce our tactical vulnerability. The stakes of the status quo extend even further beyond the military and cause second and third order effects on our environment. The carbon that's emitted from our ships and aircraft and vehicles is a contributor to global warming and climate change. According to the projections endorsed by our own task force on climate change global warming could result in an arctic ocean free of summer ice within 25 years. The security implications of this are dramatic. In short we have not acted as very responsible stewards of our environment. I don't seek to chastise anyone or to repent on procurement decisions made over the last decades when the dangers of fossil fuels and their effect on our environment were not as well understood or as fully recognized nor am I naive enough to believe that you can simply flip a switch and go off fossil fuels overnight. But I do believe that the Navy and Marine Corps have an obligation to do something now about our impact on the environment and that we can take substantive measures to improve our core war fighting capabilities while improving our energy footprint. The president has framed the argument for us and set the federal government on a path to reduce consumption of fuel and water as well as to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. His leadership is a springboard for the Navy and Marine Corps to do more to go further and to take up leadership across the Department of Defense, across the federal government and across the broader United States in developing and using alternative sources of fuel. You may have heard this statistic but it's striking to me. The Department of Defense uses more than 90% of all energy used by the federal government and 2% of all the energy used in the United States of America. Altering the Department of the Navy's consumption patterns will. It will have a broad noticeable effect and will serve as an example for the rest of our country. The technologies that we sponsor, the technologies that we fund and the technologies that we develop to viability will be those that the United States and the world use in the decades to come. Leading change is not new for the Department of the Navy. We have done so repeatedly in the adoption of new technologies to power our ships and resistance to change is not new either. In the middle of the 19th century, the Navy traded wind for steam and the ability to maneuver in any direction at will. Naysayers swore at that point that the Navy was giving up a sure means of propulsion in favor of uncertain, dangerous and probably infernal machines. The naysayers were wrong. The new technology of steam was proven to deadly effect on the halls of sailing ships during the Civil War. Forty years later, the liquid fuel board recommended that the Navy shift from coal to oil. Which has twice as much thermal content and granted the ability to produce higher speeds in ships crewed by fewer sailors. And once again, traditionalists argued against adoption because the late 19th century American Navy already had a network of coaling stations around the world and an established infrastructure built around coal. Again, they were wrong. The Navy persevered. The Navy commissioned the destroyer, Paulding, in 1910 in the battleship Nevada in 1911, both powered by oil. Oil created a tactical advantage. It allowed ships to stay at sea longer, replenish themselves underway from oilers rather than to have to import it from coal bunkers and oil reduce the need for ships to maintain huge divisions of stokers. We are a better Navy and a better Marine Corps for innovation. We have led the world in adoption of new energy strategies in the past. This is our legacy. First a new energy sources has always happened, but in every case, adoption of new technologies improved the strategic position of our nation through improvements in the tactical and operational capabilities of our forces. So what are we going to do about it now? Well, the Navy and the Marine Corps are doing great things already. We've taken measures to make energy reform a way of doing business. We've put a down payment on energy into our budgets, and these measures are yielding a return on investment in both combat capability and resource allocation. Just yesterday, Roger Natsahara, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Installations and Environment. And Rear Admiral Cullum, who is here today, our Task Force Energy Lead, went down to Pax River for the first test of an F-A-18 engine run on biofuels. This fuel will power our very own green Hornet, and that plane is going to fly within three years. And although the cost of the fuel used in that engine is high right now, it's still cheaper than putting gas into a generator on a battlefield in Afghanistan, and that cost will fall as a scale of production is increased. And if the Navy and the Marine Corps are part of the demand, we'll help boost that production and cause the price to fall faster. At the same time, improvements to our F-A-18 engines, traditional engines, that will be in service by 2015, are going to improve the efficiency of each aircraft by 3%. These improvements not only allow those aircraft to fly longer, faster, and further on the same tank of fuel, but could save us 127,000 barrels of fuel per plane per year, amounting to $15 million per plane per year at today's fuel prices. That means for every seven planes we put these new engines on, we'll be able to buy an additional F-A-18 EURF with the savings. If you believe the cost of fuel will go higher, as almost everyone does, the savings will only increase. Just two months ago, the Macon Island, our hybrid of the seas, that uses an electric motor to power the ship at low speeds, went from where it was built in Pascagoula around to its home port of San Diego. During that initial voyage alone, she saved close to $2 million in fuel costs. NAVSEE estimates that at today's fuel prices, the Macon Island will save a quarter of a billion dollars over the lifetime of that ship, and it doesn't include reduced maintenance costs because we're not stressing the gas turbines as much. Replacing hybrid electric systems like that on Macon Island into 12 DDGs, we're going to save almost a million dollars per ship per year. Soon, you'll see all our new surface combatants built from the ground up with efficient systems installed during construction. But it's not just about big systems. We're making small adjustments as well. Like the new anti-fouling coating that's being tested in the fleet, we estimate that that paint on the hulls of our ships will save up to $180,000 per year per ship in fuel costs due to reduced drag from barnacles and marine growth. Once implemented fleet-wide, in combination with other measures like the installation of stern flaps on our amphibious ships that will increase fuel efficiency in those ships, an aggressive energy conservation program with strong incentives, and the use of new voyage planning tools. For an additional investment of $550 million, we'll get about $400 million of savings per year. We'll pay ourselves back in less than a year and a half, and we'll continue to reap the benefit of those savings for the lifetime of those ships. We're seeing similar innovation and similar savings in our shore installations. Solar power projects like those just awarded through Recovery Act funded at Miramar in Camp Pendleton will increase our solar capacity by 500 percent, and will be the equivalent of providing power to 13,000 homes. Also, we have the opportunity to improve our energy generation ashore over the next 10 years by almost 370 megawatts. Enough energy to power 250,000 homes are all the households in a city the size of Boston. What the Navy and Marine Corps are doing now is great, but I'm here to encourage you and us to go further, to dream what might be instead of to simply accept what is. When President Roosevelt sent the great white fleet around the world over 100 years ago, he sent them without the funding to get them all the way back. But he was confident that Congress would want the fleet back and that the money would come. And it did. When President Kennedy said in 1961 that we would go to the moon and return within that decade, most of the technology required had not been invented. Bold steps are in our nature as Americans, and it is what makes us a great nation. No one has ever gotten anything big done by being timid. I'm here to commit the Navy and Marine Corps to meet some bold and ambitious goals in energy. And I mean this about bold and ambitious. And so I'm going to announce five energy targets today that the department will meet over the course of the next decade. I'm glad people are taking notes. First, we're going to change the way the Navy and Marine Corps awards contracts. The lifetime energy cost of a building or a system and the fully burden cost of fuel empowering those will be a mandatory evaluation factor used in awarding contracts. We're going to hold industry contractually accountable for meeting energy targets and system efficiency requirements. And we're going to do more. We'll also use the overall energy efficiency and the footprint, the energy footprint of a competing company as an additional factor in acquisition decisions. We want energy to partner with us and to take steps not just to provide us with more efficient energy products, but to produce those products in energy efficient ways. Second, the Navy will demonstrate in local operations by 2012 a green strike group composed of nuclear vessels and ships powered by biofuel. And by 2016, we will sail that strike group as a great green fleet composed of nuclear ships, service combatants equipped with hybrid electric alternative power systems running biofuels and aircraft flying only biofuels, and we will deploy it. Third, the Department of the Navy will by 2015 reduce petroleum use in our 50,000 strong commercial fleet in half by 50%. We're going to do this by replacing our current fleet as it goes out of service with a new composite fleet of flex fuel vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Moving to biofuels and electric vehicles will benefit the local communities where our bases are located and will spur adoption of similar vehicles in those neighborhoods. Fourth, the Department of the Navy will by 2020 produce at least half our shore based energy requirements on our installations from alternative sources. We will boost our uses of renewable energy and in some cases we're going to supply energy to the grid from solar, wind, ocean or geothermal sources generated by the base. We're already doing this at China Lake where our own base systems generate 20 times the load of the base. Lastly, and maybe most importantly, I'm asking all of us to meet a very ambitious goal. Today about 17% of our total energy consumption comes from alternative sources. About 2020, half of our total energy consumption for ships, aircraft, tanks, vehicles, shore installations will come from alternative sources. Right now I'm told that 40% is a more realistic goal and even that remains difficult because of cost and logistics. Our Navy and our Marine Corps have never backed away from a challenge. With hard work and with innovation from everybody in this room as well as our researchers, our scientists and every sailor and marine that we have, we can get there. To paraphrase the movie, Field of Dreams, if the Navy comes, they will build it. Preserving our nation, preserving our security and promoting freedom around the world requires the Navy and Marine Corps to always be forward deployed. We go where we are needed and we decisively accomplish our mission, whatever that might be. We must be no less bold in our thinking when it comes to energy reform. No less willing to embrace risk. I'm not asking you or the Navy and the Marine Corps to do the impossible. I'm asking you to let the reach of your imagination match the reach of the Navy and the Marine Corps. I'm asking you to make the future a more secure and better place. Thank you and Godspeed to all of you.