 Well, as the person responsible for shipbuilding and acquisition programs of the US Navy, advances in technology have become the basis for many of our newest platforms to include LCS and unmanned systems. Given these platforms require less people, are we moving toward a smaller force more dependent on systems rather than manpower, and are platforms becoming more important than people? Well, the short answer is absolutely not. The main thing that we have going for us in the Navy and Marine Corps and our, it's not so secret, a weapon, but our biggest weapon system and our most critical one are our people. We ask an enormous amount of our people to man these incredibly complex, incredibly advanced platforms that you talked about. And to do that, they have to be the best trained, they have to be the best educated, they have to be the most dedicated force that we've ever had, and that's exactly what we've got. Nobody else pushes responsibility down as early and as low as we do. We expect every sailor, we expect every Marine to be great at his or her job, and we expect it every single day, and we get it every single day. When discussing platforms, which is one of your four key priorities for the Department of the Navy, you often speak about your goal of reaching a 300 ship Navy by 2019. Why is this important to achieve, and how difficult will it be to accomplish given the current fiscal environment? Well, it's important to achieve because, I'll give you a few quick numbers, 9-11, 2001 US Navy was at 316 ships. By 2008, after one of the great military buildups in American history, our fleet had declined to 278 ships. In the four years before I took office, the US Navy put 19 ships under contract. That wasn't enough to stop the decline of the fleet, it wasn't enough to protect the industrial base, it wasn't enough to do the things we need to do. Since I've taken office, in the last four years we have put 60 ships under contract with no increase in the top line budget, in fact a decrease in the top line budget for the Navy. Quantity becomes a quality all its own. We have to have enough of the right kind of ships to perform our missions, to perform them worldwide, to not just be in the right place at the right time, but to be in the right place all the time. That's what we give the nation, presence. We are there. We are forward deployed, we are America's away team. If we keep, though, having sequestration, if we keep having these continuing resolutions and Congress has never passed a budget on time in the four years I've been in this office and there hasn't been a budget on time since 2005, if we keep operating in this way, it becomes increasingly difficult to build these ships, to build these aircraft, to do the things we need to do. We will begin to do things like break multi-year contracts, which save us an enormous amount of money by building not just one ship a year, but ten ships over five years. And you save big amounts of money by being able to order in quantity and things like that. We're putting at risk not only the growth in the fleet, but the ability to do our duty, the ability to give the president options, the ability to be the flexible response that the country has to have. That's what's at risk here. It's not to argue that we shouldn't spend less on defense. We're coming out of two land wars. The American people have got a right to expect that we will spend less on defense, but we shouldn't do it in this mindless way. We shouldn't do it in this way that does not put money against strategy. We should do it in a smart, very targeted way to get rid of programs or things that we just don't need or which are inefficient or something like that. We shouldn't do this one-size-fits-all, cut everything, because it's just not a smart way to cut. And it will begin to impact on readiness, training on the things that we need to do our job that the country expects from us.