 Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I want to welcome not only the students from the U.S. Naval War College, but the multitude of tenant commands here on the base here in Newport, from the base itself, Naval Academy Prep School, Officer Candidate School, Naval Supply Officer School, as well as the other commands. Today it's my distinct pleasure to introduce to you our Secretary of the Navy. Secretary Mabus is a native of Mississippi. He went to the University of Mississippi. He got his graduate degree from Johns Hopkins. And then he did this small thing at Harvard and got his law degree. He has had a lifetime of service to our United States here and abroad. In 1988, he was elected the governor of Mississippi. He was the youngest in 150 years to be elected to that office. And from 1988 to 1992, he stood on a record of improving education in that great state and was awarded and recognized many times. So he is no stranger to the academics of which we profess here and how important that is in our country. Two years later, President Clinton asked him to go overseas and be our ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Now, what you may not know is the Secretary has also served as a naval officer. In fact, he was home ported right here in Newport, Rhode Island. I'm aboard the USS Little Rock, a cruiser. And he's very proud of his time on a bridge as an officer of the deck in his service in the United States Navy. On May 19th, it became our 75th Secretary of the Navy. Ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome to our Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus. Ray McArthur, thank you. And I'm glad to be back in Newport. He and I were talking on the drive over. I set where you did, where you're sitting now. I went to communication school here, although we didn't have quite this nice of building. I hope they've torn that one down. And it's been a few years. I counted up and I'm going to remotely tell you how many years it's been since I last sailed under what we call the $2 bridge. Going to, putting out to sea, the reason we called it the $2 bridge was then in the early 70s, the toll was $2. It was astounding that it was that much. And we would take bearings and call it the $2 bridge. I say all those things because I want to, I want to start this talk by telling you a naval story of mine. I did ROTC at Ole Miss and I went through Ole Miss in three years and I took the last two years of Naval ROTC as one year. So I had to take my midshipman cruise after I graduate. It was the summer of 1969. I went to the med, did my cruise and when it came time for me to leave, I had orders to, I was flying back into New York from Naples and I was told to go to Columbia University and be commissioned at the ROTC unit there. So I did and I got to New York the night before and the next morning called the captain who was commanding the Columbia ROTC unit about arranging to come out and be commissioned and one of the things he said, he said, now you don't have to wear a uniform if you don't want to, which is a strange thing to tell somebody about to be commissioned into the Armed Forces of the United States and ask him why not. He said, well, there have been riots about ROTC the year before at Columbia and he was a little bit concerned about safety and he said that nobody wore their uniforms out around campus. My notion was that if I was going to be commissioned, I was pretty clearly going to do it in uniform. So I put on my uniform, got on the subway, went up to Columbia. Nothing happened but the notion that you shouldn't wear a military uniform even on the day you were getting commissioned was not a strange notion in 1969. You're in a very different Navy. You're in a very different military from the one I was in. The relationship that the Navy today and the military today has to the American people is a fundamentally different one than when I was in. During and immediately after Vietnam, the military frankly was not very trusted. It was not something that a lot of people looked at as something to be trusted or emulated or to identify with. Now in that period of time from 69 until now, the American military has gone from that relationship to being the most trusted institution in America. Americans have separated the warrior from the war, regardless of what Americans think about any conflicts we're in. The trust, the confidence, the level of respect for the military is higher than for any other institution in this country and that just didn't happen. That wasn't an accident. A lot of people who wore the uniform worked very hard. A lot of people sacrificed a lot. They lived up to a very high standard. They held themselves and others accountable. And because of that, the level of trust, the level of respect, level of confidence in the military is as high as it is. But that's a fragile thing. And it can be undone. Now the people I'm talking to here today, you're the current and the future leaders, not just our Navy but our military. And Admiral Carter talked about the various commands here, starting with the War College but also the Department Head's School for Surface Warfare, the Command Leadership School, Supply School, and so many other commands. You're all on your way back to the fleet for command or very high levels of responsibility jobs. And that's the reason the War College was founded, to prepare people for that responsibility, to prepare people to command, to prepare people to lead. And to do so with ethics, with integrity, to measure up to the exceptionally high standards that we do and should hold people to. Every time a commanding officer gets relieved for bad behavior. Every time there's an ethical lapse. And I'm talking now about whether uniformed or severe. Every time it erodes that trust that the American people have in us. And the misdeeds of the very few. And I want to emphasize I am talking about the very few now, both in terms of numbers and in terms of percentages. But the misdeeds of the very few have the potential to undermine the great work of the many. Every bad headline about unethical behavior, about unprofessional behavior has the potential to do great damage. Now having said that, I will repeat what I said at a press conference in December at the Pentagon. I would rather get a bad headline than let bad people get away with something. I think those things, the way to keep the trust in the face of some bad acts, in the face of unethical behavior is by that long-neighbor tradition of being absolutely transparent. When we find misconduct, pretty unique, not only in the military, but also in America, we announce it. We are completely transparent, particularly for those in places of high responsibility. We do it for a couple of reasons, partly to actors of deterrent, but mainly because it's just the right thing to do. Now, some of the cases that we've been dealing with, all the ethics classes, all the speeches, all the instruction, all the guidelines, all the rules aren't going to help one bit. If you don't know it's wrong to cheat, if you don't know it's wrong to steal, if you don't know it's wrong to take a bribe, ethics training probably ain't going to help you. You miss something that your mother told you a long, long time ago. And so the only way we're going to reach those people is to set up a system of oversight, of accountability to find these acts when they happen and to hold people accountable for it. I've spent a lot of my public life trying to do that. My first elective office, before I was governor, I was state auditor of Mississippi, charged with looking at every dollar of money, taxpayer money, that was spent in that state, whether local or federal, or state money. There have been two cases that have gotten a lot of ink, a lot of attention, and I'm going to talk about them very briefly. One is Glen Defense Marine Asia, husband and contract, that the allegations are that the head of Glen Defense Marine bribed people, including an NCIS agent, bribe officers to tell him what our classified ship movements were so he could bid on, he'd know what ports to get ready to bid on, bribe people to give him the contracts, gave gifts lavish, completely inappropriate gifts to higher level people. But the thing that has not come out as much as it should have is that the reason you're reading these headlines, the reason you're hearing about Glen Defense Marine is that we did it. Activities that that company engaged in moved across some trip wires and caused NCIS to begin an investigation. That investigation went on for three years and it never leaked. And one of the things that that investigation found was that there was an NCIS agent who was taking money and providing information on where the investigation was going. So NCIS, I'll put it this way, gave him information that wasn't completely accurate. We did it. We found this. And that's what I meant about I would rather have a bad headline that allows somebody that's doing this to get away. Right now that case is with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. But whatever action, criminal action that the U.S. Attorney takes, if there are people involved for whom the statute of limitations has passed or that didn't do anything criminal but violated Navy ethics or may have violated Navy ethics, I've set up a consolidated disposition authority and we will hold those people accountable. And it's a higher standard than just criminal acts. The other thing that's gotten some attention lately is the cheating of the nuclear power school. And once again, the reason that came to light was a sailor was approached about participating in the cheating and he said no and he not only said no, he reported it. And in both cases, we were the ones that made it public. In both cases, we didn't try to hide it, didn't try to sweep anything under the rug. And in fact, in the nuclear power school, we announced it two days after we found out about it. And as I said, if you don't know what's wrong to cheat, if you don't know what's wrong to take bribes, you're not going to respond much to ethics or rules. But we can set up a system to make sure that whatever those bad acts are, that they don't go unaccounted for and that when we find them, that people are held accountable and held publicly accountable. But when you get past that obvious stuff, when you get down to the day-to-day, some of the hard choices that we all have to make, we hold people, and we should, to a much higher standard than any other organization, any other part of society. And that's the reason, that's the bedrock reason that that trust is there from the American people. They know we hold people to a higher standard. They expect us to, and we expect us to. And that's what a big part of leadership is all about. It's about upholding those higher standards, not just for other people, but for yourself. It's about being a model. It's about not cutting corners. It's about not giving excuses. And there's a lot of levels and types of leadership. I mean, one is speaking up. If you see something, that's going wrong. Another is listening to what other people are trying to tell you. Something's going off the rails. And it's about loyalty to an institution, making decisions that's good for Navy or Marine Corps, making decisions that are good for the nation. And it pops up in some interesting places. One of the things that I get to do, it is not my favorite task by any means, but I get packages of promotion cases where somebody has done something that's just not acceptable, a DUI, things like that. And the question is whether to promote or not. And on the package that comes to me, there is a chain of command. Does the commanding officer recommend promotion? Does the next in the chain recommend promotion all the way up to the C&O? And I have to say it is very rare, very rare for the immediate superior to recommend not to promote. And in the times when I've just asked out of curiosity, it's usually, well, I didn't want to hurt somebody's career. He's a good guy. She's a good person. I didn't want to rock the boat. That's not making decisions based on institutional integrity. Now, you ought to do it on a case-by-case basis. I'm not saying that there ought to be a lot of non-promote things here, but it ought to be done with the notion, would you like to be commanded by that person? Would you like to have your son or daughter commanded by that person, supervised by that person? And it comes out in fitness reports too. Nobody wants to be the bad person. Nobody wants to upset a career. And it's a little bit like school when teachers just say all I got to do is make it to May and then that kid's going to be somebody else's problem. It's just passing along the problem. That's what you've got to think about. That's what you've got to, that's a test of leadership. And I'm also not saying be bad to people, be nasty to people, try to ruin careers, but do hold people accountable, do hold yourself accountable. Now, the one thing I'm definitely not talking about, the goal is not sort of a defect-free force, a mistake-free force. When Admiral Ruffhead was C&O, he kept a copy of Chester Nimitz's fitness report. As a young officer, after he'd run a ship of ground, he was court-martialed for it. He was exonerated at court-martial. He was a destroyer captain and he said, his defense at court-martial was, I have been trained to be aggressive and I was being aggressive using my ship, getting close to shore in order to support troops on the ground. I don't know what would have happened in World War II if we had been this mistake-free force then and Chester Nimitz hadn't continued his Navy career. That's not the goal, but there's a big difference. There's a big difference between taking measured risk, which we want to encourage. We don't want to encourage just conformity. We don't want to encourage just doing exactly what you have to do without taking any sort of risk or taking any sort of initiative. There's a big difference between that lapses. Now, it is not easy today. It's not easy today to be a leader. It's not easy today in the Navy or the Marine Corps or in the military. Our deployments are long and they're getting longer. Marine Corps is drawing down. If you, what's in use, as I suspect most of you do, you know that there are financial issues about the military in Washington and what we're going to be able to do. But hard times make leadership even more crucial. It's pretty easy to manage in good times. Hard times is not a reason not to make some of the hard decisions. Hard times is not an excuse to become lax to say, well, one little thing won't hurt. And I'll tell you one more political story. When I was running for state auditor, a guy was trying to get his support and said, well, I got a question for you. He said, do you think stealing $5 is as bad as stealing $5 million? I said, yes, just a matter of degree. It's not a matter of kind. And he said, that was the answer he was looking for. He said, I'll support you. A lot of cities have driven down crime because they started enforcing all the laws. Small ones as well as big ones. Mr. Meaners as well as fellowies. It's really hard to tell people they ought to pay attention to the big things when you're not willing to pay attention to the small things because people notice and they learn and they act accordingly. Finally, you have earned the positions that you have and the positions you're going to. You've earned the right to be here. The military is the most merit-based organization I have ever been privileged to be a part of. You are absolutely the right people to be assuming these positions of leadership. But as you do, remember the long journey. Remember the journey from the middle of Vietnam until today. Remember those that came before you that had to repair the relationship between the American people and the American military. Remember those who had to do that work to make sure that the trust was there with the people that you defend with your lives and with your careers. So I'll go back to that day in 1969. That day when I was commissioned, I was given a piece of paper and it was my commission. Same piece of paper. Every one of you who are wearing a uniform got reposing special trust and confidence. It's on that commission and you uphold that every single day by leadership, by integrity, by your willingness to serve America. So from the Navy, Semper Fortis, Forever Courageous, from the Marine Corps, Semper Fidelis, Forever Faithful. Thank you all. Who's got a question? If any of you all have been on all hands calls with me, as some of you have, first question gets a coin. But only the first. So first of all, thanks for coming to talk to us today. Mr. Secretary, it's truly a pleasure. My name is Lieutenant Commander Rob Crosby and I'm from Hot Coffee, Mississippi. You and Stella Stevens. An actress that none of you remember because you're not old enough. But High Coffee, Mississippi to me is sort of like the guy who was asked if he believed in baptism. He said believe in it. Well, I've seen it done. I don't even know about Hot Coffee. I've been to Hot Coffee, Mississippi. You're the first person to tell me they know of Hot Coffee. When I was 18 years old, I cast my first vote for then candidate Ray Mavis when he was running for governor of Mississippi. So I feel a connection with yourself. You get another coin for that. I joined the Navy as a cook. And if it had not been for servant leaders in the Navy helping me think beyond my socioeconomics, I would not have made it to be a nuclear submarine officer today. How has servant leadership impacted your career? And do you believe this type of leadership will help the president and his agenda in reaching out to some of the underserved youth of today? All I can say is that when I came into the Navy, I was 20 years old when I was commissioned. And I didn't serve for very long. Sure, one very distinguished, but it was the most consequential time of my life. Suddenly, I was a division officer. I was responsible for a whole group of folks. I was their priest, rabbi, psychiatrist, banker sometimes. I became an officer of the deck. There was nobody to blame. I was responsible. I grew up and whatever success I've had in my life, I do not think would have happened absent my service in the United States Navy. You know, I went to law school after I was in the Navy. People were complaining about how hard it was. It didn't seem that hard to me. It was always at exactly the same place. You could wear whatever you wanted to. Nobody's going to put you in jail if you didn't show up. And you could quit. None of those things is true about the military. But I mean, and I've said this publicly on a lot of occasions. It's not only great for the country, but it's equally great for the people who serve. At least it was in my experience. And, you know, I do a lot of college graduations now. I say, you don't have to join the Marine Corps, although we need good people. But do something. Join the Peace Corps. Do something bigger than yourself. Be a part of something bigger than yourself. So that nothing wrong with making a lot of money. Nothing wrong with providing for your family. A lot right for them about that. But I've never seen a hearse with a U-Haul. You just don't. I think the things that matter in your life are what you've done to touch people. What you've done to serve other people. And I'll tell one more story. And I know I'm talking too much here. But my father owned a hardware store, a town of 1,000 people. I'm from Ackerman, not much bigger than Hot Coffee. And he was really the only true hero I think I've ever had. He grew timber when he sold the hardware store. He died 1986 when he was 85 years old after a long and very good life. The year before he died he planted trees. Now he knew for a fact that not a one of those trees would do him any good. He knew for a fact that he would never see any benefit from. He knew for a fact that he would be long gone by the time they were grown. But he did it. He didn't cut a single tree that year. And he did it as a matter of faith. He did it as a matter of hope. He did it for me. He did it for his granddaughters that he never met. He did it for the future. And that's the same reason I think a lot of us serve. Sir Kepp and Carl Tescombe on the faculty here. Mr. Secretary, the QDR was released this week. And I believe two days ago the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee put out a short letter that said that the QDR did not meet Congress' intent. And if I remember the wording right he said it was actually in violation of the legislation that Congress passed. And we expect to see a redo on the QDR. Sir, if not, how do we square that with the organizational integrity that you spoke of earlier? I think that the QDR is supposed to be and is just an overall overarching strategy that we're going to pursue for the next four years and beyond. But it's to give a sense of what the military structure ought to look like. And this is the second QDR I've been in the Pentagon for. And I think it's fair to say that every time there are complaints about, concerns about the QDR and criticisms of the QDR. And one of the things that I have pointed out is that no matter how smart you are, and there are a lot of smart people working on the QDR four years ago and this time, no matter how foresighted you are, you're not going to know what's coming at you. If we'd have done a QDR right before the wall came down in 1989, we would have been 100% wrong as to what challenges we're going to face the military. If we'd done a QDR on September 10, 2001, we'd have been a lot more wrong than right over what challenges. So I think if you view the QDR as here is with the best knowledge that we have today, what we're going to face. I also think it underscores the fact that because we don't know what we're going to face, we have to give ourselves, we have to make sure that we are agile, that we are adaptable, that we are flexible, and that we don't get sort of stuck in, well, this is what's going to happen. I take a brief from every carrier strike group that comes back and also from every amphibious-ready group and the one constant is that they had to deal with something that was not foreseen when they left port. So I am testifying in front of that committee next Wednesday. And while I'm sure there will be some questions on it, and I have enormous respect for the chairman of that committee, I think that not only looking at this QDR, but looking at QDRs in the past and the concerns, the criticisms about those QDRs is helpful. And I think it also, regardless of what concerns there are, regardless, should not keep us from focusing on making sure that we have that adaptive capability to, and I think that maritime services are particularly suited for that, to do whatever the nation calls on us to do, that we're not sure what the future is going to hold, all we can be sure about is we have to be ready and that goes back to the thing I was talking about. We've got to have the trust of the American people that we are, that we are this ethical, this professional, this force that can be counted on to protect them, to defend them, and to do so in a way that honors who we are as Americans. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for speaking with us today. Lieutenant Jamie Talbot from the Navy Supply Corps School. Mr. Secretary, my question is regarding cases of ethical issues. Are there any concerns with swift prosecution and are there any plans in place to improve investigative efficiency? I've always got a concern about swift prosecution or swift resolution, I'll put it that way. We need to, the resolution needs to be quick. So not only for the person involved, but also for the command or the institution, so that either way it goes, exoneration or accountability, that people know things have happened. Sometimes that's out of our hands, but to the extent I can, we make those determinations as quickly as we can without sacrificing making sure we got all the facts, making sure there's not a rush to judgment. In terms of investigations, in one area we've hired 54 new NCIS agents to investigate sexual assaults in particular, because the time that it was taking to investigate those assaults was just far too long. And it was damaging to the institution, it was damaging to the investigation. And so we have brought those times down pretty significantly. If we can do investigations quicker, if we can reach a resolution quicker, we will. But it does have to be balanced against making sure that we do know all the facts, making sure that the investigation was done correctly, and making sure that the whatever accountability is assessed is appropriate. We've got two right in a row, so we'll do the first one. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Thank you so much for giving us your time this morning. Senior Chief Rametta currently attending the SEA station at Strike Fighter Squadron 2-5. My question is about tuition assistance. Obviously that's a huge topic that's been brought up with possibly going away, not only in the United States Navy, but in other armed forces. What are you and the other Secretaries doing to ensure that that stays within our grasp to continue education because of how important it is for all of the armed forces? You're correct that last year there was a movement. Different services were looking at it in different ways in terms of tuition assistance. It was a purely budgetary driven thing. There is passed a law that said that tuition assistance had to continue basically in its current form. So it's sort of like gravity. It's not just a good idea. It's a law. I do think that as we go forward there's some things we should look at. We would have to get Congresses okay to do it. But things like making sure that the education you're getting with tuition assistance is leading somewhere. It's leading toward a degree or toward a skill that you can use either in the Navy or outside the Navy. Things like that. But it's tweaking. It's not ending. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Senior Chief Adrian Watkins, I'm also an SEA student coming from the Native Personnel Command. My question is the current status of the Ohio Replacement Program. Is that still progressing and how is the Common Mist Department development coming along? The Ohio Class Replacement is the top priority. We're doing engineering work right now. We're doing R&D work right now. We'll start doing acquisitions, buying stuff to begin building the first Ohio Class Replacement in 19. She'll go to SEA in 29. That's on track. We've protected that in the budget. The Common Mistal Compartment call that because the British are also buying the same missile compartment is also on track. They will need it before we do. They will get the first of these. They will do the initial testing of the Common Mistal Compartment. And we're also on track for that. Now, it's also true. And I think that a discussion has to be had or needs to be had. If the Ohio Class Replacement is paid for completely out of Navy Shipbuilding, it will take up about half of all Navy Shipbuilding funds for more than a decade. It will devastate every other type of ship in the Navy, including other submarines, the attack submarines, but surface subs. The Ohio Class Replacement is part of our strategic deterrence and as that is a national program. And I think that that discussion needs to be had about what's the appropriate way to pay for it. And are we willing to so completely cut into the Navy's other Shipbuilding accounts, other Shipbuilding lines, other responsibilities to do that? How should we approach that to keep the other missions of Navy that are so vital to this country whole? All right. We got one more. If anybody wants to do it. Good morning, Mr. Secretary of the News. It's Nick Manna Curtis. I'm a student here at the War College. Thank you for coming this morning. My question is about the cuts to personnel costs. Secretary Hagel spoke last week and admitted it's a tough sell to tell us that it's for our safety and for our readiness that personnel costs are being cut. And my question is to you, sir, when I look at an acquisition world that is very much still stuck in the preparation for another Cold War, fraught with overrun costs, fraught with behind programs, how do you help the Secretary sell that pitch to us that cutting personnel costs, pay, and benefits is what really needs to be done when we can look across the way at an acquisition program that many could argue is broken? Well, the first way is that we have fixed virtually every major acquisition program in Navy. If you look at shipbuilding, Virginia-class submarines coming in under budget ahead of schedule. DDG-51s, we've gotten competition put into that. And we're saving over $100 million a ship. And ships in DDG-51s are cheaper today than they were a couple of years ago. Amphibs, the cost also is being cost and schedule are under control. The withdrawal combat ship costs are down more than half from the lead ship in that class. The last of the 10 ships in a block by that are coming out of the LCS, the first ones that were built 10 years ago or so cost over $750 million. The last one coming off the line will cost $350 million. We're doing, we're attacking that acquisition program in a lot of ways. Firm fixed price contracts instead of cost plus. The Navy acquisition professionals had just been gutted. We're hiring those back. Private companies were being asked over to the other private companies. So protecting taxpayer money was not one of the really high priorities. We're doing multi-years. We're doing block buys. And we're not just looking at programs like that. We're also taking a very hard look at service contracts. We spend more in service contracts than we do in acquisition contracts. And very frankly, it was really hard to follow a dollar from appropriation to expenditure. What were we getting for that dollar? So we've set up a lot of things including something that sort of informally is called contract courts. Contracting officers got to bring in all their contracts every year, make a decision, do we need those or not. And so we're stripping out big ins of dollars in service contracts going forward. And we have gotten some of those savings already. And I'm confident that the rest of those savings will be had. And that's not easy. People sort of don't like you to know what contracts they got. One of the things that the government shutdown did was I did not delegate the authority to contract out of my office. Every contract the Navy had during the shutdown came up to me. And it was interesting. A number of contracts went way down because just a bunch of folks didn't want me to know what was going on. So I think there's one program that is still running over budget and that's the carrier. Some decisions were made 10 years ago in terms of trying to put a lot of new technology onto the first ship of the class. We've reigned in a lot of those cost overruns, but we're not going to be able to keep that from happening in that program. What we can do is on the next one, on CVN 79, we're taking those lessons and learning them and pushing costs down. We have done things like claw back some of the profit for the shipbuilder on CVN 78. So I say all that to say that I think it's a fair criticism about acquisition, but I also think we've done a whole lot to attack some of the waste, some of the unnecessary expenditures. And I'll go to the second part of your question. Personnel costs are now more than about 50% of the defense budget and they're rising. And the request that went in with the budget isn't a cut, it's just slowing the rate of growth a little bit. Personnel costs in the military have gone up 40% more than in the private sector and more than inflation over the last 10 years. So if you, you know, CNO talks about not only quality of life that salary and benefits pay, but also quality of work. Do you have the tools that you need? Do you have the equipment that you need? There are only a couple of places if personnel costs keep rising to go to replace that money. And it's not just rising for people on active duty. It's rising also for working age retirees. So are we going to take platforms? Are we going to take weapons systems? Are we going to take the tools that you need to do the job that you do? Or the other way to do it is take personnel. So would you rather be in a much smaller military that really doesn't have all the tools or all the people it needs to get the work done? And we are there. This is not something for the future. We are there. And the final thing that I'll say is I've done, I don't know, I've lost count, hundreds of all hands' costs. And it is at least my sense that while money, pay, benefits are important, that's not the only reason people join the military. And to make it all about the money, I think also risk that trust with the American people because the people in this room and the people that I know that have joined the military have joined it. I don't want to undercut the patriotism, the service, the sacrifice by making it just about money. But we're going to have to control personnel costs or the decisions that we're going to have to make are not going to be good for the individuals. And they're certainly not going to be good for the Navy and Marine Corps or any of our services. So I want to thank you all again. Thank you for your questions. Thank you for being here today. And more than that, thank you for what you do every single day. I really meant what I said. It's a very small number. It's a very small percentage of people who don't live up to the standards that we do. They get outsized attention. But the huge, huge majority of people in the military are professional. They're skilled. They're patriotic. And it is not easy. And it is a sacrifice in so many ways to wear the uniform of this country. And for that, the country and I am profoundly grateful. Thank you.