To the 94 bits in these graphs were rough total of 617 billion. My question is kind of a can to a congressman fleming was acting. Does it make any difference to the department of defense if the money comes to the department of defense via the base versus overseas Contingency Operations . How does that affect your ability to do it need to be done . I think i addressed that earlier when i said for the army receiving relief there are end strength provisions above 450 provides 4. 2 billion in one year relief. Im trying to explain. Ive only got a minute and 10 seconds left to so let me move onto something more specific. Look tauro combat ships that are being built in the state of alabama, secretary mabus cannot be built out of oco funds . I dont believe that under the current fund we can do new construction. Its not as good as base money in that instance. Is that a fair statement . Can you do Missile Defense out of oco money general odierno do you now . As far as i know we are not able to do that. Depends for right now we dont have the flexibility periods about flexibility and the oco budget. We dont know how its defined so its difficult to answer. Is it fair to conclude as im looking at the proposed house budget thats a whole lot better for the money to be in base as opposed to oco and to the extended send oco does have some adverse affect on our our National Security capabilities. Would you agree with that secretary mchugh . Yes sir, i did early. It presents challenges. Secretary mabus . S. I would. Secretary james . S. Does anyone have any idea how much our National Security would be if its in oco supposed to base . The worst of all is that we dont get this fixed or some mechanism. C thank you maam, thank you mr. Chairman. Ms. Duckworth. Think you should chairman. Secretary mabus i was happily surprised to see you devote so much time to power and Energy Issues in your written testimony. Your comment about fuel energy used as a fuel struck out to me. In 2003 and 2007 dod put up numbers that said 80 of all supply trucks on the road in iraq and afghanistan work conveying fuel. Over 3000 americans and contractors were killed in fuel supply convoys. Every time we talk about Energy Initiatives within dod somehow what gets lost in the conversation or the National Security implications of what you and other services are trying to do. Its not just about going green for trying to achieve some larger environment to go. Its about developing technologies that will lighten the loads of our soldiers and marines and allow a platoon of soldiers and marines to push further to bring the fight to Enemy Territory because they are not dependent on huge logistical logistical. Also range endurance in time on station for vehicles and airplanes. Its about being able to protect greater and more lethal power. Anything that enables us to do that im all for and i think it should be embraced. Mr. Secretary can you outline some of the initiatives the navy is undertaking specifically touching on what they are helping the navy to do an in tactical and strategic terms . Thank you so much and i couldnt be more articulate than you just were on that but some of the specific things that we are doing and Energy Efficiency we are doing a everything from hull coatings to changing lightbulbs to doing voids planning to putting electric drives on some of our larger ships or slower speeds to building an all electric ship. The marines as always are leading the way here and your statistics about we were losing a marine killed or wounded in afghanistan for every 15 fuel trucks that were brought in, thats just too high a price to pay. We have seal teams now in the field that are pretty much netzero in terms of energy. They make their energy where they are and they make their water where they are. For a Marine Company by using solar power to power radios, gps gps they save 700 pounds of batteries per company and they dont have to be resupplied with that. And i larger more strategic scale the ability to use fuel as a weapon and the volatility of fuel prices that go up dramatically and down dramatically create immense problems for us in terms of being able to pay for that fuel and being able to plan for how much that fuel is and we are moving to nonfossil fuel sources to provide some competition in the fuel market but also to smooth out that volatility and to create american jobs and have a homegrown source of fuel. Thank you. Senator mchugh can you talk about the initiatives . If you have an lsa that could produce its own fuel and pacing keep a convoy or two of soldiers out there running fuel for the generators that run air conditioners that would be a good thing. Can you talk about the army initiatives . Thank you very much congresswoman and as is being discussed before this committee but in the past it is as you accurately put a matter of soldiers lives and particularly true with respect to our Operational Energy programs. We conduct constricted our Energy Utilization by 17 in recent years. The frustrating thing is the cost of that energy nonetheless continues to rise. But having said that we think we have a responsibility to our soldiers as lightening your load. Like her our friends in the marine corps we have reduced weight and the necessary equipment for battery usage. We have solar blankets that can be used in just about any climate to charge various radios, to charge our battery supplies. Significantly lessening the load and we have also through the use of more efficient engines caused the need to resupply for fuel brought forward much less demanding, much fewer occasions. Again to the strategic aspects of this as secretary mavis said this is a matter of esb environment but its also saving dollars and i would be happy to provide you Additional Information on how we have done that back home. I would appreciate that. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Nguyan. Thank you mr. Chairman i appreciate this panel being here today. Its always good to see all of you. Appreciate your service but this question is directed to secretary james. Its in reference to the champ system. Come restricted air force to develop the champ system on a Cruise Missile on the fy14 and added 10 million to the fy16 on the misappropriations to build the system. The capability of cocom has asked for, as this committee for and right now it is a costeffective way and you talk about affordability obviously and we are looking to save money in areas where we can but its very costeffective for us than then very expensive for adversaries to try to defeat. America is leading the world in technology at the moment but nations are catching up at a time when we really dont need that and we certainly shouldnt delay deployment of this particular Weapon System. Despite the obvious benefits and the lowcost timeliness of the closing of the Technology Gap and authorization appropriation outright encouragement by this congress and i was briefed earlier this year that the air force is not fully committed to building champ by 2016. This is not a limitation on technology, authority or funding so please tell this committee and myself if there is any reason to air force cant deliver champ in 2016 . Mr. Nugent im going to yield to the cheap because ive met i dont know great deal about this program but its one im going to look into more based on your bringing this to her attention but i will yield to the chief on this. [inaudible] to look at a new way of moving this. Thank you. If using this weapon on a platform that is actually going to be operational. The second thing not to do is maturation of the technology. He wanted to be more efficient. We wanted to be more effective and more survivable so thats the nearterm focus. We want to produce a family of electromagnetic weapons of the idea of walking away from the concept is simply not true. One of the problems we have had that is made is inefficient in Getting Started on this program and this is me offering opinion to you sir we have built were for capabilities and to separate portfolios so what are e5 data on air staff is in recognizing this problem several months ago he directed across functional study to bring our Electronic Warfare folks in our weapons boosters together which is where champs has to work and asked to give him a study on the future of the weapons approach. Its due this summer so we will be informed of summer on this but to your specific question do we plan to produce this weapon by fy16 no sir. Was amazing to me general with all due respect is that the system has been tested and works on the Current System that we have, the Cruise Missile and we have some inventory because we had because of the imf treaty and it works. There are also increased capability of the system. Obviously they are not in a classified setting to talk about that increase to it but the cocoms have indicated to get it out in the field today is better than while yes it would be great to have a usable platform the future and i think the air force should continue on that venture but to get it out into the field in a relatively short period of time at a relatively low cost by using an existing platform, its a stopgap. Its something you fit in knowing full well that the longterm goal is you need to have longterm approach but today it would give the warfighters, the navy and the army and those that will need that capability right now and right now i mean in terms of within a year or two versus 10 years out in development. Congressman munitions in general are a major issue for us right now. The funding are prioritizing precision weapons we have used in the past 15 years and our stocks ever pleaded markedly. I would love to have the folks on my staff come and sit and talk to you and get your view of this problem and how you see the future for it and then sit and tell you exactly where we are in this study effort. Would that be fair . That would be fair. Thank you. Mr. Brown. Thank you mr. Chairman. My questions they are directed to secretary mabus and admiral howard. I have appreciated the time you spend in my district. Your remarks on the christening of the montgomery were just fabulous. Thank you. Secretary mabus what are the likely impacts to the full combat ship program of slowing or breaking production for fiscal year 16, 17 and 18 as we develop upgrades for fy19 . There are and full Cereal Production now. We have driven the cost down because of that from a beginning cost for a hole of about 800 million and now the ones coming off the line are about 350 million. If you break that serial production if you break that block by you number one blues some very skilled craftsmen. Its very hard to get that back. The Industrial Base impacts are enormous. Number two you and the economies of scale that we have now. And the ability to do these ships one after the other. Number three, after the Small Surface combatant task force looked at how to make the ships more lethal, more survivable, we came up with a package after an exhaustive look at every possible type of ship, every possible type of upgrade that for about 75 million per ship is going to be far more lethal and far more survivable and you can fit it onto this whole. But to keep those dollars go through the costs and upgrade costs in those bounds at all you have to keep the serial production going. You have a production break, you are going to be looking in the first of the ship class far more expensive. Youre going to be looking at job training that you will have to do because you will have lost so many these tradesmen. It would be not only for the lcs and the frigate that will be the same ship just upgraded, i cannot overemphasize how devastating it would be too great production for economic reasons because you are going to end up getting fewer ships at a much higher cost. So any economies that might think you were getting would just disappear. I think i use the term its a bizarre way to approach shipbuilding. Theres also warfighting and operations but when you slow down the billing of the ships we are building the ships to replace our countermeasure capability. They will replace the frigates and the last of our frigates are being decommissioned this year. That the ship right now coupled with the fire scout tremendous isr capability potential she is going to bring flexibility and agility to our mission sets in the longer we set up that gap is the frigates go away the less we can offer to the cocoms needs. Cnet finally congresswoman we have a need demonstrated need for 52 of these Small Surface combatants. We will not get there under the current budget under the current build plan until 2028. We will be low in terms of these for the next more than a decade. And some comment about the fact that we have this redesign coming from the task force and looked at it. Is that par for the course that we change ships as when to stand the circumstances that brought back for example both are ddgs and virginia class ever and we have had to make redesign changes learning things in the new circumstances out there so is it any different with regard to the redesign of the lcs to become a frigate or is it just are responding to them their second new circumstances we discovered . You are quite right that is the essence of modernization for our services and for capital ships that certainly takes an amount of time. The genius of lcs was to create the mission packages, the Weapon System separate from the platform so we could more quickly adjust to emerging threats. I just want to thank you both because i know how hard you have worked for the fleet in general but my particular concern has been the lcs and i appreciate your leadership on that. You will have the continued support of this congressman and i yield back. Ms. Stefanik. Thank you mr. Chairman thank you to all the witnesses here today. I want to direct my question to secretary mchugh. And recently a Senate Hearing you said because sequestration army will reduce its end strength to unconscionable levels by 2019 likely losing another six brigade combat teams and potentially at Division Headquarters along with associated effects to support infrastructure. As you know very well for drum is home to the tenth Mountain Division which im provision represented near for so many years represent with great honor and an exceptional record. Its extremely unique in terms of its training capabilities power projection and regional location in order to support our armed forces. This installation has already experienced these devastating cuts firsthand. With the deactivation of one of its brigades dilapidated world war ii era buildings still being used in the potential loss of 16,000 soldier and civilian jobs due to another round of sequestration in the bca . These cuts as you know would have a huge Economic Impact on new york and the northeast as a whole. For drum is a training hub for all Service Branches and houses the armys most deployed Division Since 1990. Because of the potential cuts to Training Facilities and troop count due to sequestration would he be able to give us your thoughts on how these cuts to fort drum and other installations like it would impact the armys current and future missions overseas . Thank you congresswoman and best wishes. Representing a place i obviously think is very special. As i said in my opening comments to reality of sequestration is simply this. Virtually every post, every camp, every station every program that the army conducts will see significant reductions. Mathematically its inescapable. And that includes fort drum. We are blessed as an army to have a great plethora if you will of amazing bases in places like the North Country in your district support and provide a credibly effective Training Ground and a very welcoming home. But what we are faced with as all of us have said here today are the realities of the numbers that the budget would provide and 420,000 as you know we are currently looking at possible reductions for our Major Military installations of up to 16,000. So that is in play. I think there is an irony here. I went through three base closure rounds and i understand how painful they are. I lost a base in Plattsburgh New York thanks to the great efforts of that community. That part of the world came back but it wasnt easy and it took a lot of hard work so i recognized and fully understand the hesitancy of many members. But heres the reality. Without support supportive base closure round wherefores rather than to take excess infrastructure where we believe it exists and spread these cuts almost innate Peanut Butter kind of fashion across all bases cross all installations and its not just a matter of end strength. Its to the point that you made our ability or inability really to keep up the facilities that our are soldiers and families rely upon and call home. This is a very dangerous spiral which we find ourselves. While ultimately as a military we are most concerned with leading the Nations Defense needs. Sequestration is a cheap and i both testified we feel we cant meet the defense strategic guidance but its also a question of the inability of seaquest sequestration levels of providing a good home and adequate Training Facilities like we currently enjoy in places such as for drum. I agree with your concerns about sequestration. I have been a strong voice against the seaquest are in terms of the longterm impact on our readiness and it puts our troops lives at risk. So thank you very much for your service. Both to the North Country but to this country. Thanks. Thank you for yours. Ms. Mcsally. Thank you mr.