John McCain

With a range of alternatives to petroleum already commercially viable and in use, why should the Navy subsidize the development of biofuel refining capability over any other reasonable alternative energy solution?

I am committed to ensuring we provide the best trained and equipped Marine units to Afghanistan.

The Marine Corps needs a minimum of 38 amphibious ships.

I understand that the Navy will be requesting a $33.8 million ATR to cover increased research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) costs on the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS).

But no additional purchases?

I won't pursue this except to say that, what is your confidence that the F-35 will not experience further cost overruns?

Secretary Mabus, as you know, the LCS combat capability comes from the integration of three interchangeable types of mission modules into the seaframes--not the seaframes by themselves.

Construction of the follow-on Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) seaframes (LCS-3 and -4) is almost finished--with their costs leveling out at about $400 million each.

I just want to add my voice at the end of the hearing, in support for these creative initiatives.

But, the force reductions the Marine Corps proposes may result in the loss of combat-experienced Marine Corps noncommissioned officers.

The Marine Corps maintains its operational forces at a high level of readiness.

What is the Navy doing to enable it to reactivate at a later date the seven cruisers it plans to retire early?

It is critical to change the minimum requirement from 32 amphibious warships to 33 over the next year.

The cost to complete construction of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carrier has overrun significantly.

Our goal is the Nation's security. Those are not always the same.

What we saw is the argument made: well, heck, they cost more in the short run.

They fill in a vacuum that exists in the private sector. They fill a vital need.

Has there been unexpected cost growth in the CVN-71 RCOH, and, if so, please explain the reasons for this cost growth;

I have been watching this aircraft since 2001 and I've watched the cost overruns now.

I don't believe it's the job of the Navy to be involved in building and involved in new technologies.

Believe me, we acted, as is our responsibility, because of our intense frustration about the lack of progress on this issue.

I will seek to act on amendments on the floor to try to prevent this kind of waste of the taxpayers' dollars.

I want to tell you for sure that until we get that independent assessment there should be no concrete plans made by the Secretary of Defense or DOD until we have a chance to examine an independent assessment.

The administration is proposing a reduced defense budget at a time when the challenges to our security are arguably more daunting than at any time in recent memory.

Just to put things in perspective on the F-35 again, we started the program in 2001. The cost estimates for 2,456 aircraft were going to be $238 billion.