General Fraser, was this proposed change developed in full collaboration with the Marine Corps?

It is critical, is it not, to modernization?

I think it has been a very effective and not only cost-effective but a very strong way for us to represent our interests in a collaborative way around the world.

General Fraser, were these readiness risks associated with this proposed MPF reduction included in the DOD risk assessment that is being finalized?

These are very dangerous individuals if they are as they've been reported by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.

I had an amendment in that said even to go to reduced operating status, that the Commandant of the Marine Corps would do an assessment on the impact on readiness.

I'm deeply troubled, Admiral, when you tell me that if we allow, this Congress, sequestration to go forward that our fleet could be in a position where it would go from 285 capacity to 235.

We are certainly taking on additional risk with this.

One of the concerns that I have is it delays, for example, production of one Virginia-class submarine.

having good financial data and making sure that our DOD is auditable I think has to be a top priority for us.

So we'll have a nine-submarine shortfall in 2030 if we continue with the proposed build rate that we have in this budget?

How important will the Virginia payload module be in addressing at least a portion of this looming gap in undersea strike capabilities?