thornberry. [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. for the last three national

defense authorization acts especially acquisition reform has been a major priority. the purpose is to gain more value for the taxpayers out of the money spent but even more importantly to make it apart more agile and dealing with a variety of security challenges it faces. secretary mattis has testified or technological position has eroded in recent years compared with our leading adversaries. we confront threats that don't conform to traditional notions of warfare and the historical evidence indicates we have may well be a fit them of our own success. as one writer put it when looking at the inner war years the losers were forced to re-examine everything. military losers are intellectual radicals. the winners complacent in victory feel the need for self-examination far less. the answer is the department

must work to be more innovative in technology, in policies and in thought. one of the many books offering advice sums it up with a chapter titled that is innovate or die. that has been the goal of the reforms in recent years and other reform proposals for the fy19 nea that i'm releasing today. we are privileged to have two witnesses who are superbly qualified to help guide our efforts as well as those of the department in the quest to develop innovation. one of the reforms we enacted two years ago was to create an undersecretary for research and engineering to be the primary driver of innovation in the department. dr. michael griffin was confirmed in that position about two months ago and among other things is the former administrator. dr. eric smith is the chairman of the defense innovation board and formerly chairman and chief executive officer of google

where he remains a technical adviser. he is here however only in his capacity with the defense innovation board. we are very grateful to have both of you here. i might alert members that after , immediately after this open hearing lou obery convened and classified session to go into greater detail about some of these issues. let me at this point yield to the gentlelady from california who is the acting ranking member. >> thank you mr. chairman and i certainly appreciate the chairman's calling this hearing on the need for more innovation technology development and we are honored to have both of you here today as witnesses on this critically important topic. we been talking about for a long time but actually addressing it in a way that is going to

continue to make a difference is part of what we want to see happen. maintaining a culture of innovation does matter. innovation ensures servicemembers have the technology they need and innovation has the power to win tomorrow's wars. we must continue to promote a culture looking for new ways and being willing to accept the risk and trying something different and constantly looking ahead rather than behind. we also know the department of defense cannot go to loan. they must work with private sector and academia for investments in s.t.e.m. education programs to develop talent and future tech leaders with policies that promote an environment in which global public institutions and industry can thrive.

i had an opportunity to meet with dr. schmidt and i want to thank you because it provides a reality for us and how we continue to do many of these that we have been working on but also build an architecture that's going to bring us into the future and certainly respond to the needs of the men and women who go to war on behalf of our country. look forward to hearing your testimony today. thank you. i yield back. >> without objection both of your witness statements will be made a part of the record. i do want to comment dr. griffin that nobody has read yours because we just got it and i realize when you are an administration official it has to be cleared by all these different levels but whatever the administration it's

important for those involved in getting us written statements and getting them timely arose there is no use in doing it. again nobody has read your statement because i think it just came at some point this morning. i'm not fussing at you but i'm fussing at all those layers that are responsible. it's the good summary of our acquisition problem. you have all these layers of people that have to prove something and it takes a long time. maybe that's an appropriate analogy for the innovation topic today. we are grateful to both of you for being here and dr. griffin, the floor is yours. ..

we can foster and innovation. the reality is that we live in a time of global access to technology and access to scientific talent. it is no longer preeminently concentrated here in america. the air, land, sea, space cyber domains have dramatic advances throughout the world. these advances coupled with our adversaries commitment they demonstrated pace of

experimentation and fielding that as president far outstrips our own pace presents a formidable challenges to those operating around the globe. it is the erosion of the u.s. technological superiority that led to the establishment of the position i now hold as the secretary for research and engineering. our search is to ensure that we maintain our technological edge and i'm honored to be here today to talk with you about that. i believe that i come to the con reasonably in the threats that face the united states today and i am indeed concerned. we are in a constant competition in a world that has no equal access to technology and innovation will remain important always, that speed becomes the differentiating factor.

greater speed in translating technology into the old capability is where we can achieve and maintain our technological edge. we must seek innovation not only in our technology but in our process. i look forward to instilling a culture that embraces a more agile approach to development. and with that said i would be remiss if i didn't highlight any enterprise that consists of the labs and engineering and warfare centers. in academia and the industry both small and large business given us the military capabilities that we enjoy today and that will give us the ones we will need in the future. the department is addressing critical technology capability gaps through a combination of adaptation of existing systems

and the development of innovative technologies through the labs and centers and other entities. artificial intelligence, machine learning, space technology, microelectronics and these areas are not just important to the department, but they are the focus of global industry. pursuing the practices and organizational structures to support the culture of innovation. earlier this year, deputy secretary of defense said everyone once innovation that innovation is messy.

from my own background when i had possibly more enjoyable jos i can certainly say that it is no progress is possible without the willingness to take chances and make mistakes. in the full spectrum of innovation these areas include early-stage research and development, a purpose in commercial anpracticingcommercil technologies for national security purposes, the advancement of technologies to identify our own vulnerabiliti vulnerabilities. new technology demonstrations and experimentation and prototyping. our adversaries are presenting

us today with a renewed challenge of a sophisticated evolving threat we are in turn prepared them at preparing to meet the challenge and restore the technological overmatch of the united states arme armed fos that we have traditionally held. thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this critical issue and i look forward to your questions. >> thanthank you although i cant imagine the job would be more enjoyable than what you have now. thank you for being here. thank you mr. chairman and i completely agree with what was just said. i think it's crucial for the nation. i've worked with a group of volunteers the last couple of years to take a look at innovation and overall military and my conclusion is that we

have fantastic people trapped in a very bad system and i am concerned about you all are not going to get what you think you're going to get because of the system i might start with a couple simple examples. we just upgraded our computer, we upgraded from windows 95 to windows xp which was delivered in 2001. the job by the way was to watch for eight hours a day goes on xp computers. to find the chain of command to fix this obvious vibration in the department around. we visited more than 100 sites. one of the sites we visited, we

had 20 officers of various kinds, and we had a presentation on the innovation occurring. a programmer gets up and shows us the development methodology, quotes from the book and talks about how it's done right and sounds great. we discover there's only two people on the basis of his officers in charge but even worse, they won't be able to do more programming and can figure out a way to swap so this person can stay in the base. we are in a secret briefing for the opponent in the world by a very talented crypto expert who says he's being transferred to a different base and won't be able to work on crypto anymore. this is a state of the talent of our young people and why many of them are leaving for the private

sector. they want to serve. one of the new generation airplanes have a potential software problem we were asked to look at and we discovered it has a first-generation processor in the airplane that had been deployed but they are excited about a new version coming out in approximately 2024 which will be out of date when it is delivered. when questioned by the team, the rules were so constraining that they didn't have a choice of. i can give you example after example. innovation definitely exists, but there is no mechanism or incentive for the way that it is to have adopted. and in fact if i can make a strong statement, it violates pretty much every rule in the product development. it's developed and finalized before the production starts.

you start and learn from your mistakes and so forth and that is called agile development and it is impossible to do because of the way the rules are set up a. the way the software is done, you write and wait for the software to show up and make sursure it meets all the specs d then the contractor goes away because it is precisely what you don't want now. if you were in 2001 and asked to write for the equivalent of a smart phone in 2018, none of the technologies that are in the smartphonsmart phone that you hy were effectively available in one form or another at the time and yet that is how we do almost all of the procurements. once a decade means the hardware

will mean the software has to be rewritten and that is what drives the craziness. once certified, a system cannot be changed. they were using a protocol. wouldn't it be obvious to have a computer and military programmer take the protocol and expose an answer that was useful to the air fighter. we are inside a secret society. you have a military programmer and they are not allowed to put that in the network interface absolutely. the whole thing was certified as unchanging. again a complete lack of understanding of how it was for. the model where they outsourced to contractors has served us for the large weapons programs but

it doesn't work for the kind of stuff i'm talking about a. the resources are out of the dark ages like out of the 1970s. people waited for hours and the networks are slow and it's a violation of the concept of an abundance computer resource that allows people to build flexible systems. the computer scientists, which we can find very man can't finde not a separate track. imagine if the way you did doctors and nurses in the military helped him become a or nurse for siwonders for six mond transferred them back out as a separate profession and its obvious computer science and programming should be a separate discipline with appropriate training hierarchy and so forth. there are two systems that should have been interconnected but they built it this way and so we have soldiers literally enlisted professionals that we

in our country have asked to join the military. then they read the number and type it over here and read the number here and type it over here. this is the easiest of all of the computer programming problems. and again a small programming team can do that on the weekend and it is system is not able to do that for the military. enormous efficiencies. since every decision is protested, there's a risk of strategy where not much risk is taken because every military makes the decision they know they will spend another year or two in some kind of contest and it just goes on and on. this group feels strongly that this is not okay but let's say you thought this was like okay things are fine the country is going well, it's important to note how at least one potential

adversary is investing extremely heavily and graphically in artificial intelligence and announced publicly that by 2030 the goal was to be a leading force in the world. so there are competitive countries and challenges that we need to address. we can talk about what to do and a routine produced a list of approximately 15 recommendations which the leadership indicated they agree with and these are consistent in the thing and thei talked about, things like the combatant commanders to have 100 engineers to fix things that software should be a separate process, but there should b thaa program of psychological safety where people are encouraged to take risks without losing their jobs and in fact people could be promoted because they took risks as opposed to not taking risks which is part of the culture,

trying to organize around of data through the artificial intelligence to do anything you need the data to train against. the construction and sending up of a center my personal view is a skewed couple of years ago was very sharp with doctor griffin and his team. i can also tell you that the secretary understands this very well and they are very committed to addressing these issues so i think we have strong leadership on the military side and you are all very concerned about this, so these are problems that can be addressed. thank you very much. >> just very briefly, do you largely agree with diagnosis? >> it would be difficult for me to agree more strongly with him.

the way that we decide what we want to buy in the defense department before committed to buying it has been broken for some years which is why as you said you created the position that you did. i made a couple of notes here with comments about the iterative development of software. i couldn't agree more i used to be a software developer that software is never done. i would offer the following. hardware development is done in the same way. you build a little, test a little, find where it breaks and then move on. then it's time to write the

requirements. requirements. in the department we have a fixed process where we develop capabilities. the way the real engineers do it is you prototype hardware capabilities and bee then basedn the capabilities you write the requirements for the production system, so iteration in the hardware world is as important as the software world. it makes sense if you hear it. it's what's write down what we want. if the government will procure that and we will get what we want. the problem is that it produces outcomes that are not learning outcomes. there is no feedback system and

the cycles and development in the general procurement have been increasing up to say ten, 12, 15 years which ultimately causes us to miss the mark in the first place. by the time you have the hardware, you no longer want it because it is out of date. let me just ask each of you to address one other issue. it's been suggested to me to have not only a culture above and ecosystem that fosters innovation and a central element that is small to midsize businesses willing to disrupt things and the suggestion that's been made as we make it too hard for these small disruptive businesses to ever get into the dod system. there's a program called sbr, whatever that stands for, but spends a lot of money and get things started very little of it ever gets picked up in a program. so i would appreciate each of

you commenting on whether the department of defense we need to have these small disruptive businesses and how well we are doing at getting them and bringing them into the system. >> i agree most of the disruption that occurs in the technology system comes from small and medium-sized businesses. we see the ones that succeed if we don't see that fails. ultimately they may get bought if they are successful by larger contractors. i am not one to say we don't neeneed the industrial base.

part of the difficulty coming up we are in the defense department and the government at large we are not user friendly for small and medium-sized firm's that lack the systems that are not compatible with the defense contracting auditing agency and defense contracting management agency. it requires a bath of corporate overhead. and this time last year i was running such a company can it requires a lot of corporate overhead to deal with what we do in government. why do we do thos the things in government backs so that we in the executive branch can demonstrate that we can account for every penny. we go through so much trouble making sure that no miss

spending of money is possible that we actually create a larger mistake and we freezeout the innovators wh who may be their accounting systems are not up to snuff him u, but the innovatione and we'll leave those behind in an effort to make sure the systems are perfect. if we could find a way to do more dealing on a commercial transaction basis where as a commercial entity the accounting system is your problem. my interest is to make sure that you deliver those things on time. if we have more focus on outcomes in the list on the process i think that in the department, we could do better.

>> they focus on the small businesses to try to augment the larger systems. there are groups in example the software groups. most innovation isn't going to come from these companies by the tradition that is how they differentiate themselves. all of them complained that the cost of compliance to the rules of procurement is overwhelmingly difficult. they don't have the money or the people were so forth whereas the larger companies do.

have you had a chance in your reviews to look at this program >> everything they can do to encourage more choices in terms of innovation is a good thing. whether it is individual contracting it is possible for example to higher small teams of software people who if you can hire to the normal military process in a special consulting arrangement of that should be tried. and i want to emphasize what was said about this need to track every dollar. i will give you an example. sitting with a senior four-star general, i said in a very nice and polite way, you are a very powerful guy. why can't you get a team of 50 people in your huge budget to do the things you are complaining to me about and he said i did,

and they were taken away from me. i said you have got to be kidding. so, there's something in the system that is a scavenging function that's taking the small groups that are interesting and innovative and under the control of the most senior military leaders taking them away from them that is not smart. >> a plot to go through. >> thank you mr. chairman. it's discouraging when we hear also that you were able to find a two generals i believe who got it and get were not able to make that happen. can you talk about in your experience in the private sector obviously we have a lot of exchanges bringing people into the military, bringing military into the private sector.

are we using every advantage that we have two that? are there ways that we can do a better job of building that human capital said that there is a real understanding of the roles upon another place. sometimes folks in the military might think they don't have to worry about the things we have to worry about a. prior to people getting into the service for that matter that we could try to bring some of that to to their. >> i like to think of it as a large corporation. the problems are a very large corporation. the defense department has something called the digital service, which is a good example

where patriotic men and women both take a year or two off of their current jobs if they give permission to do so obviously and they come in and fix problems. the service is very successful and very small 20, 30, 40 people we need 100, 200 or 300. given the way the government in general the software in particular, these kind of programs are effective and i would encourage the expansion. corporations are not going to hand over their top talent but there's enough motion in the system where people are willing to take a leave for work. in order to do this as long as it is time limited. time-limited. you emphasize the importance of stem education. it's clear that it is more of an

emphasis on stem education of all kinds, community college etc.. >> these are all things that we think are good to do and some of them of course are being done. we need to scale that back more. do you see, and i know that you are in this position somewhat new under this rubric. does it actually transfer when the people have had those experiences that are required based processes in the military does that get in the way of people taking those good ideas and being able to deal with it or are there more people that would understand this in the end of thathat would be the differee between how we move forward in the future acts of >> there are a lot of important

questions contained in the one question you asked. that is quite broad. first of all, the individuals that come in for these experiences and then go on to have a new life, they give valuable transfers of ways. as said earlier, we have fantastic people in the government and laboratory networks. and my experience is as good as those that can be found in the commercial industry. it is as he said the syste systh they reside. they gave an example of a four star that wanted to do something and the resources were taken away. just a couple of weeks ago i was having a conversation with another four-star and we were commenced trading on the drone threat and he said to me in

almost a rhetorical conversation, why can't i just have some money and buy some drones of my own and put my guys on the problem of figuring out a counterattack and let them step out and break some drones and find an approach that works? i said i couldn't agree with you more but i'm an undersecretary and you are a four-star and neither of us has the power to route money to allow people to do what you just said. it is the system in which we are trapped. in private industry, i once ran a gps company. if it hadn't been successful, i probably wouldn't be here today. if i have to g had to go througs of permission groups that we

have to go through in the department to catalog and advance, i wouldn't be here today. i would be out of business. it is the system in which our innovators are trapped. it's not the quality of the innovations. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you all for being here. ..

>> he doesn't really have much in the way of specific directive authority to control what is or is not done. it's more the power to persuade. i hope i am an effective persuader. >> i hope so too. can you tell me what your thoughts are about corn any better? >> you hit my number one hot button. i may have mentioned that my confirmation testimony. i will say my opinion today the most significant advanced by our adversaries has been the chinese

development of what is today a mature system for conventional prompt strike. we will with today's defensive system not see these things, they can come from any direction. will not see them coming beyond several hundred kilometers. once inside that range we have little time left to respond. it's a tactical system that has strategic import for the nation because if employed could have the effect of limiting our ability to project power in a maritime domain. as you know, you know how important our ability to sustain

battle groups another maritime domain assets is to the projection throughout the world. we must respond with our own offensive capability and we must develop offensive capability. >> i feel strongly about directed energy. this technology is pretty mature, but it needs more focus and attention. i'm concerned that is being developed in three different areas instead of focused. what are your thoughts on why it's been spread across the programs. >> i'm not knowledgeable of the history to know how we got where

we are. in business school they teaches that some costs are irrelevant anyway. my mission is to go forward across the department. right behind the hypersonic threat and concern were not leveraging our technical advantage. within a few years i want the nation to have a hundred kilowatt class laser to be deployed on the striker. i went several hundred on air force tanker to defend itself. by the latter part of the next decade i want a device that can go in space and protect us against enemies strategic missiles. there within our grasp if we focus our efforts.

>> i want what you just described so get after it. >> thank you and good morning to our witnesses. thank you for being here. i think the testimony is an important discussion we are having. i have a privilege of serving on the subcommittee and we're primary jurisdiction over all of the -- so, the more we can do to cut out the red tape and accelerate the programs the better of our nation will be. what is needed for innovation in the department, which is the most imperative and has the recommendation been adopted?

and seen it come to fruition. >> many recommendations are in the internal reviews. they will implement as many as they can. the one that's gotten the greatest information is the one around the area ai center. the nature of ai is a long-term technology useful for offensive practices as well. the creation of that is under review. were recommending that can be done in conjunction with the university of some kind to try to make sure it's world-class. >> how do you feel innovation can be scaled? >> you can systematize it by doing reviews and decision

cycles. the biggest mistake is continuing something that doesn't work. you want to fast fail. i would suggest the government spend time doing reviews that are rough. it's very difficult to cancel anything. yet the budgets are fully allocated. talking about lots of other things are doing. >> 's a good segue in turn next question. in the future conflict will include railgun and we recently had a conversation about these topics at my office and i think about the courtesy call when you

came by. it's not just us pursuing these capabilities, i have a series are investing heavily as well. do we need to be more aggressive in our pursuit of these and how can we better promote a culture more excepting a failure this pursuit within the department of defense? >> the first thing that pops into my mind about instituting a culture more excepting of failure from the heart what we need to understand is that it's not failure to learn that something we tried did not work on the way try major goal. if our goal i know you're interested about the weapons. my goal a decade from now is to give the u.s. dominance and

missile-defense in the world by means of having a megawatt class laser, that's my goal. failures failure to reach that cold. not failure to try out different approaches to reach the goal and having them break along the way as long as i don't lose sight of my strategic goal that i'm can have a mega white leisure in ten years. breaking hardware to that goal is not a failure. in fact i'm tempted to say always it's often the quickest way to get to where you want to be. there's a cultural mindset that in the course of trying to prevent small failures along the

way that we miss the grand goal. >> thank you. we of course have to work and be supportive of these innovative efforts. as long as were taking these journeys together when a failure occurs is something that we can take these together and understand what we want to get to. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank you. thank you for joining us today. doctor griffin, you spoken repeatedly about the role hypersonic swordplay in the area of the competition between the united states russia and china. he also said there your highest priority. he said i'm sorry for everyone out there who champion some other priority.

not that i disagree with those but there has to be a first. hypersonic says my first. other than funding, how do you transitional he get that redirection to the point where were not only catching up but surpassing our adversaries? >> command that i have a good list of priorities that come to us other than national defense strategy released in january. i'm not often a fan of government assessments. it gives me my marching orders if you will. and the nds did call out hypersonic's. and i have emphasized that. to be honest, this nation's

earlier research work and hypersonic systems development was basically what are abaci you refuse to fuel their own systems. it's time for us to renew our emphasis in these areas in a coordinated way to develop systems based on land based and see and later based on aircraft. we know how to do these things. this is a country who produced an atom bomb in three years from the day we decided to do it. we can do anything we need to do that physics allows. we just need to get on with it. >> in your role you look at different opportunities. one that has evaded us is how do

we take needs within the department of defense and combine it with the innovation and creation that exists within the outside community. look to invest in those that have not been connected with dod. there's an application on what we do to accelerate those technologies. >> the dod is extremely top-down. it has roughly ten deep pockets. the militaries tried to organize the activities in the bucket. to crucial signal to say work in this area.

the next thing is a new approach to a problem. it's with the current lack is. the people running those parts are not technologists, their generalists. they don't have some to say that there's a new way to solve the problem. i have to do is look over here. i've champion to bake-off since so far. think you're one of the people that bring this into the dod. he won't be successful without the rest being in alignment with these areas and calling him looking for these things. >> one final question, in this era we are not going to be where we were in the past. that's out resource our opponents.

where we will prevail today is that we must be able to do more with our currency then are adversaries too. what's your perspective on how to start down the path to do that. he spoke about sp in the creators and innovators but how do we truly prevail? >> were not out of innovators, were out of time. it is about pace. we must mass the pace our adversaries are demonstrating today. a few weeks ago i had private time with the chairman. he asked me the question you asked. i often pop off with the wrong trademark but i said we can either retain our national

preeminence or retain our processes but you cannot have both. we've got a thin out the structure like weeds in your favorite garden. nothing else actually matters. if we don't then that out nothing will matter. >> i would like to explore that last question. when we developed the atomic bomb we controlled that process when we developed the space program the government controlled it. to catch up or to lead in ai on computing and machine learning we don't control that. it's largely been driven by the private sector.

the fundamental question i have is is there moneyball question are really going to be hitting singles and doubles or do we get into an issue where hitting home runs and actually able to do a government investment in quantum computing in ai that's big enough to set the foundation. otherwise we rely on the private sector to do that. the private sector might not want that. >> the private sector will end with the grace of god in this country do what will do well for them. >> i agree.

the question is how we of the department can take on some of the advancements in making put our money tasks that we went on for us technologies. doctor schmidt mentioned the advantage having ten buckets of priority development is that when venture capitalists can see the department putting money there they will do likewise. emphasizing ai through an aa center we in the department are not trying to build up ai were trying to build it up for defense problems. i believe that industry specialists will be attracted to our challenges. >> with the return on investment?

>> for the private sector the investments being made are fundamental to the future of those industries. i assure you that. >> for them it's very clear. i'm talking about the roi for them to have dod either invested in or for dod to utilize that technology which may or may not be proprietary. >> historically they kick started many that i've been a part of. so it's funding key investments so we benefit from fundamental research. if it's a question of a military program needs to be looked at as a cost-benefit. my answer to this is more.

in ai center which were proposing run by the dod benefits the private sector because it puts more many into working on hard problems. >> my concern is less about anyone military program. it's about the foundational technology investment is a government we don't control that like we did with the atomic bomb or the space program. we were the first in the market but were not the first in the market on ai. i'm trying to get pastor get through talking about the dds sort the sco borrowing people

are technologies to utilize something new talking more about the foundational ones that you have to invest in to be where you want to be in five years on directed energy. we don't seem to control that is much because of the great innovative system we have. it's a fundamental challenge i would like to have a better answer to. >> again, the relationship between the tech industry and research funding has been profound. as a graduate student i was on the grant and the more basic research that you can fund across the sciences it does

benefit the military mission and benefits the defense of our nation. it may be indirect. every conversation we had started off with some form of government or national science foundation funding for the research that created it. >> i want to bring up with the chairman brought up earlier. we received the testimony at 9:20 a.m. that makes it difficult for us to do our job. this is more commonplace. if we don't get the testimony in a timely manner. you gave me the talk about the drones. neither one of you had the authority to do it both of you thought needed to be done in

regard to procurement of potential wargames with drones. my question gets back to is it real or perceived that you don't have the authority? show me the language that prohibits you from doing what you and the four-star want to do? >> first of all i apologize for being late with the testimony. i will endeavor to see that does not happen again. the fault is mine. i will remedy it. with regard, there's no language in the law prohibiting me from doing what you suggested. there is no language that

specifically gives myself for this particular four-star the permission to do it. absent the documented permission to do its presumed that you cannot do it. it's a cultural issue within the executive branch of the government at large. >> i agree it is cultural. if we as a government will take the position that our dod and the people who run it on the civilian side and personal side have to have the express written permission of congress to do anything then we need to be learning other languages. my question is how do you break that culture because congress does not prohibit you from doing what you agree need to be done. it's a culture and decision made

within the dod to not do things that need to be done. >> unless i can find something in appropriated language and funding that fits the category of this response to swimming drones, unless i can find money appropriated for that purpose and authoress for that purpose, i don't have a chain of permission going to the top of the government that allows me to do these things. absent that clear path for the use of money by definition i'm using it inappropriately. >> the example with the army, the army took ten years to buy a new pistol.

when you ask the army why it took ten years they can't answer the question. the bureaucracy built upon a bureaucracy. a lot of blame goes on. one of my concerns is as we work on these issues and i know you're tuned in to the private sector. whether or not it you it will be uniform or civilian personnel that are the best solution for us in the program aspect of things. even in the civilian personnel gs seven starting pays $37000 here. that someone with a college degree. how do we compete with those pay scales what are your thoughts on

uniform versus -- in the fields. >> were fortunate that people are willing to look for low wages to solve these problems and they'll do so until they feel their ideas are ignored by their bosses and then they leave to go to higher-paying opportunities in the private sector. if we want this long term we need softer budgets through contractors were there being paid market wages. legally achievable just not tennis practice. >> i have the honor of representing a number of universities in my district including uc santa barbara.

these institutions participate in research opportunities offered by the department of defense. the experience has been rewarding for dod as they enhance the technological edge and to the students. allows students to pursue advanced research and directly impact the security of our nation. i believe it's critical for dod and congress to expand these partnerships as part of the efforts to promote the culture of innovation. secretary griffin and schmidt, how important are these partnerships and enhancing innovation? of their new initiatives to expand and create more partnerships such as dod research centers?

>> to the last part of your question i do not know if we have any new partnerships planned or what those plants might be. i'll be happy to look into that. in regard to history i spent 11 years in dod and nasa. i am the strongest possible believer in the value of these laboratories and centers where the u.s. government partners with the university to bring it technology focus on a particular area. so if nasa the dod has a lot of interesting -- we hire caltech to run for the benefit of the taxpayers. it's been extraordinary

productive thing to do. this is what got us where we are. one of my goals is to make sure those partnerships are strengthened and reaffirmed in the future. >> one of the best ways to address the shortfalls is to work more with the leading organizations. i would highlight that uc santa barbara is a center of extraordinary progress on quantum computing. some of the major breakthroughs are coming through the research. >> thank you both. i you back. >> in a full committee hearing last week general alexander who

-- stated the leader in this will be the next superpower. i'm deeply concerned that we must be able to keep pace with adversaries like china. as he stated china has public stated their goal to be the global leader by 2030. what steps do we need to take in addition to research and development to ensure that we can keep pace. can you talk about what were specifically doing with regard to ai? >> as we discussed earlier hypersonic's was the number of first for me.

in order to do ai you need data. the dod has data which is not stored anywhere which the programmers are no longer a live. getting the data in a place that's usable discoverable and useful is crucial. i've highlighted the importance to take the work. the third is that the majority of the contractors used by dod are not ai capable at this moment. they're all working on it. i encourage the specification and current process that needs to actually state what problem they want to solve. an example would be if you're worried about a swarming drone problem with the tommy.

it's a good example of an ai problem. where's the research and the counter drones. those questions need to be asked in a context that causes algorithms to be invented and funded. >> the defense innovation board has recommended that you recommended an ai center. i believe in your hearing recently the secretary affirmed that dod will establish an ai center. that comes under my area. were looking now two things about how we structure, where it should be how we should structure other departmental research to focus through that. these are ongoing questions were

addressing this week. currently i was briefed recently and told we have 592 separate ai related projects across the department. we need to bring focus to all other. >> doctor schmidt, some of the technology companies we've talked with and particularly those contributing in the areas of ai have talked about the reluctance to work with ai. you are familiar with some of the workforces questioning and concern regarding the project. how do we overcome this skepticism? i think the private sector workforces important to leverage the innovations.

>> because of my role in both organizations have been kept out of the particulars my sense of the industry at the industry level is set the industry will come to a set of agreement on ai called principles what's appropriate use and what's not. my guess is there'll be a consensus among key industry players. that process which will take a while will inform how doctor griffin and his team leverage, work with her against the matter of speculation. >> thank you. >> mr. panetta. >> gentlemen, thank you for be

here. play enough the representatives question he talked about outside universities, what about internal defense-related. they contributing to this innovation? so instead of having a top-down were from the bottom up from people within the department of defense. >> one of the goals by the navy is because of its location and history of training top leaders in the navy to have it service and innovation hub and business context that's an objective they have. we support that. in general the educational systems is a broad statement could be improved by working with and sharing abilities with

the public sector universities. one that's private and isolated doesn't serve the military well. training program or open innovation program linked to the educational system serves both sides. >> unfamiliar with postgraduate school. while they are quite good have very specific things, the more they can be linked with their academic cousins outside the department, the more they become, i don't in this disparaging, the more they become in order to ship in the dod the better we will do. there's no argument that taken

in total the american system of higher education is the world's best. it has faults and problems that we need to solve, but taken globally it's the best and we ought to try to promulgate that as much as we can and supported as much as we can. and let it run free. it has done well for us. >> the challenge we face in the government and the military is a deeper training problem than initially appears. many of the approaches are literally being turned on top of each other by changes in technology so i innovative leadership team is a different training program than the leadership or training today.

think about simple things like the acquisition university. that all has to change based on what mike has outlined. thousands of people go through the systems. it's a deeper question than it might initially appear. >> thank you for being here. we had good updates on hypersonic's official intelligence and quantum computing. other areas that we will see technology migrate to. one is the miniaturization of weapons. can you give us an update in that area. eventually remote pilot aircraft will be small.

any updates those efforts? >> i don't know five specific updates. when you have a technological driver you'll generally get results. i started with the best interceptor we could build wait a ton. i don't say that as an exaggeration. it literally weighed 1 ton. the missile defenses we have today they way a couple hundred kilograms. can we make them smaller and lighter, yes my well because our next advance will be a multi- object kill vehicle. as you point out, on manned

aerial vehicles are following this path. not everything needs to be global hawk. >> when were challenge to advance our technology because of adversarial postures we will do that. what this hearing is about as much as anything is reforming our processes to allow the innovations to come forward in a timely way. i think that it's been our central theme. >> to have anything else to add? >> i agree. >> we have robotic type warfare. i've heard that russia puts more emphasis on that than we are. >> i'm unable to address that

question. i do not know the russian posture and robotics. i'm really own only familiar with our own. >> on the f3 five front we've had experience and good progress in tough times, what have we learned out of the f35 that you can apply? >> f35 comes under my counterpart for acquisition and sustainment. i would broadly observe so be careful in my remarks. a program which is bed and work for over two decades, and now performing well it's frankly late to need.

it almost automatically cannot keep pace with the threat. it's well-known on the inside that the software architecture is not one that would've been developed by or leading it providers. it's not the software architecture that another would have provided. there are a number of systemic issues there but i hope will be lessons learned. it would be better for me to stop there. >> anything else to add? >> i think the comments reflect the fact that you think of the f35 and these other programs as hardware programs but there really software programs with hardware attached.

if you thought about it and designed the software in a way you've had a different outcome today. that's at the root of the design and procurement and operational methodology for these systems. think about it is getting the software right in the future and then about what airborne vice to build around it. >> all of these marines have the same. >> thank you. very proud to have a cyber warfare range to train the future warriors. it's a great place a nonprofit

and by design a nonprofit not government run. but something that is made it fairly flexible. also in terms of outputs. if it was a grant program smile. it would be a little slow in terms of adapting to the environment curriculum to be able to retrain and attract students. in this environment we need the cyber warriors to come out as strong and fast as possible. what can we do to encourage that environment especially from top-down in this world when it deals with dod policy versus we need a very aggressive cyber warfare policy. >> the great thing about cyber

warriors is relative to what were talking about their very inexpensive. salaries are relatively low you don't need that many in their brilliant people. i'm beside myself of why we don't have a surplus of such people. they're the cheapest and highest part of our defensive systems. think it's because we don't have a name for them. he doesn't have a line item for doing what you just described. imagine that you could say we would like to have 1000 of this kind of person under the command of the secretary doing useful things. the only way only get that is by doing some form of numeric quote around the people. why don't we simply say we need this many people in the system will produce the top people.

>> out of curiosity, if you had to pinpoint a number what is the amount we would need in this country? >> the general answers a thousand and in the military it's a small multiples of that. >> i offer a few comments in addition. cyber defenses is critically important to the department. a medical out and say that it's even more important to those who guard our economic systems. the department is looking toward bringing a new cio coming in

from the financial industry. we need to do it we can to tap into people who are playing for their own money in this arena. were doing that. eric mentioned my comment that unless i have an appropriated line item i can't spend money on something. if you want to emphasize cyber security and that is a priority, since we agree we don't really know much about what were doing in this area when you give us the authorization to hire these people you can't be too specific about what i have to do with them because i don't know. you have to have trusted us to use the body has the need evolves. we hope to learn more about

cyber defense and offense. but i cannot sit here and tell you that we know what that should look like. >> so then used to be on the dod side and the political side in terms of how we appropriate money. at least give the flexibility and allow people to fail. >> he described the problem. he wants to do something, he can't find a budget item that allows him to find the money to legally spend it. the problem is we have the appropriators. all of whom organized to make sure there is no wasted individual. we can't define what these

people do but they're not expensive compared to the other things. there's certainly things you should be focused on. i encourage you to have a small number of buckets which somebody's looking at you say let them try the experiment. whether hiring people are money to universities their honorable people. >> thank you, i yield back. >> just to clarify, are you talking about x number of people in your organization who you could use as a task force? we have this whole cyber command that does a variety of things we been pouring money and people into that.

>> when i talk about deploying people to a problem i'm not talking about necessarily dod, civilians or military officers. there may be some of those are many of those. i'm really talking about the necessity to engage our laboratories and engage our universities in the flexibility to stand up a cell in the department in the department if we need to the flexibility to put work where it's best on. i'm not talking about going out and hiring thousands of silver servants. >> how do we write something that gives this flexibility as a trial because it will be a challenge for the appropriators to agree to the broad flexibility.

>> with sympathy to this problem i can imagine you saying here's money which is not a large amount and that you reserve the right to review how it spent every six months or so and you're open to how it be spent. we will trust the other side but were going to inspect. i think that's an appropriate view you should take. the problem is for the next six months other people are saying yes and no rather than letting people come up with new ideas and then at the end of the day you would say we got some good things and made some mistakes. mike would then say this works this student will emphasize what

worked. >> that's how innovation works in my industry. >> it's fair to say were part of the problem by complaining when things don't work. that's one of the lessons i've learned in recent years. >> doctor griffin, can you talk if hypersonic scissor number one priority what are the main obstacles you see for more effective development? what are we doing about those an address whether obligations and interpretation are having an impact on the research were doing on hypersonic. >> the inet treaty doesn't hinder our ability to do research.

it would color the logical question is why would you do research on systems that are capable of violating the inf treaty. my answer would have to be our have a series are already in violation. i'm not sure were why were observing the rules of the game. >> would you say that we are observing the rules of the game. >> so far yes and we have been. i think that's a question for the congress. to deal. with regard to systems that we can develop and how to speed things up run a test cycle where every few years we do an advanced experiment. we just had one and it was a brilliant success.

i can't praise them enough for how will they have done. as the new undersecretary the question i'm asking the navy is how soon can i have it and why are we talking about 18 months or two and a half years, why is it not august. the pace of development as we work our way through the system problems to produce it operational system, we need to emphasize development pace. these guys are doing great work. i don't have suggestions to them to improve i wanted tomorrow. i want to know from them what's their impediment so i can help get that out of the way. >> do you have a sense with some of those are?

>> other than what we've talked about our general culture of process and risk avoidance, fear of failure how many times do i have to analyze the system to be sure that when i do a test of will break as opposed to a cultural mindset that says my greatest enemy is time not breaking a piece of hardware. i must add that i am often every time i talk about regaining the pace since bead we used to be known for people think i'm cutting out testing or things like that. i'm not. i want to cut out layers of bureaucratic decision-making were too many people think their opinion matters in the decision process. i don't want to cut out

engineering test. want to cut out the number of people who have a right to an opinion. if that sounds cruel i'm sorry. but that is what needs to go. >> to you have a sense that you have a willing audience in terms of leadership of the department? how will the process work in terms of making this change that's difficult? >> i believe strongly that i have the support of the deputy secretary whose experience i admire. i cannot recall a better team. >> and doctor schmidt, when you find a problem like this function you talk about, what system is in place for you to

say here's the problem and what we need to fix it. >> we have a committee and were not allowed to implement anything. were required to hold public hearings on the we want to speak to. we have good working relationships with those listening to us. but we can't cross implementation line. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> could i clarify, you mentioned that people want to be heard and they do. they believe their opinion is important. there's also a fear of accountability and if i don't do this right or cost the teaser.the ice, how can you smoothed that process which is

that we have to check these boxes in order for me to move it along. is that something that can be done in change? how is it done? >> it can be changed. were a sovereign nation and the department operates within that. we make our own rules. so when it is my best professional judgment i can give you in regards to engineering involvement we have too many boxes to check. if we don't reduce that will never change the time. most of my career has been in government service through laboratories and stretch but i have about a decade and rounding off industry. i can tell you there's a fundamentally different mindset when doing commercial industry

you're responsible for outcome. you not responsible for process. companies that are bound up in process fail and others win. if in government we cannot become more focused on producing the outcomes we seek. >> solving the problem as opposed to proving that you went through the required process, if we can't change that mindset then whichever member said we better learn to speak another language, and with him. >> i've never seen it work another way. . .

a winner and loser in the challenge and people are the pee checking boxes and so forth. this is guaranteed to slow things down. it's predictable. all you'd have to do is allow the meeting that i'm describing to her how innovation works. besought about the area where you would have a world where in the 1970s this one crashed into this one kept reiterating quicklquickly that should be the

mantra and if that is happening, there better be a good reason. >> i represented district code located with the second largest in the country. additionally a key part of the ecosystem are a lot of the businesses that are drivers of innovation in the cyber industry. what i hear from them is how it is to survive the contracting time.

it basically uses a flexible authority to field prototypes and they try to appeal to those where we need the most innovation cyber training medical modeling and those type of things. can you talk about how they should utilize other unconventional acquisition methods to jumpstart innovation can you discuss how they are managed properly? >> congress increased the number and yet the system you are giving isn't using them very much compared to the opportunity before them so our team has

recommended that military miniature. if you set an objective look at how sometimes it needs to be doubled to. the whole purpose is to reduce the box checking.

let me however added that comment. the whole purpose is to get around the system. maybe we should just fix the system. i will leave you with that. that is not in the language in the military.

in the continued systemic problems that are accumulating at a rapid pace they are replaced by a third of the costs don't fall significantly. one of the issues stand was a severe quality difference between industry contracting experts and those in the dod that led to a contract the department still doesn't quite understand. how can the department developed the contracting experts necessary to negotiate better with the industry and how important is the expertise and the future of the u.s. defense? >> as i mentioned earlier, i don't have the 35 under me and have very little knowledge of the program.

is this on the other side of the negotiating table from the contracting? >> i can only say the industry has a lot more money they are allowed to spend on hiring lawyers and contracting officers then does the dod. and it will always be a challenge for us to get people willing to work for the civil service wages to go up against their corporate counterparts. it was mentioned earlier, and it's true, there are very many patriotic individuals who will take a salary cut that is in effect a small percentage of what they can earn in the industry and come to work on behalf of the taxpayer jobs to retain the greatness that we have in this country, but not everyone well and it's a difficult challenge.

i can't say more than that. it's a very difficult challenge. thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you mr. chairman and and gentlemen. we talked a lot today about increasing speed as far as innovation. and one of the things you said if they heard you correctly is when the problems and challenges we face is that so much technology is available to everybody. it's not just ours and yet it is part of the problem that we fa face. whether it is intellectual property that happens to be shared, whether that comes from the commercial side or the department of defense i guess that helps, but that doesn't help a whole lot if it is immediately available to everybody else including your adversaries.

so in terms of how we protect ourselves with what we do come up with and where we see the pitfalls today. >> i guess i can go first. there are certain technologies that should be highly classified that should be that we should try to wall off from others and make sure we are successful at. the way to get ahead and stay ahead is to work faster. even if we have a technological edge you can name the area even if we have an image once the adversary knows a certain thing is possible to do even if they don't have the same property

that we used, they will figure out a way. if they are intent on dominating us, our only recourse is to work harder and run faster and stay ahead and buy this past enhanced by the free open change of market technologies, the unhindered flow of capital to businesses and the dod enterprises that are successful in stopping the things that are not working. if we cannot be more agile than our adversaries in the long run, then they will win and i cannot put it another way. i guess my question is are we doing enough to slow down their speed?

>> there are some things, there are a few more progressive magazine and the economist, which championed as i know remember to the organization a couple of decades ago they now have an extensive article on the chinese practices of holding corporate ip hostage if they want to manufacture in china this is an unfair practice and until and unless the united states and other. we will be handing the i handinr to an adversary so there are some we can do but broadly speaking if we are not prepared to work harder or faster or compete at the technological

edge >> i understand what you're saying that they will catch up at some point anyway the point is to stay ahead and so i think that in a way you were making that recommendation. we don't allow this to happen so readily and quickly and so easily for china to inherit our information technology. >> that is correct we should not be doing deals in which giving up our ip is contingent to the deal. [inaudible] >> is your microphone on? >> i would like to echo the

comments about developing tomorrow's technology and defense leaders through investments and education and other programs that promote innovation. during your testimony today you made observations that were found extremely interesting. one of the issues we talked about today's workforce and that is that not only addresses the current issues that future issues as we move forward and in the needs additionally for the dod in areas like the ai. they've indicated they are 20 or 25 and we need another million people both private and government in that area and

other things we haven't even thought about right now. and you mentioned about the universities they are only going to be as good as the people we send them to and we cannot afford his country to the people behind it have a knowledge potential but lose it because of the inability to get the type of education they need. we talked here in the committeee time and time again about the government cannot d though all f government approach and we don't seem to have the all of america approach to. nearly 20 million americans in one quarter of the communities don't have access to broadband. lack of broadband access effects

the expanding initiatives in those areas and impacts businesses across the industrial base in the rural areas. i believe without addressing the key infrastructure priority our shared goal sharing defense-related innovation among the nontraditional and small businesses will not change the potential. i also believe that if we do not clearly identify with it is preschool into high school for this transition right now is not working for america and we need to find a way to get that to work. i would like to ask the witness is how the digital divide and lack of broadband impacts the culture of innovations in the department of defense and the leaves that it's necessary for today and tomorrow is national security. thank you.

>> there are groups that are left behind with tremendous work in using a robust problem in rural areas so i have good news in the next to some number of years we wil we've overcome evee challenges. 1996 and we wired up the schools 20 years later i think we are getting very close and i agree with your comment par for this reason propaganda is so important is that on the educational side, which is what affects the military, there are new tools and is being developed for the direct and personal learning which are available over the broadband networks that are interactive and so forth. so, there is a possibility of reaching the most isolated and disadvantaged citizen who can

benefit from this in a way that can materially affect their careers and quality of life can educational suitability for the militarmilitary service. >> mr. griffin? >> well, if there is anyone more in love with education and i come he would struggle to have to find them. i agree with everything that has been set. we need to do a better job of preparing our high school students to go to college. i spent time as a college professor and i would agree with the observation that our high school students are not coming to college as well-prepared as s they once were and we should fix that. one of the ways does involve broadband access for everybody. that is the modern world. >> i don't know what the department can do specifically, but i support your goals.

>> thank you mr. chairman, for being here and for your service to the country it is heartening to see a physicist, technologist answering the call to the nation's public. in the book the digital age, you anticipated a lot of the issues that we are facing today. you talk about the data permanence and the need for internet privacy. i agree with your statement about the technology competence in the department of defense and i think he cited at the same th. but i wonder candidly what both of you thought and whether you've shared the dismay and embarrassment most americans had as they watched the hearings about the technology gap in the

united states congress and whether there are things we can do to help improve that. >> i didn't see the hearing and was not aware of it so i cannot offer a useful comment, i'm sorry. i also didn't watch the hearing. i'm sorry. >> are there things you think the united states congress could improve our knowledge about technology? to give a sample, one of the senators asked how does he make money on facebook when he doesn't charge for the services. another senator didn't know what cookies were. i'm not saying this in a disparaging way i'm just wondering do you think that you talk to the education. do you think the united states congress to deal with matters of artificial intelligence that they could use a better education? >> i can say that the areas that we are describing now are pretty

technical and i would not expect an average citizen to understand them. i do think that more briefings for the benefit of the congress with the impact would be helpful so that the leaders of the nation can understand the good, bad for the restrictions, what they are good for him t for andr and their implications. as you understand very well because you represent us is over a guy into the application of it in our businesses. and it is important to understand the implications in all of this. >> broadly speaking, most of us are aware that having an educational and cultural and all kinds of diversity in decision making groups aids in the decision-making. the more disparate points of view you can bring to the task before you have to make a

decision generally the better you will do and so if more working scientists and engineers and medical doctors in such ran for congress, i think that would be a good thing. i have had many years now of working with the congress and i don't generally find that the issues confronting us are caused by a failure of the congress to understand what we are saying. the issues seem to be more systemic as was pointed out earlier. i couldn't choose better words so i will quote them as best as i can. we have innovators that are in the system that doesn't really work. as winston churchill famously said about democracy, it's the worst of all systems except for all the others we tried.

some of these things seem to be just endemic to the nature of the representational democracy and the struggle to do the best we can. >> i will ask one final question and give you the last word. in your book you talked about privacy and regulation of privacy, and that is probably as we are dealing with artificial intelligence and all the positives probably more important than ever the congresswoman and i have been thinking about whether the entire bill of rights would look like something maybe not as expansive, both within the american context. i wonder if you have thoughts about how to get technology leaders to be part of the conversation and behind an idea that would ensure the american public that the congress can protect their privacy around some internet bill of rights in a bipartisan way. >> a number of attempts at doing

this, and i think many people are sympathetic to the idea that you are proposing. the devil is in the details as you know from being a legislator. and so, i would encourage the three of you to work hard. you won't know our industry very well if you try to represent the nation as strong as you can to try to tie that balance in the book which was some years ago, we said you need to fight for the privacy or you will lose it and i remember writing that sentence. because it is so before the public information or to private information about you to become available without your knowledge. and i think that there must be a way to enshrine the principle with the right balance between interests. >> thank you. >> let me ask one other question that occurs to me. we talked about much of the

innovation that occurs in the private sector especially for small businesses it's hard to do business with the dod since you have a foot in both camps, what is the willingness of say the it industry to do business with the department of defense? is there a reluctance? >> there is a general interest and it's a genera is a general e overhead cost will kill the startup and it would be very helpful if we had a number of companies that had started with an idea and have help to get through the process and have ultimately become hugely successful in the new paradigm. if we had a couple companies like that that we could point out in the narrative i think that would encourage more of that. we need a couple of hits from companies that are good businesses that have also served the dod.

it is an attempt at that and there's other initiatives to do that, but we need a couple of big wins. aeai as i wanted to say somethig to all of you that it's important not to feel helpless when you are in our situation but rather to be clear and asserted that this is the system that operates under the laws of the nation we can change it so we have highlighted a couple of examples of things which don't make any sense when you are in the middle of a system if i can paraphrase it doesn't make any sense. why don't all of us collectively engage in the discussion as to how we could eliminate some of those nonsensical behaviors and at least have the debate? it feels like that is not occurring to me as a private citizen. it feels like everybody is sort of repeating the old criticisms. wow, this contractor screwed up

or this was a problem, rather than saying this system was not architected. how do the architect the system to address at least the stupid stuff? i assume you are okay with that. >> again, i couldn't agree more. we have a remarkably consistent alignment. i simply know that when developing new things that have nothing to report, it is hard to get it right. it's easy to make mistakes along the way. and when you are doing it, you are guided by a single-minded focus on the end goal. but when i'm doing that, i cannot tell you upfront what the requirements ought to be, exactly how what i it is going e out in the long run, with contractors i need, what system practices i'm going to use, it

depends and so if in the advanced development stage which i will say includes things through the prototypes so that the operators can have experience with things before deciding to go into production, if a through d. l. prototype you can give that department as much flexibility as possible to not know how we are going to get to the goal we all share, give us the flexibility to not know how we are going to get there and hold us accountable for outcomes in the processes that is the best thing that you can do. thank you. >> the only thing i would quibble with you about is a i don't think it is business as usual at this point. my sense is we have a combination of leadership of the

department that is committed to reforms. we have more bipartisan interest in congress committed to reforms and i have a sense of urgency that you all have described in another sense that this is a chance to improve the process. none of us will be satisfied. it won't go far enough that we have an opportunity here that with your guidance and a little willpower, we can make significant improvements and so that's one of the reasons i wanted to have this hearing in public today. i appreciate very much both of you being here and about five minutes or so, we will continue the discussion in a classified session upstairs. the hearing stands adjourned.