if it takes us another 20 years to field the next aircraft, we are going to be in real trouble. that's part of the tleen year's bill, we focus on incremental improvement and not committing

to buy 1,000 of something until we know that it works and have a separate funding stream for some experimentation. we need to experiment. you can't experiment as you're building a program of record. so trying to learn the lessons of the problems we have had in the past is important. the answer is not to not build another airplane. the answer is to make these gradual steps. >> can i just add one thing? i am going to stick up for the department. i say this as a person who has been writing for acquisition reform when i was there. part of this is the result of when you know you are not going to have all -- you don't have the money to buy all the platforms that you really think you are going to need. you are going to get one plane. so the pressure to put as much

as you can in that plane becomes very strong. now, yes, i think -- i'm not trying to say that's the only reason. i think we have seen that. i think that hurt future combat systems. o we have g we have got this one thing. >> when we started f-35, the idea of having a common platform that would be adapted for the different services, you think, that could work. it was much more complicated than anybody realized. >> we could do a whole hour on that idea and how that has affected as you know. i am going to go back to that gentlemen who has been waving his hand. i think we're going to get a real good question here. there is no way to pick these sorts of things. >> tony bertuga representing the noble defense trade press. for chairman thornberry, you ended up halting the increased

but billions got stripped out for f-35s and lcs. my question is, do you plan to come back for those? do you think they remain high priorities and you will try to get them authorized. for senator talent, you praised the incoming administration. do you have any plans on playing a role? >> do you want to go first? >> i am happy you get a question like that. >> my hope is that the new administration will come to us with a supplemental request as soon as they get their feet on the ground. it was disappointing that in order to get this bill done now and to stop the in-strength hemorrhaging that we were not able to have as much funding as the house had originally had. as i mentioned before, the only

way you are going to fix some of these old airplanes is to build a new airplane. that's part of what we had. my hope is, and i think across the aisle, recognition of the fact that sequestration, 21% cut over four years in the defense budget, as well as the pace of operations has taken its toll. so there is, i think, interest to try to make up some of that ground and what i hope is the new administration will come with a supplemental and that we can put back, and for me, the top of the list would be the things that had to drop out now and then, of course, go to next year's budget as well. >> i would love to see a supplemental too. i really love the president-elect's defense speech when i read it. i love the tone. i love the issues he took on and the way he took on.

i'm going to sfoert thupport th whether inside or outside of government. i would be very interested in doing something inside of government. we have had some discussions with the transition. i also know enough about cabinet building, having watched it in a number of instances that he has to pick the people that fit, that he feels the most comfortable with and also fit the overall pattern. they are working their way through that and making a lot of progress. i've been watching and pleased with the appointments i've seen so far. so they are going to work it out. i am going o support that plan inside or outside of government. there isn't anything more important to america's national security or i would also argue to donald trump's domestic agenda of regrowing the manufacturing base in this country. i think it's been an untold story. he is starting to tell it. one of the reasons we have lost a lot of manufacturing

capacities is because we have underfunded these procurement programs over time. >> yes, sir. >> i'll go back over here. >> peter humphrey, an intel analyst and former diplomate. wondering about two things. in what fantasy world did preparation for two major regional conflicts disappear? secondarily, the future is made of swarms of small things. how do we get the pentagon to realize you want to buy 1,000 toyotas instead of one lexus? they keep missing the boat on that and creating giant aircraft carriers, one torpedoed takes out a huge amount of our capability. that's crazy. >> well, both good questions. i've already forgot the first one. i'm sorry. this year's defense bill will

abolish the qdrs. too much time, effort for nothing. part of our frustration is, it became a budget justification document, not really a strategy document. that gets to what you are talking about. we have adjusted the two mc kind of approach just based on the budgets, rather than the other way around, rather than looking at the world trying to see what sizing construct makes sense for the world we're facing and then develop the budgets to support them. so we have provided a different system of kind of thinking about the world with an outside group at the beginning and, you know, not trying to recreate the qdr but trying to do this differently. that has definitely not been

successful. i think there are people in the p pentagon who are very interested in this swarming idea. i certainly am. i have had a number of folks that have provided me with some material to read and help think about this, whether we are talking satellites or whether we are talking other sorts of capability. but you get to the heart of an issue, you can think about and say, okay, that makes sense but still you have cultural bias in a certain direction within the institution. i think part of our job in congress is to breakthrough some of this cultural bias that prevents us from looking at these different options. i don't mean mini, small is always the answer to everything. but we have to look in that

direction, just cost benefit ratio for a host of reasons. so i think that concept as well as others is maturing. it is involved in some of the third offset stuff. again, part of our job is to nurture na even when the institutional interests are to squish it. >> that's a great answer. if i can just add one thing on that. i think you are so correct. it is a balance that you need. we were talking before about the perceptions of congress as an institution, the larger body of people outside of the committees who have a role to play in this decision-making. this is what i think the building needs to understand, is that those people like to citi tangible things for the dollars that they spend. right? they are not all that up necessarily on all the gradiations and differences.

when you spend a lot of money on planes, you like to citi planes. if the pentagon understood that that's the way to make everybody feel as if we are getting value for dollars, there is going to be a little less pressure on some of the bigger programs to produce quickly. there is a perception issue involved. let's take one more, which i'll let the chairman answer rather than sticking my nose in. i said i'll come back over here. we'll get this gentlemen right here. >> na thank you. i have a question about technological superiority. when it comes to russian's capabilities, we haven't seen it in a while. given the dubious nature of the t-14 tank and the new fighter

jet, is it possible we are overestimating russian capabilities with regard to a military sin nacenario with a u. if we reorient ourselves, will we lose out on the capability to wage the wars we usually do with technologically inferior enemies. >> i think the point is we have to be prepared for the range of contingencies. so there are folks who say okay, counter terrorism and counter insurgency is behind us. we need to focus on the high-end threats. we don't have that luxury. we have this huge array from sophisticated to less sophisticated threats around the world and we have to be ready for them all and maintain competency for them all. but it is true that the 15 years of where we have focused on counter terrorism have meant

that we have neglected training and other things for the high-end sorts of threats. i think we're pretty clear-eyed about the threat that russia presents. i don't think anybody says their military has as much capability as ours. we have to be realistic about where they are putting their time, effort, and money. so, for example, they continue to crank out new nuclear weapons every year. we don't. we haven't built a new nuclear weapon since about 1990. we are trying to keep these old machines safe and reliable. russia is putting a fair amount of effort into that. you have read what they say about the tactical use of nukes to make up for conventional

inferiority. we know what they are capable or at least their level of sophistication in cyber. they have had some demonstrations, i believe, for our benefit, in syria. so they can't match us but they don't have to. if you see some of the recent press reporting about deployments they have made in clinnen grad, it is concerning. part of it is to effect a political purpose, specially in eastern europe. >> i want to be sensitive to your time, chairman. thank you, chairman thornberry, you have been a fine fellow today and i am sure you are ready for the new administration. >> thank you, chairman,

thornberry, thank you, senator taenl talent. what a pleasure to have the day started by such thoughtful je that have done so much and are committed to our nation's defense. we will have a short pause and have senator cardinhe here for . lots of great questions from the audience. while we have a moment before senator cardin arrives, i want to take a quick word to talk about the foreign policy initiative. if you are here, thankfully, you are familiar with us to that extent. if you are watching at home, perhaps an opportunity to learn about us. we are a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank committed to educating our national leadership and the general public about the importance of american engagement in leadership in the worl. this program is one of many we do. lots of our activities are

focused on capitol hill where we spend a lot of our time trying to brief members of congress, their staff, trying to understand what's happening there and how we can get more informed and more engaged policy makers on these issues. always a great pleasure to have someone like chairman thornberry with this type of conversation. we will be back in just a minute. i thank you for joining us today.

we're bringing you live coverage of this day-long foreign policy and national security conference with the number of congressional leaders, military officials and former diplomates, we have heard from congressman, mack thorn berry. up next, maryland senator, ben cardin. he will be focusing on congress, foreign policy and the incoming trump administration. looking further down the schedule at 10:00, we'll be looking at challenges and opportunities for defense innovation and the morning will finish out with nebraska senator ben sasse. he will look at middle east challenges. it continues into the afternoon.

at 1:45, discussion on foreign policy of the first 100 days of the trump administration and coverage will wrap up at about 2:45 eastern. this is live on c-span3. again, we are waiting for remarks from the lead democrat on the foreign relation committee in the senate, senator ben cardin.

while we wait for this foreign molcy national security

con fern to resume with remarks from maryland senator ben cardin, we let you know that the house and senate are in session. legislative work in the house gets underway at noon, with intelligence programs and a package of biomedical innovation bills. off the floor, house democrats are electing their leaders for the new congress coming up in january. nancy pelosi seeking re-election. she is being challenged by tim ryan of ohio. we will update you with the results of those elections as they become available. the senate comes in at 10:00 eastern. they may take up an iran sanctions bill. senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell will be meeting with mike pence. he also has a meeting with house speaker, paul ryan. watch the house on our companion network, c-span and see the senate on cspan2.

awaiting remarks in maryland senator, ben cardin at this foreign policy and national security conference. he should arrive in any moment.

donald trump nominated tom price to head up the health and human services department. he will be talking about the budget process today at 3:00 p.m. eastern. we are planning live coverage of that event here on c-span3. earlier today, the president-elect named steven manuchin, his campaign finance chair to be his treasury secretary. he spent 17 years at goldman sachs. now, chief executive of dune capital management, a privately owned hedge fund. it goes on to say mr. manuchin confirmed his selection today with an interview with billionaire investor, wilbert ross, tapped as commerce secretary in the incoming trump ad principal administration.

coverage of a day long conference on foreign policy and national security is expected to continue shortly. we will hear remarks from ben cardin. he is expected to talk about congress, foreign policy and the incoming admin sfrags. it should get underway. it looks like senator cardin is arriving right now.

good morning again. foreign policy initiative. it is a pleasure to welcome senator ben cardin, the ranking member on the senate foreign relations committee for our next discussion on the role of congress and foreign policy on the trump admin sfrags. he will be moderated by kristen. she is well-known and well-respected among all of us in washington. the particular for her service during a number of senior capacities during the bush administration, united states ambassador to the european union, assistant secretary of state for international organizations in the white house

and baghdad. great to have a speaker and moderator who share what for us is an organizational interest in the promotion of human rights and democracy and strong american leadership in the world. i ask you to please join me in welcoming senator cardin. thank you very much. >> senator, it is always an honor to hear from you. i have dozens of topics i would love to talk about. i thought i would hop right into it and hopefully save about ten minutes at the end for audience "q" and "a" when we first scheduled this. i was confident we would be talking about the clinton administration. how are you? you have spent a few weeks getting your mind around how you are going to approach foreign policy in the trump administration? can you say a word about that. >> thank you for your public service. it was really wonderful to be here. you are right. it was a little bit of a

surprise. when we accepted this invitation, we had outlined our comments about how the clinton administration would carry on from the obama administration. so now we are talking about the incoming trump administration. it is going to be different, no question. it is going to be different. foreign policy institute, one of your goals, your goal is to rope us support for democratic institutions and human rights. that's under attack today. that's under attack. the principle opponent is russia and what they are doing. i think there is going to be a great deal of concentration on russia. russia is using its influence to affect the geographic cal boundaries of democratic, independent states as well as democratic institutions within these democratic states. their target, quite frankly, has been their neighborhood, the

former republics of the soviet union but also the former communist bloc and then beyond, including the united states of america. so we all see what's happened in ukraine. we know that russia has invaded the territorial integrity of ukraine and they are continuing to disrupt the development of ukraine as an independent democratic state. we see their activity is well beyond ukraine. in moldova and georgia, physical presence of russia's aggression. recently, we saw an attack here in the united states, a cyberattack where they compromised our cyberinformation and then used it to try to discredit the american democratic election system. it was not, in my view, and i think the view of experts, an

effort to elect any one specific as president. but it was an attempt to discredit democratic elections. that's not the bess wait ft way countries to survive. when you look at the foreign policy institute and your objective to robust support for democratic allies, and human rights, it is under attack. we need to do something about that. whether we're attacked by a mig or attacked by a mouse, we need to respond. currently, the obama administration is looking at a response. i have encouraged them to take a pretty robust response. i am developing legislation that will give us additional tool that is we can use against russia. it's going to be a bipartisan effort. senator mccain and graham has already talked about efforts in this regard. senator shaheen is actively engaged.

there are many of us who are working on how we are going to respond to the russia aggression. this aggression is, again, not just limited to the united states, not just limited to their neighbors. we see what russia is doing in the middle east and syria and the impact it is having on supporting the assad regime. what they are doing there affects what iran is doing. iran affects the entire region. there are a lot of issues we could talk about. let me just try to tie this first to the trump administration. i know we talked a little bit before i walked up here. the trump administration has a significant problem. in that donald trump has holdings globally including in russia. his statements about russia have me greatly concerned, have many members of congress greatly concerned. russia is not our ally or friend. they are a bully. they need to be treated that way. you have to stand up to a bully

and make sure that they understand that the leader of the free world will be there with our democratic allies. first and foremost, mr. trump needs to insulate himself from his business interests. i introduced the emmol yumt klos yesterday. the only way the incoming president can do this and adhere to the constitution of the united states, which is the oath he will take on january the 20th, is to make sure his business holdings are removed from his control. there are two ways to do that, a blind trust or to divest. i am hopeful that he will take those steps. i am mindful of the statement he made just today or last night that he will set up a way that he will isolate himself from his business dealings. we'll take a look at that. i think it is in response to many of us saying you can't do both. but that's going to be very important to have the leader of

the free world, the president of the united states, having credibility in dealing with our democratic allies as we stand up to russia's aggression, whether it be in europe, whether it be their support in the middle east or whether it be attacks here in the united states. >> your comments on american support for human rights and democracy overseas are very important. you, of course, have been a leader on the anti-corruption and human rights side. one of the challenges is domestic support here at home. i was disappointed by how little those issues played in the current elections. i'm wondering if you have thoughts about what we can do to secure the bipartisan consensus that america needs to be at the forefront of those issues? >> first of all, i'm not surprised those issues don't play out well on election day. election day is going to be about basically economic issues. we know that. that's what controls most of the

undecided voters. they are going to be concerned with how the next president and the next congressman or senator wharks thsenator, what they are going to do to help their life. they are going to be interested in jobs, higher education, health care. america's global leadership is not going to be first and foremost on their minds. make no mistake about it, america's global leadership is critically important. we are the only country in the world that can advance good governance, human rights, anti-corruption. if america doesn't lead, there will be no efforts globally to make these priorities. recently, i was at a national security council meeting. it was called because of the concern of the growing corruption problems globally and the impact it has on america's national security. if you are looking at the cancer that is affecting stability globally, it is corruption.

america needs to be at the forefront to fight corruption. of course, the human rights agenda is all part of that. good governance, human rights, anti-corruption, empowering people. america needs to be in the forefront in those efforts. i am proud of the role that we have played in the congress of the united states and the pitssky law that was passed as having an impact not just in russia but in europe. as they have passed mcnitssky law, we are hopeful we will see that expansion to be global so that human rights violators anywhere in the world that are protected by their local governments will be subject to sanctions here in the united states, we hope globally in using our banking system or being able to get visas to visit america. that hurts greatly. corrupt officials do not want their money in local currency. they want their money in dollars. we can block that and make major

advancements. >> we are still waiting on some key national security nominations and i wouldn't ask you to get into any particular preferences but i'm wonder fg you can say a word about how senate democrats can approach these nominations generally. i will go way out on a limb and say there will be some controversy. >> there will be some controversy. >> where are some of the democrats going to want to draw some lines? >> i'm looking forward to talking to senator corker and see how his conversations went. first and foremost, i think i speak for all my colleagues, we want this transition to go smoothly. i think president obama is going to extremes to make sure this is as smooth a transition that can possibly be done. we respect the votes, the election results and we want to make sure that mr. trump comes into power as president of the

united states with his team and with all the tools he needs in order to be a successful president on behalf of our nation. we're going to do everything we can to make that a reality. when he deviates from constitutional requirements, such as the emmol umentes clause of the constitution, we are going to speak out and take action. if he nominates people that are not in line with the needs of our country, we are going to challenge that and explore their background and commits and how they are going to respond to the portfolio under their direction and ultimately make a decision to vote for confirmation or against confirmation. we will do that. on those advisers that are not subject to senate confirmation, i have already spoken out on some of those appointments.

we are not going to have other opportunities to do that. we have a constitutional responsibility. we are going to carry out that constitutional responsibility. at the end of the day, we want donald trump to be a successful president. we are going to do everything we can to try to help make that a reality. >> from the nsc appointments we have now, this is going to be a nsc that is focused on war on terror and the campaign against isis. if anything, that may actually feed the administration's interest with some kind of accord with russia, if that's their focus. you can see that. i'm wondering what you think really their options are on the kind of isis campaign and war on terrorism? >> isis is a complicated issue. russia is a critical player here. russia and their support for assad and when they are doing in syria is making it much more

difficult for us to have a unified front against the extremist organization, such as isis. so what concerns me, i need to understand what is in mr. trump's strategic thought process and what he is suggesting with russia. russia, as i said, is not our ally. they are not our partner. they don't share our values. they air bully. they want a larger, greater russia. they don't want to see nato expansions. one of the first signals that this congress could do, this congress could do, is to approve montenegro's sus session into nato. the failure will be interpreted by mr. putin as a way he can block that from happening under the next administration that wants to set up good relations

with russia. so it is hard to figure out exactly where we're heading in syria, where we're heading against isis until we know how we're going to confront russia. the syrian civil war has been going on six years. there is no end in sight. aleppo, when aleppo falls and it probably will, it's not the end of the civil war. he it's continuing. the only way to end the civil war is to bring all sides together and have a negotiated way forward without president assad. all of the major stake holders, including russia, understands that. we have to get that done. humanitarian crisis that's been created through russian support of the assad regime warrants the human rights criminal investigations. this should be invest fated at the haig. that needs to be done.

get that moving forward and we can get that done. you take away their support by their geography and oil revenues. you take away isis' support through extortion revenues and marginalize them and ultimately, we have to deal with them as a thet, because they have their terrorist networks but we have shrunk them and shrunk their support networks and ultimately, we can marginalize their poerns. >> the syrian civil war among among its many consequences has been a lot of political stress on europe. you see european institutions struggling, the rise of populism. we have some key elections coming up. do you have thoughts about what the u.s. should be doing to support europe at this foint sh. >> well, you are right. we have critical elections coming up.

the inward thinking is not just in certain european capitals that we have seen in their elections. we've seen that in great britain and the brexit vote. we saw it as part of the vote here in the united states. it is now a major issue in the french elections. so it is really becoming a very critical issue as to whether nations are going to look inward. you can look inward but you are still going to have the refugees. refugees are in danger of their life. that's the reason they become refugees. that's why people are leaving syria and risking things like traveling over dangerous waters and hostile communities. they do that because they have no choice by the millions. >> with the civil war continuing in syria, those numbers are

going to continue. the impact on europe has been dramatic. i understand that. the impact on the united states has been minuscule, if at all. so, yes, as i said earlier, the united states is the leader of the free world. o we believe in human rights. we believe that people should be able to live and raise their family without fear of their children being kidnapped as soldiers or killed and that women have the right to go to school and be educated in advance. that's what we believe in and fight for. if we can look inward rather than global, there will be no global reader ship. the refugee crisis will get worse. it will lead to instability in other countries. it will affect america's national security interest. so we need to be aggressive in saying we need to be part of the

solution of the refugee issue. obviously, the way to solve the refugee issue is to solve the unrest in the countries. we've already talked a little bit about syria. it is more than syria. we know what's going on in africa. there are a lot of places in the world where refugees are increasing. we work as an international community to resolve those issues and have to recognize we have a responsibility in regards to the refugee issues more than just financial. we have to take our share here in the united states. >> have you thought about the future of tita? >> taken off life support xwlchlt is it there was discussion whether an fta with the u.k. would make sense. do you have a sense of what is the future of our trade negotiations with europe? >> i really don't know how the trump administration is going to deal with trade policies. they have also talked in

addition to saying teatip is over. they have also said that nap ta might be over. so it's a lot of agreements and, of course, did you say tpp? >> i said ttip. i will ask you about tpp. >> i thought we were talking about ttp. ttip, that's on life support. that's possible you can get a ttip agreement. it hasn't been concluded yet. the trump administration could take credit for concluding it in a way that is beneficial to the united states. trade agreements, america is in a global economy. we need fair trade agreements. for many years, the united states has not been aggressive enough on nontariff barriers. for a long time, intellectual property was not as aggressive as we needed.

we are never treated as fairly. currency manipulation is still not being dealt with where we have been disadvantaged by many countries, around the world, china being the number one country. there are other countries. on dumping issues, we haven't been as aggressive as we need to be. there are areas on labor an environment. we are late to the table to deal with labor issues and environmental issues. there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. europe is probably a country where we could complete an agreement. there, the battles are going to be on agriculture, areas in which europe has been very difficult to the u.s. producers. i don't know whether a president, president trump will take a tough position and, therefore, not be able to complete an agreement or whether he will moderate some of his views on ttip. on ttp, that's a real sproid.

i think we need a tpp agreement. i'm not suggesting the one negotiated was the best one and it couldn't have been done better and should have been done better. we are dealing with communist countries. with countries and trade agreements, you really have to have strict force in the agreement. we can also do better there. i am hopeful that we will not give up and that we will not give up with other countries and trying to develop a trade relation. if there's a void, china will fill the void. they're going to have to be agreements that have broader support here in the united states. otherwise it won't get done. the trump administration is going to have to reach out and get broader support and bring in the labor. we're going to need support in order to get those types of agreements done. >> and i think that the point on china is an important one. while we're getting the ducks in

a row, they're moving ahead and australia has now decided to join and i really wonder at the end, where is the assessment that we are in the rebalance and this is something that we really need to invest in asia. >> well, the obama administration has been strong on security issues. we have used the military very much so and had physical presence. we have challenged china directly, and they have pulled back. they have done things that are unacceptable. don't get me wrong. they recognize that we were prepared to take more aggressive action, and they did not want to see a military confrontation. i think that we were able to make certain progress. we challenged the fly zones. we have challenged a lot of what they're try to go do in the controlled areas that are

unilateral decision making and negotiating with the regional partners, and so we made some progress and we have seen in the regime and china that they have backtracked on a lot of the good government issues and opening the society. that's not good. that's not good for china or the united states or the region. what i hope we will see moving forward is that the reform process that started in china several decades ago and we're more in china and allow people the opportunity to really express themselves and to be able to advance and make too many decisions on young children too early in life. there are a lot of things that have to be done that i think that the united states can do, but we're not going to be able to tell them to do things and then they're going to say yes we can do it because the united

states wants us to do things. it has to be in the interest and the united states foreign policy has to reflect that. that is what it's about and one of of the interesting points as you mentioned donald trump's the list that are seeking part of the cabinet or wants it is that there are a lot of military people there. i'm not against that. we need them there and we need to understand that the soft power and the control is critically important to america's goals. we don't have a large budget for diplomacy. we need a larger budget. we don't have a large budget for development assistance. when we do that, we can help countries like china in a way that it's in the natural

security interest to let them grow as a stronger country that we want it to be to be and it's safer for the global community. >> i want to open it up for the audience and before i do that, i want to have one other question about the assessment on where we are on the obama administration and the alliance. >> we have tensions and where do you think that we are broadly on the strength of the alliances around the world? >> well, i think that president obama deserves great credit for strengthening america's partnerships. he recognize that had we could not do things alone. look, i disagreed with obama on the strategies on ukraine and syria as far as the original responses. i thought we should have been more aggressive president obama

did not want to united states to be alone on decision making. one of the first things that he did was form a broader coalition against iran. that paid off and we were able to negotiate an agreement. i disagreed within the agreement and agreed that we should have an agreement. that was goody employee ma si and that was good work and forming alliances. we see that now in north korea. today there's an announcement today about the un resolution and north korea. that's good news and we can isolate countries by working with other countries to coin a phrase that we're stronger together and president obama has done that. he has formed true confidence of the allies in all parts of the world and the own hemisphere and i talked to many of the leader and the policies are isolating

the united states and hemisphere. you argue how do you get cuba to change the way? cuba has to change the way. the prior policy was not working. it was marginalizing the u.s. influence in our own hemisphere. the obama administration has dramatically improved in the hem steer. there are a lot of things that's happened in asia. i have been there a lot of times, and i can tell you that i was pleasantly surprised to see the close personal views in vietnam with the united states and a country that we had war at a few years ago. he had built the relationships and countries would prefer to work with the united states than they would with russia and china and they look at the united states as being a stronger and more reliable partner, and they want to deal with us in the middle east and meaning a lot of

the gulf state teacher partners to a leader. they said that we would rather deal with the united states. i they we have formed those alliances under the obama administration that are critically important for america's national security interest. >> okay. i want to o go to the audience. i see a lot of hands and i want you to keep the questions con sis and tight. right here on the second row. >> well, yukraine and georgia ae going through a process and make sure that russia is is doing everything in the power to make that difficult. the activities in ukraine and

then the occupation and activities in eastern part of ukraine all have made it more challenging for nato to meet the nato requirements for a session. that's a strategy that we have to counter. i would like to see ukraine in nato. i would like to see us develop a path that we can get there. the same thing is there with -- and they recognize as long as they can continue that uncertainty that because of the border uncertainty issues, it's unlikely that georgia can make it to full participation in nato. we should counter that by showing a way that they can get full participation in nato. i very much want to go oen o a path that we can get there. that will require the u.s. leadership because we're more

intere interest interested in that expansion. >> okay. let's go over here. yes, right there. yeah. i would say to do that and that's in particular and that's the defense and any less secure and then going to approach and is there any alternative as an independent if they have to. >> yeah, that's a great question. a lot of things.

>> that's beyond the foreign policy and you have also been in welcomed to the one when he has changed it on some of the issues and that's the experts and that's in the campaign. i do want him to govern prop properly. that's justifiable and then as to what could happen and then that's the rangements and we

have as you know the security initiative on nat oo in the unid states and the show physically and we have increased that dramatically and then that's the democratic initiative and that's similar to what we had in the military institutions and we can provide real support and then provide more and more ngo's being threatened and civil societies being challenged and that's to make sure that the institutions are strong and in particularly starting with the ali's. there's a concern that some of the allies including nato will go below the threshold.

>> cuba has had a close relationship with russia and china over the years and they have been very heavily and it's medical centerly chinese weapons and how would you approach of cuba. >> it's because how close it is of the history and the way that i would approach it and we need to have more contact and that's more business to business contact and then to understand the military and understand it better. that's really going to reach out and that's the motion and interesting between the and have to go through with the canadians and able to get the type of information that they need from cuba. it's just ridiculous.

make no mistakes about it. cuba's government and then dealing with the business issues in that country. and then that's very tough & that's the commercial and then the oppositions and not allowed and then it presses control. there are so many things that need to change and that's the military and what is is their intention and why what is the fear? who are they worried about? that needs to be changed.

yes, i do worry about the military and the active economic system and the country that's so close to us and we need to have a change with all three of th e those. >> yeah, we have to keep the senator on schedule and over here on the front row. >> senator, one of the things is the democracy abroad and i feel it's important and so important to send more money over seas when you spend on education and affect our citizens. >> well, i thank you for that question. it's a mass of receives and then

the budget and then the total and then that's the national security budget and then the soldiers and weapons and then the generals will tell you that the moneys that we spend on development assistance save moneys on the military side and the department of defense side saves lives. that's strategically important for the united states to become a stabilizing influence in the region and where we are going to save significant money. we have to to understand that and that's in afghanistan. and that's in syria and look at

africa and then it's challenging and the united states and then sustainable development and then the countries are doing and we have been able to reduce the poverty and increase the outcome. it's the u.s. involvement and saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives. e i think the americans should be proud about that. the country and the values and then it's like the respect and the opportunity and then america is going to make a difference. it's a win win situation and then the development situation budget and then we should be

spending more money in developing democratic institutions and not to spend such a -- >> this one. >> well turkey and the nato allie and that's my point of view turkey is going through a difficult period. turkey has had a rough period and then turkey is very concerned about the turkish extremist and then to the

detriment of themselves and then focus on that and then it causes a challenge in the commitments and then it's being more significant player zmen that's the issues. and then we look along the lines of the policies and not what we like to see them and then it's a larger country and then it's

going to be interesting and then we were able to make a significance progress and so that's the amount of trafficking. and then that's responsible for the type of changes that we're

seeing take place in india. and then once gain it could really help the national security. and then it's very much interested in this and i am hopeful that congress will do what we need to do as far as the foreign policy and then get against the election and since the election. as you maybe aware there's

serious concern and the abuse of the power and using the power stronger than it should be used. it's among and then the president's abuse power and do things that they should not do through executive action because congress is not active. climate change and then congress should have done that. we did not. we saw president obama compelled the power of president. and then we have seen many statements that donald trump made during the campaign and then that's part of the congress and then that's the right policy for the country. and then passes the legislation

and then that's why you're going to see democratic and republicans whether it's russia and iran and climate change and then that's it. [ applause ]

we have an equal branch of government and hopefully to see some of the issues and then immediately going to the next panel when we add a couple of next chairs up here and then that's the chairs and then the trump administration.

a brief break in this foreign policy and then by the way -- offer up the portions of

and then it's at the end of that segment and then and then the service department and will be talking about the budget process today and that's the congressman price and that will be at 3:00 p.m. eastern and we're planning a live coverage here on c-span3.

it's going to be a couple of minutes before the dmex discussion goes away. we will have live coverage here and then as it continues to take shape stephen and the campaign finances manager to be his treasury secretary.

please make your way back to the seats and we can begin the next conversation for the day. and then that's a surprise principle and then the major topics that they discussed were the media challenge and then the defense readiness today and then what thorn berry rised and that's the advantage joined by the united states forces and going forward. and then the senior research

professor and then the school of advance studies. in the discussion today will be ben fitzgerald that's with the center for the national -- center for a new american security if i can get that correct. rebecca with the hudson and then rob wise that leads the team at lockheed martin. thank you all for joining us, and i ask you to join me in thanking them today. [ applause ]

>> that was the focus of a lot of effort during the cold war and over the last quarter century, the u.s. has enjoyed unquestioned dominance against from a qualitative standpoint and in the 1990s as charles faye dubbed the polar moment and then over the last 15 years, you know, the focus of defense has been quit rightly counter and there's the possibility of great power and conflict whether because of russia's and the aggression and eastern europe and then china's assertiveness in the asia and then so i think it's quit appropriate as we

close out the obama administration and look to the trump administration that we take stop of where we are and where we need to -- where with e need to be. certainly in the resent years the obama defense department has placed emphasis on the so called third ops and the strategy and innovation initiative as we approach the end, i wanted to ask the panel how to take stock of the efforts and the standpoint and a think tank and focussing on missile defense and other areas or from defense industry. where do we stand with the strategy and wherever it comes in the future years. >> so there's a lot to unpack in

there and i think sort of my bottom line up front is that leadership in the pentagon and frankly in the hill have created a window of opportunity for the fairly significant change. we're going see at noon today more details of the 2017, and we have already seen some and we focus on the need to improve the advantage. that's great. it's unclear to me if that's going to move foror what it's going to look like. while it great and how we get there is not clear. the third offset strategy is important and helps us to address one problem and that's the ability to project power and military power. that's one thing. that's separate in some ways from the innovations conversations.

a lot of those actions have been very good. i think the current one is great and then we're hosting an event with them later on this afternoon. not to compete with this, but those innovations are outside of the budur rock si and we have n seen an approach and how we pair that military that the technology with new con septembers of operation, and i think that's what we need. i am happy to unpack that in more detail. >> great. how about you? >> sure. thank you. happy to be here. if i can just go back to 2014 when secretary defense haggle introduced the third offset strategy. he provided the context on what he was talking about and the threats and why we needed this third offset strategy. some of the things that he talked about were that sort of

less sophisticated actors like al qaeda were beginning to challenge the united states in ways that we have not seen before and then in it's in the military programs and in ways that the united states had not seen in decades. then he listed some specific technologies that they were spending a lot of time and resources and energy and then in the areas that they saw a vunerability where the united states had, and they were taking advantage of that and exploiting it. so they were developing missiles and he henced missiles a couple of times. i think it's one of the most helpful administrations in laying out specifically where we're getting behind and i like

specificity. i think in the age of trump, we're going to have more specificity and that's going to do a lot to help us move forward and we're not thinking about things and under secretary kendall gain heentioned in a memo that was sent over the congress that the united states was getting behind many missile technology. he specifically mentioned china and made clear that he was not only talking about them but they were challenging the united states and space. that posed a unique problem because everything else that we do in the pentagon depends on what we do in space. that is getting behind or others are challenging us in the domain and that is very very bad things for the united states across the rest of the pentagon. and so i think that is going to be if i had my way, i think

we're going to be focussing more on space. what we do in space, national security space, surveillance in space. i think that, you know, president-elect trump is a new kind of president-elect. he will be a new kind of president and sort of the things -- we sort of have gotten used to inside of the belt way and inside of the pentagon and we sort of all know what each other means when we say very vague terms and where the new president is going to want to be convinced and persuaded. everybody is going to have to do the homework when they're talking about the administration and what we want to do. it's going have to make sense and then the cost affective way to do it. i think things like oh we just don't put the capabilities in space because it might be provocative, i think you're going to have to make the case if that's what you think. i take another perspective and say that we can not have space

capabilities and we have to have more active space capabilities in space. i think that's going to be the next phase in our ballistic missile capabilities in addition to the energy technologies and the ml k that we're putting on the gmd system to protect the united states homeland. i think we're going to see more investments in that, and so all of this means that, you know, we just -- we have taken too long to come to this place where it's no longer a matter of should we do it some day. we have do that. there's challenges that we have to do that. all of that means in the last point on this is that, you know, we sort of -- when we began to talk about the think tank world and inside and how we're going pay for the new offset strategy, a lot of people talk about the legacy systems and now we have seen that oh no, we're still fighting the wars and the newer

advance technology and then the f 35 is not ready and we're keeping the a 10 now. i am very excited about. i love that airplane, so does john mccain. it's going to be around longer. we need it and still using it. now, where are we going to get this money? that means that we're going to have to increase the top line. i'm optimistic that we will increase the top line and we're not going to be bill paying for the new advance technologies and we're going have to do both. that means getting rid of the bca and that's the direction that we're headed. >> thanks. rob, where do you think that we stand with the third strategy and the defense innovation and defense innovation? >> well, thanks tom. it's great to be here and representing them in the conversation. i would like to begin with where we are in the conversation and one of the things in my job is that i get to go out and

interface with young woman and men, and i would contend that we would remain to have the best fighting force across the globe. we have the best people and they're well trained, and they frankly have the best equipment compared to any other nation in the world. with that said, there are challenges and many of them i talked about this morning and we're spread too thin and we have a readiness to clip and we have a system that needs to be more agile. specifically with the third offset, we're investing in every technology that's highlight in the third offset. big data an lit ticks, open system ark tetech churches and on. we're demonstrating a lot of the

technologies right now and not only the works that i work for but our competitors and the teammates across the defense industry, so i think that we have a qualitative advantage in the technology today. the question is how do we field it more quickly, i believe. when we look at the adversaries that we face around the globe, a lot of this is presence. we're talking of the western presence and then in order to enable to presence, we do need a substantial structure that's been on decline for a few years. that's one of the big challenges and then transitions to technology to a larger core structure as we move forward. that will not enable us to maintain the qualitative advantage across the globe. >> can i respond to that? >> sure. >> we're sitting here and we have a strategic problem.

while i'm system thetic for the reform and i believe that we're seeing positive sets on that, we have had an acquisition system that's not been great and that's since the 1970s, and we were able to maintain that throughout that. what's changed? we have seen in the latter part of the 20th century we have a neat alignment between the needs that was really to the fall of it and until the end of the cold war and containments and then we had technologies and we needed to invest in and then the clear business models in terms of defining the requirements from the threats and through the technologies and then we lock that in. none of those are today. we have a range of threats from terrorism to cyber threats to great power competition. we have shown no appetite to pick which ones we're going to address and take risk. we want to do everything. we have a wider range and we

have had those answer the points and we have to maintain the legacy system and not walk away from that. we want that as well. >> i will go down this way. >> i will answer quickly but i'm increasingly skeptical, and i

don't think that we can do that. we need to maintain a broader portfolio and a range of technologies and figure out the methods where we can be more agile and deciding to move them forward and back. we have to take things from the pro toe typing and move them forward quickly. i am interested in that type of innovation and rather than saying lasers. i know they have been five years away, but they're really only five years away. i don't know if they're facing an enemy that addresses that. the one thing that we see is the inability for the commercial technology and that where i think that we have the most opportunity to move forward. it's great to say that there's commercial technology out there and they're moving ahead. we can not acquire it and we have no process for actually adapting that and tryly military purposes and generate the military advantage from the commercial technology. that's what i am focussing.

>> you mentioned space and missile defense and can you add to that? >> yeah, again i am encouraging it by what the administration means for the pentagon and because we get to sort of take a fresh start and look at where these vun vulnerables are. i did not just randomly select them, but that's becoming how all the way from north korea on the low end to china on the high lend, that's how they're investing in these technologies in order to detour and suede the united states from doing many different things in the region. several months ago i had the privilege of authoring a report that had a senior review board and two commanders and the former director of the missile defense agency and former

administrator of nasa and a whole slew of people that were familiar with the high end threats and also the process and what would need to be done in order to o close the gaps, and they all agree with the findings and recommendations in the study and what we found was that the united states is not -- it's not a matter of can the united states and are the engineers smart enough to come up with the technologies? of course they are. it really is go back to what is the problem and what is the hind hinderens in order to move forward. the united states is holding back in particular areas of advance technologies for fear of becoming provocative or trail blazing or recognizing space. some of the phrases that heard that do not make sense anymore because this is what the china's and russia's are doing and where the i rranians are going, et

cetera. they're problems with the resources, but that's a shorter hurdle than you i think that we can clear. some of the bigger problems have been a matter of policy. i'm excited about the opportunity that we can have in terms of changing the policies and actually we talk about america's edge or technological advantage, but i like to say that we're going get back into primacy and you i think that's a very good thing. i think once you sort of say that and get that out of the way, that's what we're doing and moving forward in that way and we're not going main tto maintah russia, and i think that the sky is the limit and it comes down to where are we going to get the money and the budget control acts has always been confusing to me. nobody wants it. the congress does not want it and then the president. the president threatens to veto the bills even though that he

says that he does not want it. the conference report that was just settled, i don't know if the figures are official but it's $3.2 billion above and so congress is excited about spending more money on the pentagon, and it should. if we're going spend it anymore, it's on american security. i think that we will see what happens with president obama and what he decides to do with the bill and pass it. i do think that means that we're sort of heading in a different direction. >> rob, how about you? >> well, i think rebecca made several good points on maintaining the american privacy. going back to your point ben on the spans of tasks that we're asking the military to do today, i don't see it changes. i think that we're going have to maintain it in the threats and actors and counter terrorism, so we have to be able to address all of them.

i think the parties and what we invest in with the parties are very important. the clarity and the strategy is something that is going to be key. we're going to have to budget accordingly. i think the other points are made and we're investing the technologies and we're prototyping and proving out the technologies and we're seeing mature capabilities that now need to transition and one that tops into my head is the i f 17 and that came back out in desert storm and back in the early 90s

and then a capability that demonstrated something that the united states had and improved that we could fly this diamond as it was called, and then we proved that out and then it was to the transition of the record. that's going to be key going forward as we put out the technologies that they actually transition and move forward quickly. >> and there's a challenge there, so the challenge of being in a era of budgetary restraints and there's a lot of reluctants to transition to programs of the records and then on the other hand there's a different set of challenges coming with opening up the budget tear and that's because the tendency is if you have a lot of money, just keep on doing more of the same and

perhaps less, you know, less urgency for doing things differently. maybe we will start with rob and come back this way. talk a little bit about the budget and dimension of all of this. what's the best way to move forward sensible. >> well, we think about just in the spectrum and so we have a problem and then. the rate that we're buying is

suspension. all of the services are ready for the new equipment. so we should start by buying the leading edge technologies that are available to us today because that will not only and that's causing money to maintain and then the insufficient against the future threats, so i would begin there and then again speaking in the dominance region and then the next step is to modern niez the areas. over the life cycling of the aircraft and they have continued to add cape lts over the life cycle. we need to be doing that with the advance systems as well. it's not just with airplanes but everything that we have invested in. the third step is to invest in technology that's 25 or 30 years away.

coming back to others some days we will build another fighter, but now buy the one that's available to us and get on that modernization path. so the budget is not there to do that today. >> you say that it makes no sense unless it's the law of the land. assuming and i think that's an assumption and assuming that chang changes. >> yeah they say i don't care

about waste and that's not true. we can fix both and do both. we have been -- we have been planning and spending money in ways that do not make sense at all and people in the room will agree with that. things that we can do differently is buy more of an item at once. this sort of buying a couple of items and securing a couple of them and then letting the production lines go and then finding people to build them and then the ex per tiez to build them is expensive. it's a incredibly short side and not thinking through in the long run and how the country can spend it more efficiently. if this is how family's ran the budget, we would see a lot of bankrupt people. we have to start to think of how do we spend, plan and

prioritize. this is just people thinking out loud and then the i cbm down the road because we need the to pay for the f 35 now. why in the world is the f 35 competing with the nuclear triad? that makes no sense. we have to have the next generation fighter jet. in no reality does it make sense to punt on the backbone and something that we absolutely need and cannot afford to take it down to the right. we have to do the programs and see what the united states is going to prioritize and what we can no longer afford to punt on, and then we need to start to figure out how many items can we buy at once and we're not having this trickle affect and then just creating a lot of extra

cost on that end as well. i will leave it at that. >> well, it's an efficiency, and we're going to have a single multiroll combat aircraft, and that's going to be less expensive. i'm not sure that's turned out to be the case. not criticizing them but from a dod perspective, was that the right approach? when we talk about the cost associated with that, if you have an aircraft with a flight -- cost per hour flight of $40,000 an hour, and we're rolling that out against in $10,000, that's not a strategy or a cost imposing strategy on the enemy. i love when people ask me about the strategies because it's like we're really good in running it

ourself. i agree that it's irresponsible but not an issue of the top liechblt what's an actual strategy across the range of things, and one of the ways to buy down the risk and depend on how you counter since the early 1990s, we spend between 45 and $95 billion worth of the taxpayer funds on projects with the zero capabilities and when it's the future combat situation, and so i don't think that we're starving for the dollars. i don't think that we have the right approach. how do we have the diverse one and we do not get into the cultures and then the expensive platforms that assume the efficiencies over 50 or 60 years. we don't know what's going to happen next year. we have continuely surprise in the environment, and we have to have a capability portfolio that allows us to transpire.

it's going to be more efficient and expensive, but we're going to have less likelihood of the massive multibillion dollar failure in the future. >> okay. we have about 15 minutes left for this session, and if previous sessions are aclue, you probably have a lot of questions to ask the panel lists. i have been in the private sector and you all are very smart, but i have not heard one word. it's just the one percent and our guys out there are still

using the same family of infinity weapons that i used in vietnam we have to put more attention and energy and resources into the people that are doing the fighting. thank you. >> i think the point is well taken. it's exactly right. one of the best ways to increase morale of the troops is to give them newer stuff and make sure that they're well protected. i do not disagree with you all at all and well taken. >> we have been investing a lot in the army and for a particular type of wars that we have been

fighting. if you would just take -- i have done this, you know, a couple of times in the contexts and take, you know, take a picture of a soldier in 2001 and compare that with a soldier in 2016, and you will see a lot of change. i know, you know, the army likes to and the marine corp. even more so -- and i say that this has a son of a former marine. we have invested in certain areas of technology and the body armor that soldiers and marines and airman and sailors wear today is much better than it was 15 years ago. the tactical situation awareness and the commanding control is much better than it was 15 years ago, but other areas that are --

that could be crucial and desissive in a high intensity conflict against a capable adversaries and things like electronic warfare and action protective assistance for armored vehicles and those have been differed. we have retrained artillery units because of the iraq and afghanistan and now we're entering a period where the threats are more important. i don't know that it's a lack of investment. we have invested for a particular set of wars that we have been fighting, and i think the challenge particularly for the army and the marine corp. is that the requirement in the future are likely to look much different. >> sorry. i will say this if you look at the percentage of the budget and where we're spending it, the

army does have less and the percentage and what things cost. that does not mean that they're not getting everything that they need, but again the point is well taken. i will say that some of the things that some the things that i mentioned specifically particularly on space. who's dependent on space? the army is dependent on space. they need to see where their enemies are moving and that's why i tried to emphasize on surveillance as well. but then you need to make sure the army has a -- has great access to those new technologies that might end up in the budgets of the air force for instance. up. >> the guys on the ground need -- they need the situational awareness that the space program can provide. >> sure. >> and that's exactly right. >> so they're not surprised by an an ambush of the taliban. >> so there's structural changes i think that we're going to have

to figure out over the next couple of years as we advance in the technologies in order to make sure that the people who need them the most have access to them. >> so i think two very short points here. one is -- one of the conversations is self-deterministic if the united states does the things and will win. we're also engaged in like a multiparty conflict here where other people get a vote. and we're seeing that the commercial technology has really enabled nonstate actors to remain. it's not that hard for our adversaries to have encrypted their own satellite imaging, and stuff. that's available now. so they have moved ahead relative to us more than we have seen in the other domains. the other thing i would say, less so for the marine corps, we'll hear from general mcmaster who will disagree a little bit about what i'm about to say.

the army is its own worst enemy right now. they don't have a clear vision for what it does not -- for what it needs to do. it's not that there's no money for it, but they don't know what to do. i think the army today is where the marine corps was in 2010. now the marine corps has done great work figuring out here's what the marine corps needs to do. crisis response and readiness for the nation and the army is less clear. the frustrating bit there is there's lots that the army needs to do. a lot of the stuff we see in eastern europe is classic army stuff. i think that's starting to the place to get to articulate that vision. >> did you want to weigh in on this? >> first of all, thank you for your as much as and thank you for recognizing the women and men who are out there defending our country and the army and marine corps on the ground. i would just add that, yes, we talked about airplanes but the

technology i mentioned earlier have up application across sub surface army, the data analytics, open system architectures, the communications. we have done a number of activities demonstrations where it's all about communicating to your point what we're seeing in space, in air, and putting that information in the hands of the men and women on the ground. and that's key. and we're going to continue to do that. those types offed a -- advance those types of technologies. so i think we are addressing this. i do -- you know, the other thing i would say is many of the things we're doing are related to the special forces. not everything we can talk about this in particular forum. >> thank you. move on to the next question. the gentleman on the back on the far right. hold on. you have a mike coming.

>> nicholas romero. my question is about protection against compromise of technologies. something that's probably not seen so much, but is incredibly important to prevent bandwagoning from near peers. i'm wondering if you believe that we're spending enough on that to prevent reverse engineering compromise? we are seeing a lot of news about infiltrators. there was news yesterday about a german intelligence officer who was exposed in the domestic intelligence agency over there. we have had very recent revelations of information breaches at the national security agency. i'm wondering if you see -- if you see that the prevention of compromise and reverse engineering as a focused area or something that we should spend more time on? >> actually i'm going to go to rob first just from the industry perspective.

i mean, that's -- you know, i'll give you the first crack at it. if anybody else wants to weigh in briefly, i'm happy to entertain that as well. >> i'll be quick. cyber security is a top priority. security across the board for that matter. but cyber is one of the big issues we are paying a lot of attention to. and it's a continuous, you know, challenge because the enemy gets better, we have to get better. they get better, we have to get better and we are continuing to try to keep that advantage versus what our adversaries are doing to basically steal our technology. so it's at the forefront of what we're doing every day. i would also say that there's an element of taking the fight to the enemy if you will that offensive cyber. so you don't want to just be playing defense all the time. and there are things that are happening that will keep them playing some defense. i'll leave it at that.

great question and at the top of the list for things we're paying attention to. >> anybody else? >> i think very briefly i agree with everything that rob said. we're going to assume that the things are happen, not only from espionage, but people will figure out the technology we're using. we can't lead the features of our capability be the key differentiator for our technology. we can still kill them 27 different ways. >> next question. gentleman with the glasses. >> we have heard today quite a bit about acquisitions and engineering but one of the other things that -- that the dod does is research. i want to ask what you feel is the role of research in the mixture of, you know, funding

and especially is with regards to the new administration. and the capabilities 10 to 20 years down the line. thank you. >> rob? >> well -- >> basic research by definition occurs in academia and outside of industry. >> i think it's balance, and there does need to be funding in the basic research which is going on. some of it in the skunk works at lockheed, we do some of that work. we tend to be in more of the 62, 63 arena versus earlier technologies. there are other parts of the corporation and the rest of industry. what we're trying to figure out is, you know, limited resources is where's the balance? so when you invest in the early technologies you want to see them mature and then as the mature technologies are available, you want to transition those into the

program record. the way i have our organization set up, we have a technology arm, we have a program record arm and i'm always looking for challenging the technology arm on how we're going to advance it to the programs of record. so great point and i think, you know, we're again, it comes to finding that right balance and resources, but we need to continue to invest in basic research. >> the only thing -- the only thing i would add too is we -- for the last several years we have a lot of technologies that have been sort of in limbo in research and development that are ready to move beyond. even though i'm a huge proponent in investing in research because you have to look ahead, we have plenty of really good stuff. we talked about lasers, directed technology, but you know, we always talk about how it's five years away. well, get some people who are serious about it for a matter of

policy and get some money behind it and see what happens to these programs that are really -- that are continually five years away and i think that will -- we'll start to seeing that up close. remember the airborne laser program. right before it was cut up into many pieces and sent away, it shot down a missile. now, the con ops, it was directed on the 747, we had some questions about the concept of operations, which proved that the technology was actually able to do what we wanted it to do. now we're looking at the directed energy to get it on the more usable platform. that is one example that we're ready to go with some of the technologies that we have been sitting on for a while. >> the united states basic research capability, especially through the dod lab network is one of our key differentiator, and i worry that the funding is going to get cut to that.

we'll be eating our own seed corps and that will be dangerous for the future. i do agree we need better methods to harvest the great work that's done and move forward. that shouldn't be at the expense of that fundamental research. because other people can't do it in the way that we can. >> well, i think the sign of any good panel is we leave questions on the table. and i know i see a number of hands up, but in the interest of keeping us on schedule that will have to be the last question. i want to ask you to join me in thanking our panelists and thank you for the discussion. >> thank you, rebecca and rob. we'll take an extremely short break. just long enough to remove a couple of chairs and then