today. >> that is all we have time for, thank you. >> thank you, all. >> you have been watching live coverage. we return now to our regularly scheduled program. we join it in progress. technologies. mr. sankar you nodding your head is that correct? >> just like the starship. elon learns more from the starship breaking up then from inherently waiting and slowing down to get the right perfect lunch one time around. the value the rate of learning the first derivative of learning is our competitive how quickly we are adapting not what we capable of doing today is how much are we change it tomorrow i could not more. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much.

before i recognized senator banks i think we need to add to the record a smaller copy of that chart. >> i will provided to the committee. find it very interesting and if you don't mind, what's the object that you just picked up and tell us a little bit more about that. >> going to your first point if america goes to work tonight we will go to war with multi trillion dollar legacy force we have today when we talk about innovation while great offset hedge forces replicators of autonomous robots we must make sure innovation is supporting the multi trillion dollar force we have today.

there was a degree of data available but the challenge of getting this adopted into the dod bureaucracy is one that goes back to the risk of urgent how do we digitize this entire system. because this saves the taxpayer billions of dollars and allows aircraft that are available in a legacy for us to fly tonight many of them cannot do that today because of the horrific debt we have in our sustainment enterprise this needs innovation. the hold up is the risk aversion.

there are things that fail. that goes through our processes. in some instances there are parts that if they fail it is a loss of human life. and how is it we make sure we are using digital approaches to identify where the safety critical thing how do i consume data in a 21st-century manner that is a digitize touch to the engineering design that's taking to the data when we are certifying cars parts for austin martin regarding mclaren, we are doing that with datasets that are unprecedented and un-consumable today by the department of defense. those companies the highest brand-name companies in the world would not be offering those safety critical parts on their vehicles if they did not have insurance of the datasets. when we look at the department of defense, that's gonna take years unless there's encouragement and thanks to your same the initial language

started with the 25 in the daa we have to build on that and drive the adoption there are incredible innovators in the department of the air force that want to do this but it's going to take a notch to actually digitize and make sure the massive risk aversion is saving dollars for the taxpayer and providing war fighting capability. >> thank you so much you've been indulging in the chair will be indulgent with you. >> thank you mr. chairman. what kind of difference would it make if we give the combatant commands their own acquisition? >> i think it is the single biggest difference that we can make the department of defense is the only institution i know of that divides up supply and demand the integration of supply and demand is the beating heart of any company the consensus diving process. they provide the supply. that would work if we really got every cocom for every

perfectly noble and unitary but actually all of our advantage comes from the fact that we might need slightly different things and the signal for where that comes from is the combat that commanded how do we give the people closest to the pipe the ability to express a little bit of competitive demand signal 90% of what you want is probably coming from the services that the 10% time gap is to make or break us how do we give them a little bit of authority and ability to break the monotony and introduce something like a free market where there is multiple signals coming we go back to how do we have a world where every service is competing to build an icbm maybe i cocom to decide whether the navy or air force has a better idea concept for their specific force employment. i think that competition will get us all to be better.>> why are we doing that already? >> i think having the luxury of having won the cold war as we view it as duplication and waste so why can't we just pick

the right answer front. i think our system is exquisitely designed to solve all problems that sold deductively. can think our way through it but the promise of america is there so much messiness. our system is very bad it's poorly set up for things you have to reason your way through you have to experience it all up your sleeve get very and realize new insights and the consequence of doing that i think we saw that by giving a little strategic autonomy to the cocom commanders to buy what they need and build what they need. flex out of the services the defense agencies react if they had to compete with another buyer? >> most people don't really like competition. part of it will be a threat but if you get past the initial history the next step is okay how do i actually change when building. so that the cocom commander wants what i'm building.

what is the incentive for a program manager to adopt a commercial approach that actually disrupts their programs. i think today's incentive denied denied pretend it doesn't exist block it versus actually i'm competing against another great american quarter down to be the first to disrupt it. >> you have a good example where the combatant commands lack of acquisition authority caused delays or even hurt the mission? >> i think a good look at the success of project maven which didn't come from the services people love to derive osd efforts as bureaucratic not sustainable but the innovation really came from ããthe afghan new york came from the emerging demand signal in the world the crisis that had to be responded to the learning that could only happen there and capabilities

that ultimately scale to the forks. >> the program managers the private sector paid more than government employees. they also get bonuses and stock options for good performance. in dod the uniform military personnel civilians managing our critical weapons programs get paid the same whether they deliver not. you think the limited pay-for-performance system at the dod has tried has worked? >> my experience both personally and professionally is that it's not a pay issue the high majority of program managers want to deliver an operation relevant capability for the war fighter. there just mired in a bunch of distractions a bunch of outside stakeholder, many more people can say no they could say yes so they spend 90% of their time managing a bureaucracy not managing the effort. i think the other piece is, we've got to also get to the

point to be innovative you have to start things quickly we also have to be able to kill things quickly. for lots of different reasons, and i think that's one of the challenges if you give cocom the acquisition of authority we start a lot of things but if we can't kill things that are performing for whatever reason then you won't have a highly functioning adaptive system. >> senator kramer. >> thank you chairman. thank you all three of you for being here. i stayed the whole time because this, frankly, this is why i'm here is what you're talking about i'm not sure about lucian so far i like what i'm hearing. this is exactly why, by the way, senator kelly and i stood up the defense modernization carcass thank you for your comments today. i'm going to go on a completely different direction than i was planning to and my staff was planning me to. i was thinking back to my first

days in the senate it was at that time when dod was looking for somebody to win a contract for car computing and remember the jedi competition. i remember they chose microsoft and amazon early 2019 to compete late 2013 they awarded to microsoft and what resulted and that was immediate protest. then they went a lot longer, flip the script, chose amazon and microsoft protested that nsa took over, five years later we finally have multiple companies doing cloud computing. i was very frustrated by the ability for a company who

didn't win the contract, regardless of who the company is, to protest the company who didn't hold up modernization by five years. a lot of things were happening in the meantime but then we fast-forward to today where we read about now what i believed to be the most innovative agency the space development agency which has been under attack since the day we stood it up by swamp creatures and legacy space operators and legacy acquisition of procurement officials and a protest, animals guarantee you will slow up the work-related war fighter space architecture. which is the worst thing that could happen. and it's even led to a pia claim that looks more political than it does real to me. i would just like each of your comments or opinions about the

protest regime and whether there is more that can be done there. don't get me wrong, competition requires the ability to challenge. but it shouldn't provide the opportunity to make the country less safe. i will start with you mr. geurts. >> i do agree there needs to be an avenue but that avenue over time has gotten abuse. one thing i suggested early on was to get warmed by the applicant protest the gal you credit protest twice. i also think there should be some look at behavior over time and some disincentive for what i would call chronic protesting killer particularly by incumbents. >> i agree, it's all been abuse. it's our problem for the reasons you already articulated. one way we can break this down is by doing more bank off more

things in parallel getting more things fielded because anyone can win a fiction writing contest there's no correlation to your ability to perform we have the satellites in the space will be able to tell one way or another. >> elon musk learning more, i was at the starship launch with president trump it was very confusing for several of the business people there to hear you 㦠>> it gets to the risk. i went to the french test and

the speed that my five-year-old was able to learn french compared to me you care he did not have the risk of diverse culture. it's the same with elon musk. when we look at these protests, if we take this approach, our chairman of the joint chiefs of staff uses the phrase acquired to acquire. how do we slowly build trust? because according to a trust issue if we actually work together at the beginning of the ways that they allow us to the trust can be built. >> thank you very much. before i go to senator warren to be have the statutory authority in place to have the type of bake-off that you describe. >> we absolutely do and we participated in those sorts of downselect processes.>> so it's just a matter of ãã senator warren.

>> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing. dod buys a lot of stuff from defense contractors. and to protect the military and taxpayers, it's long been law the defense contractors must give dod contracting officers certified cost and pricing data to help verify that a price that's being charged is fair and reasonable. one of the big exceptions to this though is that for " commercial goods and services. based on the principles that the market will make sure it's fair price if you could buy it on amazon that's a fair price you don't have to go into all the background.i get that. and i'm all for commercial buying but the fact is, this is turned into a massive loophole where big defense contractors withhold data even though there is no market and dod

effectively the only customer, doesn't have this information so that these giant companies can price gouge the military. so i want to give you an example. for years the army was buying helicopter engines from honeywell. honeywell successfully lobbying congress so the engines would be treated as commercial and honeywell would have to turn over the certified cost and pricing data. mr. sankar, you're the epo of pelletier, billion-dollar tech company that contracts with dod, once honeywell got the engine moved to a commercial engine, what do you think happened to the price? >> i'm not familiar. >> it went up. not down. by 100%. that's the problem we've got

here. too often dod is outgunned when it's negotiating with these giant defense contractors. which is exactly why it meets the cost and pricing data to avoid being ripped off. now, mr. sankar, your company is looking to create consortium with another defense next company to jointly bed for something called " other transactions agreement or since we have to give everything initials, ota's, where the government also waives taxpayer protections on how to get pricing information.i'm sure it's not your intent to team up with another organization in order to price gouge the military so the next question should we be easy. dod's inspector general

recommended requiring big contractors to alert military contracting offices when the price of a good or service those up by 25%. in other words, move it up so other people could get advice do you agree with the ig's recommendation? >> i do i think the price signal is part of the competitive market and encouraging more entrance to officially be allocated to improve things. >> and will palantir agree to do that voluntarily? >> i would defer to my team but i don't think we have any conceptual disagreement. >> that i treat that as a yes? >> i would defer to my team. >> i want to be clear here, we only know about most of these overcharges because of the work the department of defense inspector general has done. this is the person who president trump just illegally

fired on friday night, along with at least 16 other ig's. i'm deeply concerned that this administration is removing exactly the cops on the beat that we need to identify waste and prevent these kinds of increases. so, mr. sankar, do you think it helps or hurts national security to have senate confirmed watchdogs who can be there on pricing questions like this to call balls and strikes? >> as a technologist that i can speak to is when you look at intel in the late 60s, 96 percent some of the market for integrated ããalways envisioned a bigger commercial market our ability to deliver assault breaker is ultimately ã ¦ >> can you relate that to the question.

>> our ability to deliver assault breaker could create integrated circuit that are thousands of times cheaper than when we are billing apollo. that was only possible because he had an eye toward the commercial market i completely agree if you have a fake commercial item it doesn't have commercial capability. of the company is not able to leverage it diversified r&d space that goes beyond the government, that is the promise that should lead to price performance then you're not getting the value but when we look at space i grew up in the shadow of the space coat to get a kilogram into the orbit and the shuttle is $50,000 kilogram. the cost of the starship to reuse is $10. >> i very much appreciate to push the cost i am back to the question i asked was whether or not we need ig's for whistleblowers who say people are cheating on the cost on the definition of commercial or somebody who can help us bring these costs down, the pentagon is spending $440 billion this

year on contracts it's important for us to get other procedures in place to get some eyes and what they're doing and ig's help us do that. >> thank you very much senator, perhaps mr. sankar would like to respond on the record to that last matter. and with regard to deferring to your team, once you had a chance to do that, perhaps, mr. sankar, you can supplement your question on the record. along with other things. senator schmidt. >> thank you. i will start where mr. sankar left off. and ask a question and all three of you feel free to chime in. i also served on the commerce committee and to my surprise my first year is the name of the ranking member of the space and science subcommittee i would not have put that on my bingo

card coming into the senate my first two years but i find it fascinating because of the innovation that's happening in space driven by the commercial private sector. one of the things we were able to do was to extend the learning period which is kind of essentially allowing the companies to innovate and any regulations that will come follow the path of what has worked. not to artificially constrain the innovation on the front and with a bunch of bureaucrats making it up not knowing what the rules should be. is there a scenario or how would we construct something similar? we are all getting out this challenge of innovation and how you unlock it and what seems to be the pentagon that is just sort of been captured by centralized planning. i think our great advantage

against communist china is our ability to innovate but if we hamstring our ability to innovate we lose our advantage. this example of ããwhat would be a version in your mind to replicate. for the accident hold the kiss

of death was going to be create some smooth process. if we enable ourselves to lean into the friction will be able to feel the cutting edge technologies. in our meeting prior to the hearing we talked about combatant commanders whether

it's a separate pot of money dedicated for that we talked about in the committee about having a separate pot for smaller players, the destructors that might come to the marketplace what other concrete ideas exist and i won't have time to ask the second question but in the context of if we were at war right now, let's say we are at with china tomorrow. what would we do differently? that we are not doing now. >> i go back to the industrial network. not rebuild what we used to have rebuild with modern technology that's flexible. we have to think about let's take congestive logistics leveraging electric vehicles things that already exist rather than trying to re-create the giant purpose build forced

become really fast adopters integrators and not trying to be the inventors of everything. we need to be superfast that integrating and getting into the hands of our women admitted. >> i think the models exist that have been practiced over the last few years they were not scaled i don't know that we have the structure to actually scale list currently the department should be commended on incredible work of the multiple eventually that must turn into build on the

successes. >> if you have the right person in terms of the program today we have the bingo card approach. making sure you haven't been in the role long enough to make mistakes. you don't even know the mistakes yet takes a long time for the programs to get to the point where you're up the learning curve i don't think you can randomly replace elon

or glenn shotwell and expect the records to keep working. they accumulated the knowledge of the past 20+ years. >> 㦠>> in my opinion know but i think we have to get the whole country to realize that.>> thank you very much. senator rosen. >> thank you chairman and ranking member read. really important hearing i would like to thank each of you to be here today.i want to build a little time of what senator warren brought up the pricing because consolidation of our defensive base is concerning to say the least. said since the 1990s number of u.s. aerospace and defense prime contractors have shown from 51 down to 5. 50 want to 5 as a result the department of defense small number of contractors capabilities this constrains us in many ways and

i hope for a bigger conversation on the value of early-stage research and what it can teach us nothing much larger conversation which can happen in five minutes. how should dod help support advanced technology, small businesses that do that especially those who struggle to find private capital we want them to be more attractive for investment so they can survive the infamous ããbecome part of the defense industrial base. secretary gertz i will ask you a follow-up for the defense focused small businesses it can't find the private capital how might public-private partnership consent to domestic investors to help support them. >> thank you. when we launched what we called mathworks 2.0 in 2020 to create a process called efforts process you can say what you want about the particular

marketing around that but what it did is it recognize there are many technologies emerging technologies dod can actually become an incredible incubator to reduce the technical risk to reduce the regulatory risk and reduce the adoption risk. we were able in a few instances to actually publish dual use set of technologies to some degree a market in america because of that approach because very quickly some of the companies at the beginning came in on $50,000 small business contract we've been talking about but we were given authorities to turn the $50,000 contract into $50 million contract over the course of the year speed is everything getting the department understand the critical nature of speed as we are in a wartime footing is ever more critical those things have been piloted

there have been initial moves by the department to create the proximal funding to get them to scale we must double down and make sure that success can scale. >> mr. gertz, what we do if they don't get across? how do we incentivize the public-private partnership? >> i think we need to be careful i don't think every company is to make it across. we want to make sure we don't over rotate the other way so that i don't have a product that meets the need at a price that's affordable and reasonable that you may not make it across stop when i do think we have to focus more is how to quickly scale the products and services that we need and in many cases the small businesses have a piece of the solution but aren't the whole solution so that's why i think there's opportunity to create a network where either they get together or they bad together with your commercial or another company that can help get them across.

>>. >> they can potentiate the value together want to keep a lid on this potentiation because technology is dependent on fragile global supply chain. nevada my home state lithium, magnesium, other critical minerals, we have a role to play in these technologies but only if we make concerted effort to strategically leverage our resources leverage our advantages to overcome our global supply chain so what specific strategies, u.s. deployed to mitigate the vulnerabilities. >> i'm really optimistic on the focus of not only only our supply chain but adding multiple sources of supply and resilience. five years ago that wasn't part of the conversation part of every conversation now. looking at all the resources we have and how we incentivize is

critically important whether it's the minerals all the way to being able to remanufacture what art that's been out of production for 30 years. >> i will submit this question for the record that is the only former software developer here in the united states that i want to talk about high-quality systems and software and how we prioritize across the enterprise dod measurement of technical debts which cost of choosing speed over quality and when we develop software systems i will submit that for the record. >> thank you senator rosen, senator scott. >> thank you chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. when i was in business written purpose for everything we spent money on when i went to wall street to raise money they wanted to get return on their investment when i became governor of florida this 4000 lines of the budget we had written purpose for every line.

even if it didn't be the purpose we did and continue to fund it. is that how dod works? >> i would say yes and no. i would say there's a written purpose and a stack of budget dogs this thick weather is a purpose against every budget line are those looked across and are they scrubbed the way they need to be? no is return on investment looked at as close as it needs to be? no we are horrible at stopping before get started that's one of the biggest inhibitors of innovation as we can't stop things that aren't adding value to fun things that we need to be working on. >> can you give me an example it didn't and there is accountability today stop did somebody lose their job can you give me one example there was a

written purpose for something it didn't happen and then there was change made? >> i'm not sure of a clear example is much as many times we are issued sometimes through congressional budget changes activities to go work on that we are not in our original plans on could be value added some good may not be value added. i can't think of an example where there is a purpose for funding that didn't execute purpose you could argue whether the purpose of blurb) but i can't think of an example. >> you don't have an example where anybody was held accountable for not fulfilling your purpose?>> i think there's plenty examples that you can look at what i did as a baby secretary in the grant manager. >> what happened did somebody get fired? >>. >> yes he did.

>> what did he do? >> didn't execute without them i expected is a program. >> you guys like to compete? i love it. >> absolute. >> to compete does it make you better? >> 100%. >> have you lost? >> yes. >> often. >> when you did what you do? >> get better, try harder. >> do you feel like that's the way dod operates when they are out trying to get people to go compete to find out the best product service things like that? >> sometimes competition is too short where what you want is you want to be able to get a bunch of people continuous competition just because you're winning today i want incentive

to show up with a better mousetrap and try to win with that and do it again. >> are you rewarded for that? >> spiritually we are but i think were at the beginning of broader transition with dod where i can result in rewards that make it sustainable. >> for both of you, if you have three things you are going to do to force big change at dod what would you do? >> i feel like i'm starting to sound like a broken record but my two course would be have competing programs do not give the program a monopoly on a certain capability area multiple departments organizations units programs within the government compete with each other, that's why space is so innovative right now because it is a sweet side between different agencies we should embrace that. the second is push more

authority to the commanders to decide what they need to use that to drive signal and reformation to the services and department probably. >>. >> digitized the future is digital and we are not there yet. be clear that there are different types of portfolios that attractive for companies that need a different culture and make sure there's a path of doing that and lastly, make sure we actually have ability to manufacture in america. dod could be the catalyst actually shipped america manufacturing this is an american problem and must be sought to avoid the crisis that we have and turning ideas to hardware. >>. >> very good. senator kelly. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all of you for being here today. the ranking member of the subcommittee of the cochair of the defense modernization caucus along with senator

kramer, i focused on maintaining our competitive edge over our adversaries. to achieve this got i'm sure the military is not only equipped with cutting edge technology but also at the infrastructure to remain effective and contested environments where supply chains and sustainment could be disruptive. i don't know if the three of you saw an order from omb in the white house last night or yesterday expansive order with repercussions across the country. it's unprecedented and i will explain in a second where i think the defense impact could be. this is appalling medicaid health plans meals for kids nutrition programs for pregnant mothers programs to help homeless veterans. it appears that it also may freeze federal funding and

grants for department of defense research and manufacturing technology. and other small business and ovation programs. so i want to ask each of you starting with mr. gertz. have you looked at this memo that was issued last night? are you concerned that a blanket freezing is when impact the readiness and ability to compete with china and other adversaries going to start with ....

could you talk specifically about how that would impact your company? >> i think you can imagine that it causes quite a bit of heartburn. it is a difficult environment. >> where are your employees? >> all over. >> how many? >> 4000. >> if you didn't get paid for the federal government the next four months, how many would you have to lay off? >> i would rather not think about it. >> you would rather not think about it? what would be the impacts if your federal dollars contract payments were to stop? stop? to make a company starting in the defense space that would deter us from doing that we've

seen over the years and it create risk. we could not convince so understanding continuity. >> you will find out in the next 24 hours if it will impact you and your company and employees but this is unprecedented in the white house programs focus on this many u.s. senate optimize money to be appropriate programs the homeless that's, programs for months also programs that

affect our safety and readiness troops to make sure they have the power they need environment in vegas they notified us that goes into effect the you back to your company to close look in your employees. >> the critical minerals and

alaska governmental groups again from china donald trump is changing that one day one is really good for people is here little bit. we really want a sense of it and you remember the lunch we were

at the not contracting officers career don't want to rock the boat to serve as a contracting officer. what are some ways contracting officers race lucky take the easy route? people experience that how do we incentivize risk-taking?

>> first, get them out of pentagon. we would not be in the industrial base and change the design we could do that now, critically? >> another one they are competing against ms. out late by the fact that you are going to win there going to lose. >> no contract and we are saying we are establishing difficult for them, this is not

necessarily about money it is a mission they actually want to engage in lots of people working for them you can attract incredible officers and there so many out there but they need to be told top down it's okay to get them aligned so they are not on an island of team is together a strategy of adaptable cross enticing of the second the burden would put on the contract, the number of things they have to sign certifications and godly so this committee can really help.

>> that's not a statute, is it? >> yes or. statute we obligate in fermentation and -- >> maybe if you have some ideas on that. you did a great job on a piece in october but i love the idea of these programs how do you envision the system working when services have a lot -- you are very focused on combat and command which makes sense but services have a lot of skin in the game. is there a challenge where they say that's my territory, what do we need to do how do you make them work?

>> of overlap. not sure for example met and had conversion the different billing software and can argue a contradiction the more productive frame to offer capability across services and the creed the productive interoperability and things we aspire for instead of on paper. we forget it has to be effective before you can go on efficiency.

>> thank you very much. >> i was flattered first official hearing so something or we should have a bipartisan approach to this issue. i'm a former cia officer and i feel like i saw a lot of things up close the most important that for me but i major success or failure someone told me to go to the chinese government concept to feeling a program in their tray is a one-year strength. so we hoping about conflict with china or anybody we have to have the speed of decision-making

change on a dime. i've seen fruit tours in iraq particularly special authorities in the field get the most exciting was words like boom, who got a problem have authority to do it, let's go do it so that it six years on the armed services committee, you're ready to hurl authority of the underground if we talk it would actually help and republicans. mid-level contracting worker is going to do something when they are not getting pressure in organizations site saying senator workers mid-level staff would be doing something on his behalf. the book talks with him

secretary of defense you will front of the most important thing is on and were fighting which was the scene of the decision-making changing it but to me this is about culture and so we get that right, we're just going to be spinning our wheels. you get to gamble shareholders or investors money gambling with taxpayer dollars is just a higher threshold it's ever going to be like the private sector and we complain with the of 35 goes over budget because they are wasting taxpayer dollars for the conundrum.

we are in agreement that we need to do something to speed things up and i hope we can push the agenda in a bipartisan way together. i do have to say following on what senator kelly said, senator bricker, we have a constitutional issue going on with this body appropriated money defense programs and a million things in the trump administration has contravened your own, and all of us are dragons on programs. i'm not talking about programs in the future, every president gets to decide how they want to create programs they want to implement for for things already appropriated, right now the military health system and research prop programs are all on wounded warriors on army

contracts on hold. guess trump is going to make change, the same as mr. trump, i understand that but to me, a constitutional rule we have set up so i would assume will have serious action on bipartisan and filibusters my entire time. a trend i want to get the top down because of so we actually move the needle otherwise we are just doing the margin for contract officers were going to do with their boss says if there don't ostomy inspection and leave it at that. >> let me just respond greatly.

the witnesses have not had a chance to read the memo to which you referred questions have been asked around capitol hill and there will be more on the issue. it did mr. taylor you say little more find that now endurable

saying the same thing find that capacity, you're not talking about ownership. >> no but what i'm suggesting is you have a crisis national industrial base of the charges locked being able to create the parts needed to build multitrillion dollar areas we have today factories is a service that would have been critical agility to ensure the legacy course we must have. in this network of small

companies are able to build relate more and we as agility available to beta we are not producing typically mature.

focus on production. and a little off the type in the process spent rather than five save elaborate on that basically offensive it is necessary

incentive. how long will it take? systems in the industrial base to accomplish that. >> time spent versus caps on saved. the dod lies about a lot of different ways to do things we

can even drive the lovely thing. it contract and suffered that for 15 or 20 years which incentivizes haley as we are looking for. >> it is available to rapidly transform department of defense. we have to engage this we are mobilizing the industrial base and that is arjun been very optimistic america is going to be able to build together.

>> thinks is a shame is to make other products are no longer in the you have and in the industrial base.

these are after all not to move weekly at scale. in that i learned this that could turn into artillery to defend the nation. 1,220,000,000,000 in two

national security companies would get back your created buyers in the pentagon.

have your weight in. >> for all the things you said, it's done incredible things an opportunity to do something about any other institution can. there are they have a callous you cannot a downward trend not

defense the time to be the catalyst again possible to do exactly what john has said today we are printing missiles the same fauci floor. if we look capital adversary, there are three groups of people that dislike change this truth to some degree dislike change the bill ourselves reasonably

want to teacher agile the left horse the general. the a.i. driven some whiskey does not look like anything manufactured is a step change dual use fauci and in this strength and workforce problem

is a.i. they could be the catalyst for that change in the only way we create real deterrence to remain in the manufacturing perspective and engage in change. as the process that's often the over solution abilities

requirement for this scope not requirement statements programs and that culture.

that is by itself. and what needs to build. in the budget technology and you don't have a monopoly on this

capability. >> the most informative to the house hours and a lot of talent and brainpower has gone into this hearing and i appreciate the participation see if i can make an announcement notify on this with that, hearing is adjourned.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: thursday the senate judiciary commmeets to vote on whether to sd sh patel's nomination for fbi director to the full satfor consideration. this comes after an initial vote was delayed by one week at the request of democrats on the coe. they continue to call f a mr. patel.firmation hearing with

u can watch the committee vote live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3, c-span now, our free mopp, or online at c-span.org. announcer: c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more. including cox. >> when connection is needed most, cox is there to help. bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans. whenever and wherever it matters most, we will be there. announcer: cox supports c-span as a public servic along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. announcer: thursday, president trump' nominee to s as education ary linda mcmahon testifies at her confirmation