some of the numbers that agree with this the. there's a lot of different topics that go into marving, what is the challenge of manufacturing, how do we actually get back to where we need to be for democracy. given what we have here an end user acquisition official distinguished legislator, what i want to do is start down the line and ask basically what's the single biggest challenge or

road block to getting manufacturing where it needs to be for american national security and senator, start with you. i will start with my own visual aid. >> this is a chart that jim mhoff created at armed services committee and basically what it shows is the time from concept of automobiles and goes back to 60's and 70's and you see the line for commercial aircraft and military aircraft are pretty similar, they are right around 4, 5 years. something happened in the 70's this is the trajectory of the time to develop a military aircraft versus a commercial aircraft. so the first part of my presentation is on -- i have 3d's for you today, but the first one is delay.

if you want less of something, you should tax regularly. if you want more speed, faster development cycles you actually need to incentivize as criteria and how you do it, you need to promote and pay people the program is getting through faster to get to successful outcomes and so, yes, i absolutely think that time and speed are the things we need most of and we need to create incentives for them. >> i would use -- i would use senator king's same that he has. past change is what we have to get after is the biggest challenge that we have and start in 1960. 11 big pots of money and we didn't have all of these programs we could move money

around and we could spend it year after year, up to 18, 19 different program lines. so especially when you're talking about the first thing i think we need is agile funding, i really do think we need to be agile on our funding especially when you talk about uas, counter uas and ew and we know it spends rapidly and we have to be able to respond to that. second thing that i think we have to do as users is change how we also put our requirements out and we don't need 30 page documents, i will give you one example i do with network is put out characterization of need. the hardest thing is process

change. we've been talking about this and we l also have to stop buying things that we know are world-winning down the road and that means you can find better value for your money and spend your money on the things that you know are going to make the biggest difference the on the battlefield so i would say it's a process change. >> i think it's a great point and i will pick on something that the general changed. i think we have to pick up on what you said, senator, on your chart there which is design to the highest level of requirements to your point and that takes time, it's a very high bar. i think we have to get back to modular design philosophy, get it out on the field and continue to it rate and upgrade in the field as we learn more about the threats, about the threats, what our adversaries are doing. i would say that's number one and number do, not something that we do terribly well,

designed for manufacturability, we design for performance obviously because of the threats that are out there. we don't necessarily design with many manufacturability in mind. the more we can continue to design the manufacturability, the faster you can continue to ramp up the production of any program. >> i agree with everything that my teammates said. i come at this problem from a couple of different -- i've been at the department for 18 months. before that 13 years at apple. it's all about disruption and scale. also in the military for about part-time at least for 28 years and a lot of my career back and forth throughout asian and the first thing i said, i want to underscore, we simply cannot meet the strategic comparative force, we have been talking in the last couple of days unless we are able to fully leverage

power of tech sector. and, you know, we are now focused on felt pretty amazing to see the collection of folks from the tech sector who are here now and -- and build on the -- the experiences that we have and with commercially dry tech to now doing it with the focus, speed and scale that we need order to deliver, so i think, you know, as i think back from my experience in the tech world where we do see transformation at scale, massive innovation, often with capabilities that put something from a concept to 101 million under a treesix months, there's just a few things that really drive that. the first one is relentless demand which from billions of consumers around the world, the enterprise that serve them which

doesn't mean exactly but we know it will be there and then second, massive competition also from around the world that forces innovation, forces investment in that innovation because if you don't do that, you lose. our more traditional approach for defense procurement we neither have both two things. 5-year plan from the old soviet system which the chinese have spent a whole lot of time trying to get away from because it doesn't work and make it worse by not being able to consistently pass budget to do that. my recommendation so address directly both demand and competition. first, we need a much more clear demand signal. doesn't have to be exact clear and demand for the next five years but in fact, if you get exact definition and just put more money against it, then, you know, you actually don't incentthe kind of behaviors that you want.

instead for those major areas of tech change, we should provide consistent demand signal of the critical areas we will be buying in rather than specific programs, areas like ai, autonomy, bay owe tech and i would like to call portfolio record, the flexibility to move within those so the general george can change to this one to that one and the company is delivering and -- and i think we have to also consistency to -- to be give the confidence that we will and second, we use that flexibility to open up the operature so that that competition can force investment and that means bringing the nontraditional in and along deputy side the more traditional players, making it easier for them to participate and compete and in some case the best text is going to come from there and in every single case that would

drive competition that would drive innovation and performance and all the way to brand-new start-ups and we work helping and they can come from anywhere, competition helps to drive it and so diu and we are just getting started using the tools and working with our partners like general george here. that's a huge opportunity the right now for this incoming administration to partner with congress and do something on this. >> continuing resolutions are just terrible the. they cause the defense department $5 billion a month. it's pitiful that we can't, there's no earthly reason we couldn't have passed a budget on october -- on october, septembe.

by the way, we had a two-year budget, i don't know why we can't have a two-year budget and also the federal government has no capitol budget. we are paying cash for asset that is would last 50 years. so i think there's some real significant improvements that can be made but it would start with just pass the damn budget on time the and you would have a study demand signal throughout the whole system and people could understand how they can invest and -- and get involved in these long-term projects, so that's a -- that's a simple solution through some overnight i'm not in charge over there, so we will pass another continuing resolution next week, in march. [laughter] >> i absolutely don't know.

negotiations over the top line, appropriations committee work out the distributions and go from there. they go through all of the numbers and meeting after meeting and they do all the work and it never happens. so one of the things that you might have heard and you should say you can use the app to send questions in, something that we talked about ahead of time, speed and the figure out ways to be able to go not just faster in terms the of putting thing out but in terms of our processes and how to actually change things. general george, i wanted to ask you this, can you get at the speed that you need as the end

user and there needs to be fundamental shift on how the process works. >> uas, anything uncrewed, ew and we are seeing that in ukraine, we are seeing that everywhere on how fast things are changing and so i think that that's one area and when we -- if you had flexible funding and you had the ability, the other part of besides putting behind resolution, if you have to make rapid changes and you don't have a bucket and you need to increase quantities or need to make changes, you can't do that either, so there's real operational impacts so i -- i think that we just should take this at that level and try to do that first. i would be all for we are going the portfolio base management

and all of those systems are buying capabilities are very first transforming contact brigades and infused with certain amount of tech from one company and the one we are doing getting ready to do in january, all the uaf's and the counteruafs and ew systems are different because they are better on the uas side they are longer, cheaper, better systems. when we can start buying those things at that level and you have to look at bigger systems. build the big system and be able to change out those modules because you know all of that is going the change.

that would allow us to be more flexible moving forward. i think it's a combination of things. is there appetite on that kind of reform? >> i think there is because we are coming to realize that, again, the necessity of -- of agile, my high school football coach wanted us to be mobilize, agile and hostile. [laughter] >> that's probably not a description for the army, but i think there's an increasing realization that time is absolutely essential. i mean, we've learned that in ukraine. they are doing generations of drones in matters of weeks and we have to do that and by the way, one of the places we've really been slow is on directed energy and directed energy budget in the defense budget over the past few years has fallen in half. to me that's absolutely crazy. we are shooting down houthi 20,000-dollar drones with

2 million-dollar missile. perfect use of directed energy and we are now starting to deploy directed energy weapons but it ought to be happening a lot faster so i think the idea of allocating money for a purpose rather than for a particular item is a much better way to proceed and that'll give you more flexibility in order to acquire the weapons that are necessary for today's conflict not last month or last year. >> can i mention one other thing on that. just because senator brought up directed energy. the other thing that we are really focused on is actually typically we build something, we take it to the test range, you know, then we said, we will take it back, so we are actually doing that as you know we've sent over, we send directed energy and we are sending out to the middle east and sending prototypes and somebody will say, evenly mutually 5x letter,

better capability that we are getting with our soldiers out there. we are also finding out what does the heat do, what does the humidity do when we take it out in the pacific and what does the cold weather do if you're in the eastern plains in europe and we are getting that kind of feedback. we get the best feedback from formations that are using it and again i think that's a process change and what that has allowed us to do is to start pulling things less and base i will say, we can get this quicker. >> can i maybe build on that for a second. >> so there's been first of all congress entrusted diu, uptick in our budget to shy of billion dollars and there's been a lot of talk about -- about battle and focus on it and -- and what's been a little bit lost in that discussion of the budgets probably the most talked about 0.1% of the defense budget out

there, but the disconstitution is the most important thing about it which is the flexibility that's within that budget so for the first time ever, actually anyone in the department we have the ability to go the way from the initial prototype all the way to fielding initial fielding operation. we don't scale anything because that's what the service does. that puts me in a position to be a completely different kind of partner for general george so we are able to help, facilitate those initial, those initials deployments and what that means, concrete example. i think i saw general here from afc a second ago. so -- so, for example, they see a need based on what is happening in ukraine, what is happening in gaza, he writes a requirement, we we can work together on fielding a prototype really quickly the same we always would have with a few billion dollars and then we are

in a position to help with the initial field, tens of billions but also moving forward to operational units so they can start testing things, working with them in contact where appropriate or -- in operational unit and then the second year we can continue to help if they now moved their flexible funding to help support that and hopefully without getting ahead of either the current present budget or future present budget they're in a position to also really scale those things on the third year once they've proved them out and that's how we are leveraging our flexible funding now which is a brand-new thing that congress has given us to be able to get after this. my perspective is that we need to be doing a lot more of that in places like diu but general george that is the flexibility too. >> let me ask you there's flexibility in the budget, assessing the field and they

say, hey, the thing that you guys made for us, it's worked pretty well but we want to do this and this from where you stand how do you take the feedback and quickly get that around instead of taking four years for the feedback, get it approved. >> one of the good and bad things about two hot wars going on people are innovating quickly and we are learning things in the field that we would otherwise take years to go through requirements process on so the wars, you know, perversely sort of driving innovation at a faster pace, driving drones, driving other things. i think the way that we approach that and -- and bit of evangelist because i think it's a successful model to be agile in processing and design platforms to be able to meet that kind of demand can as it comes into you and as you get the what happened feedback, so as an example we do awful lot of

manufacturing or liquid rocket engines and the advantage of that you can it rate quickly on a design and lessty is nearly free so on a chamber designed to handle 600 degrees fahrenheit, if you want to change the cooling channels in that article, you can 3d print something else rapidly and put it through another qualifications process and in a matter of weeks have a different configuration that you would be able to use. we have been working with our partners on different types of design for solid motors and we have something, drone application and we need to figure out how to shoot things down and idea of an engine and teams have gone and over the

weekend design that and 3d coding software that we do. they printed those articles and welded up the medal to send it back to us, we have done post processing on it. we've done that on a couple of different programs. that's exciting to see that level of innovation happening to be able to meet and respond to something that's happening in the field. we wanted some more range. we wanted a different profile and we wanted something else. it doesn't cost you years of development or acres of tooling, you can jump right back in 3d printers and get it on the stand and field the capability, sir. >> by the way on 3d printing i think everybody army depo and every shift should have a 3d platforms. when you're buying platform, you should be buying ip so that you can print the parts. if something goes wrong -- >> we are actually doing that,

senator. we had a big conference, we are actually down to the tactical units and we are in 20-foot containers and figuring out where we are going to put these. the other things that helps on the battlefield you want to have little signature. whatever you are doing, moving things is very costly. we are trying to push all of that forward and, you know, challenge for us as well and so, you know, we have cases where we've taken parts that have cost us $20 previously and printing them for pennies, 12 cents and we do it very rapidly and so i think it's also going to be a lot for our operational readiness. >> can let me build on that advanced manufacturing a little bit on what dan was talking about. this actually an area that we see enormous opportunity and actually i got something that i will kind of announce that we are going to be doing here.

so when i have an opportunity to work with a whole lot of super, super innovative companies these days who are incredibly advanced in their hardware and software or hardware or software integration, the best of apple but focused in maybe defense kind of space or doing this kind of space. when we have a conversation with some of those companies particularly the ones that are still in the early and mid ramp of their growth curb about the operational side of business it's not kind of the same thing because they're just not there yet but at the same time, the incredible, incredible companies in everything in advanced manufacturing from -- from kind of digital engineering all the way through 3d printing and everything in between, a lot of them actually haven't come out of the space arena but in other areas as well and incredibly, incredibly cool companies and

they are looking for a lot more places to deploy that capability so that -- so that they can grow and what we are now going to be doing is through something called manufacturing which i sort of talked about a little bit before. we will be helping bring groups together so they can both scale and that'll be helping smaller companies but i think it'll be user for larger companies as well and larger companies are able to participate and provide service to others, something that dan and i talked about. in january we will be talk putting out the requirements effectively of solicitation for to be included and relevant categories of advanced manufacturing and for companies that meet the quality and capability standards but also basic adversarial capitol and cybersecurity to be able to work effectively with them or for others to work with them.

we are looking all of the time for innovative suppliers to help us. we are not coming to this with not invented here type of attitude. let's go back to the title of the panel here, can we build again, hell yeah, we can build again and we are. there are certain areas where we are not -- we are bringing automation, connected machines, anything that we can to continue to ramp to meet the needs. you walk around here like i have today and you're meeting with service chiefs, combating commanders, they need our stuff.

we can talk about the 5-year plan, the ten-year plan, they need our stuff today. they need patriot batteries, standard missile 3, standard missile 6, all things that are in the pipeline today that we have continuing to invest, counteruas. you heard the general talk about

there's urgenty and industry to continue to ramp to meet the needs of our customer. >> somebody asked us in the audience questions which is -- i'm sorry, i was -- the word constraints is in the title. what are the on strains and something i'm surprised habit come up with is manpower, workforce. every business is looking for workers and that includes the shipyards and we need to really be thinking about that, the government needs to be thinking about that. we not only need to be funding facilities at a major defense production but we need to be talking about parking and day care and housing, all of those, talk about constraints, major employer in maine, they have people come from out of state and then they can't find a place to live that they can afford, so all of those things are

interrelated and i think if we are talking about constraints, the workforce constraint is a national problem. i assume it's a problem in other states, every business that comes to my office is short of people whether it's truck drivers, professionals, nurses, hospitals are down 500 nurses. this is something that we really need to address as a country in terms of training and bringing people along and -- and engaging at a younger age. you guys have done a good job working with a community college and high schools in the region where they are but has enabled them to add people but, boy, nationwide this is a huge -- you talk about constraints, workforce is one of the biggest. >> senator, i couldn't agree more. we have a plan and continue to train, develop curriculum to your point to make sure that we've got folks but the reason i mentioned automation and added $2 million of automation over

the last several years, so we've got to continue to find ways to automate, have people be able to operate 2 and 3 and 4 machines as opposed to 1 person for each machine. we have to work around those constraints and automation is a key incapabler to making that happened. >> i think we have examples of that and doing that in the organic industrial base, we are talking about round production. you basically have the same workforce but if you've automated it and the stockpiles and having the right thing that are ready to go, you can scale your production, there's a lot of companies that are out there doing that. >> you're not putting people out of work, that helps. same number of people in organic industrial bases but you have them, doing the same thing down there at one of those plants, so it's the same number of people, you just have a lot more production capacity because it's

-- >> i'm kind of on that point and i've seen that happen at other industries as well and, yes, we need to crank out more engineers and crank out more qualified texts and machinists and everything else through our system and a lot of that comes by incentivizing people that want to come work at your company as well and that means good benefits and well-paying jobs, good career opportunities, you know, people that like to work with on hard problems and we want to ceprateing those. >> you all read my mind, that was the question that you had from the audience, thank you for setting that up. one question on the man force is even let's say if the force that we have right now, the man, the workforce can do 3 times the work that they are able to do through automation, is that actually still enough to get where we need to be or does it need to be aside from the changes and processes and added manufacturing, et cetera, to help speed that along does there

still needs to be influx of manpower to able to meet the requirements that we have. >> dual use technology, they made different things and infantry squad vehicles are a good example. right now chevy colorado chasse and also does very well for us. i think moving to those kinds of things helps i think for all of us to be able to do things at scale. >> part of it is the requirement. >> there's literally 18 inches high. so part of it is --

>> i agree with you. characterization needs, we have to be very simple and straightforward. >> we are doing that for uas, uas that we bought again for the first unit and the second and third or different people understand what we need. they're out with us and they're producing it. were actually, maybe two different things. first on the need versus requirement point. this is actually really at the heart of the way diu tries to approach the problem starting with the need rather than the requirement. if you started with -- if you started by asking the consumer what they wanted, you know, in a new smartphone in 2006 or 2007 would have gotten a flip phone that you could place faster with a toothbrush, instead what the human problem we are trying to solve and how does technology help to solve it how we are embedded the combatant commands, what's the need and how to bring the technologist solve the

problem rather than tech and thousand page thing. ten-page powerpoint of how you think you can help solve the problem and now you get something real and let's talk about it. that's one thing. second thing the, i want to come back to the workforce point and after we do all of the amazing things we do from process point and whether we need from all different kinds, hell, yes would be my answer and related capabilities and true for the entire tech the sector and as we -- as you think about everything across that value chain from, you know, high end chips to the testing equipment, to the people who are developing apps that are part of -- part of that software system, we need a whole broad set of folks that are way more involved scaled earlier and start earlier the education to help develop that. that's a -- i think that the government is going to need the help play a role and helping to

stimulate that in the right ways and we have done that at other times in our history and the sector needs to get much more active and one other thing i will throw out there because i just can't help it is i actually think one of the places, enormous source talent that we are talking about here that is incredibly operational capable, technically savvy high integrity, hard working and -- and willing to get after it is all my fellow veterans are coming out of the force. we would love to keep them in but the ones that get out a lot of them be going and making it easier because they are gate jobs and we need them. there are people in other industries that we need more flexible to adding to defense.

no.2 i would talk about coproduction, enable the ramp. partnering with our allies and think about some of our large programs. i was in poland a month ago. we have suppliers on patriot and we have coal production in mt in germany and we've got a number of programs where -- norway. >> and contracts. >> so, again, capable partners, internationally with our allies again continues to add capacity and enable us to come up the ramp. >> i just want to build on because this i'm super passionate about this, about this one. i think that adds capacity that we need, partnering with our allies, first of all, all of this technology we talk about kind of the assembly pieces that happen in china but people don't

talk about all the components, come from allies and partners. those friends are incredibly capable and we have to take advantage from a capacity standpoint and also from market standpoint and we work with those allies and partners that create market for our companies to be able to go play in that world and also invites more of them, more competition as well which creates a lot more of the incentives that we need. so this is a huge, one of the reasons that central parts of our strategy diu right now partnering with the brits, australians, japans, the indians, in fact, my deputy director was just in japan this last week launching two challenges with the japanese. that's just a start. we have to use it to help scale all with the coproduction completely agree. >> i'd say i'd be sensitive to some of the places that are left behind on that kind of thing. we have a 3d center of

excellence in youngstown, ohio and that was helped funded by the federal government as well as the state of ohio to create what are essentially some of the most technologically advanced world class 3d printing centers for complex metal parts that spin at 65,000rpm combustion chambers that handle 600,000 degrees in the center. that's being done here and it's really important that even as we work with the allies and i agree we need to do that, but there are -- there are vast swaths of the country where people could use those jobs too and we should be developing in those areas and we should be developing in those work pools and creating those -- >> an end and not a nor. i do think you are starting to see again to the senator's point labor continues to be an issue. again, i think this just adds, you know, we are talking about adding additional sources to the very stretch supply chain what i think coal production help

unlock. >> i agree with both of you. i think the opportunity for those capabilities and the kinds of things that you're talking about and is -- i think there's opportunity there because part of what we can do through kind of arrangements is help introduce them to markets where they can get more scale off of what they're doing in places like ohio. >> the incoming administration has talked a lot about immigration reform, deportation of individuals as well. is there any concern that that kind of movement of people whether it's restricting them coming into the country or having someone exit, getting them back the workforce. we need to control the southern border and we need to rationalize the immigration process and enable legal immigration. these are people that we need. these are people from all over the world with talents. we are the only countries in the world that people want to break into. ever think of that.

we need control of the southern border first and then, first year i came to the senate we passed the comprehensive immigration bill by 67 votes in the senate led by john mccain and others and it never came up in the house so it never happened. but this has to be part of the package. i mean, these -- we need to enable legal immigration for all this talent that wants to come here. i think president trump said at some point something that i've said, we should be stabling green cards to college diplomas. if we have a talented people who are coming to this country for education, we want them to the stay and use the education for our benefit, not to go back to someplace else. i agree with you, that's a piece of this. it start with the border but then we need to go onto a more comprehensive solution to the overall problem. >> chris, i want to throw one

out of you. >> so we are in california. >> i noticed none of you guys want today chip in on immigration. >> you handled it beautifully. >> how do you respond to the idea from some sectors that -- provide the department of defense -- >> a couple of thoughts. i will reiterate what i said before. if you look at the systems we have at play today, ukraine, red sea, israel and the like.

again, i think the demand is incredibly strong for our products. that is sort of point one. but the point two would be, maybe quibble with your characterization a little bit as a strict defense prime. almost half of our business is commercial air space based. and in commercial aerospace, you are constantly investing at risk, you've got to get products out fast, you have to design with upgrades in mind, you have to constantly be -- be innovating. i can give you a number of examples where we have taken a commercial innovation and poured that over into for defense and done it successfully.

to the general's point before, we are seeing things down the field an upgrading on upgrades, hardware and software to react to the countermeasures that we are seeing operating in environments example. look, i think competition is a great thing. there are partnership opportunities. so i agree with the need for speed and i think i can give you a number of examples we are doing just that. i think the characterization and composition of our business is different than defense prime which gives us a bit of an advantage. we are always looking to find ways to partner with folks to provide the absolute best solutions, you know, to the general and our customers. >> how do you help get newer

entrances up to the ability to produce at scale because that is the big hunk we are talk thing about. >> the thing that they need most of all is -- is a consistent demand signal that allows them to make the investments and their investors to make the investment that they need to get after it. we need reference cases of successes that people can point to and see where that success goes. it's interesting there's a lot of talk about capitol out there and the reality is that every dollar that diu puts into something, 5 to 10 or investment that comes in which we need to come in so the companies can expand their capacity and go scale. we also need them to be able to the talk the about it and so short answer is the most

important thing that we can do is get reps and sets of successes out there and be the kind of counterparty that allows investment to consistently and that doesn't mean that every single pane is going to success. every one of these things is going the wind up playing out because that's not how it works in silicon valley, right. companies are companies and investors that need to take risks. we need to have enough clarity scale demand on critical areas of investment with enough of a chance that is worth taking the risk. >> one thing we haven't really talked about and coming up at the end of this, is the supply chain securities specifically. we see happening a couple of weeks ago, we are trying to cut them off and earlier this week or last week china cut off some key minerals. i guess, maybe the way to do this is just say how do we

actually get to getting that balancing the costs, trying to bring it on shore. >> i was trying to figure out how to get to that and you asked the question. >> we have to get things going. >> we are in a hot war with china, russia and iran and that's in cyber. the attack on the telecommunications most serious attack on communication system in history, you know what, we have no deterrence, nobody is afraid of us in cyber. our whole defense strategy is based upon the concept of deterrence. if you atalk us, we are going the make you pay except in cyber. we are still waiting for a response to the sony hack. we have no response. there has to be -- and this is something the president could do, wouldn't cost a dime declarative statement that if the we are attacked in

cyberspace this will be a concrete and costly response, that's something that could be done next week. it should have been done a long time ago and it's just -- it just drives me crazy that we -- we take these attacks, if you're sitting with xi jinping, should we interfere with american elections, yeah, why not. if we get caught, nothing is going the happen. it's cheap or should we attack their telephone system and we don't know the extent they have embedded malware in our telephone system, financial system or transportation system, so boy, to the extent that you all have any role to play, we've got to be -- we have got to develop a comprehensive and lately defined deterrent strategy in cyberspace otherwise this hot war that we are engaged with, we are just going to continue to lose. we cannot patch our way out of

this problem. >> amen to that for sure. >> i'd also -- on the question of the supply chain absolutely we should be thinking about that and we should be designing to account for it so if you have a rare earth mineral and the only place to get that out in remote region of china and want to build entire infrastructure on that, that's crazy, you shouldn't do that unless and until you develop the supply base that has that or you design around that with something else. i don't think we do that all of the time and the consumer world we've been able to get away without doing it because we have been able to go to the marketplace and in the defense world you have to anticipate scenario at some point in the future where you do not have access to the region or supplies or something will shut them off. we do that proactively ourselves and iranians can't fly jets because we won't give them the replacement parts. we should think how that might

get flipped on us in the industrial base. >> so this is big -- this is a big deal obviously and we worked, di portfolio, we have been helping actively with how to handle the situation and find alternative sources. this is somethingic is important for us to think about, which are the critical, what critical, which critical areas of capability and which critical parts value chain we need to have either here and so one, for example, that i think is enormous, so historically in the department of defense approach to batteries has been incredibly -- huge amount of money and only go in the one thing and the battery is everything and meanwhile a hundred billion dollar battery out there that includes some very, companies located right here in the united states that need to be drafting off of in order to have much

more standardized approach to batteries in far more and not possible in everything but the new ones that we are now designing we could build those with much more standardized battery approach and help facilitate that being developed in the united states so that we are not dependent in the ways in some of the areas. >> the real green new deal. >> i think to dan's point it's called off of us to deepen supply chains tier one, tier 3 to figure out where you're getting the raw materials, where your suppliers are getting the raw materials and what happened with titanium coming out of russia, huge impact in aerospace. i think it's called all of us to proactive i will go and make sure and in some cases drives higher cost as you're going and standing up second and third sources and other less volatile areas where you can but it's something i think we've all had,

you know, got religion on this and had to go really, really deep to understand where all the risks are deep, deep in the supply chain. >> we have about a minute and a half left so i'm going to ask if we can close the panel lighting round. we will start with doug and run back here. one of the topics running throughout the conference is the question of the efficiency reforms that might be coming. in each of your worlds, where do you see an opportunity to maybe talk about this in the new administration, we understand that you're looking for efficiency reforms. here is an area that you could set if you want to go down that path. [laughter] >> so i guess what i would say, you've been hearing from both guys that work on the defense department, a few of the things that have to do with the intersection with congress between the administration and

congress portfolios of record. and then there are a whole set of places where there are silly stupid bureaucratic don't have to be there thicks that slow down a lot of what we are talking about getting after that i think are ripe for somebody going through and helping to clean that out so we can go much, much faster. one other quick point we are closing off which is, i think one of the most fundamental things that we have to do here is risk and when i came home from iraq, afghanistan a while ago, i can spend my entire career, it was uncertainty in the private sector. we are dangerously close to protecting ourselves against the wrong kind of risks and translating that into real risks

which is risks to the nation, we have to change approach and talk about it. >> efficiency is a good thing. i think we are all looking for opportunities and i think that's got to be a general posture. i would balance it with capability. the capabilities that we are all bringing to bear, you know, as well given the -- given the threat environment that we are in. >> i'm all in favor of it. we don't have the nickname for it or anything but we've been on talking about process, innovation and the army for the last year and if it doesn't make us much more lethal, we have to review everything that we are doing in that light and, again, i think that the tough thing is going to be we also need to be flexible with our government workforce and that has been, that's going to be the a challenge but we are going to have to make some, you know, adjustments even as we do that on acquisition and how big the things are and as we give things to industry and some of the

changes are going to be hard but i think we have to make them. >> so having gone through this once when i was inside the government i was a lawyer at securities and exchange commission and they did reform initiative and one of them was to the take out a layer and a half, almost two layers of bureaucracy and the middle layer and it turned out we actually ended bringing more cases faster so i'm welcoming any targeted efforts to help make the u.s. government more efficient. i know it's going to be hard. >> senator king, last word. >> i think the program looking for efficiency is good. i think we should be doing that periodically on a regular basis. my only concern is when you use the term efficiency to talk about programmatic programs that may have a policy, in other words, efficiently is one thing, policy is something else. for example, what if they say the program is too expensive, there's a lot of thought in

policy that goes into maintaining the 3 legs of the nuclear triad and i'm not sure the cost should be necessarily the driving factor, you see what i mean? i don't mind mr. musk or others who are looking at efficiency and saying why do you have all the layers, that's fine. i think there's a danger that they are implicitly or explicitly going to be making policy decisions. i think that's a decision for congress to make. >> well, i feel like i learned a lot. i appreciate everyone chiming in here and a affairs.

okay, let's go then, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. good afternoon. welcome to this event organized at iris, the institute for european, russian and eurasian studies at the george washington university. my name