Good morning, everybody. Thank you for tuning in. Im rob nelson. Charlesworth. We are still waking up. We have been together. We are courting again. Thank you for joining us for the jr. League. Its all good. Yes n deed. Amy freeze . Looking good meteorologist amy freeze. I feel like i need to change this is not good. Im throwing off the whole look. Its woodsy and chic. Im like the stump, is that what youre saying . No you look awesome, amy. After the last few days of weather it doesnt matter what you have on. I like the way you think. Exactly. We have more of it coming your way. Temperatures going up a bit this afternoon, and then we are hot and humid from the second half of the weekend going forward, and lows again in the 40s in the northern counties, and monticello, 46 degrees for the overnight low, and last night or yesterday last night . No, yesterday, we had a low, and temperatures sinking it looks and feels food. A refreshing air mass in control for us, meaning no storms, and har
Identifying areas for improvement, identifying areas for managerial improvement. The problem is that those improvements rarely get made. And to the extent that congressional action is necessary to make some of these changes, theres so much else to do. Theres very little glory in eliminating a program especially if people face layoffs. Theres even less glory in that. So to some extent its not that we dont know where to cut that we dont know which programs work and which ones dont. We do have some Good Government reports that help guide those decisions, but its that from recognizing the problem the next step is missing. Where is the action to actually get rid of some of these programs . I think thats exactly right. It comes in the action. When you were talking what popped in my mind was Ronald Reagans famous quote about politics and Foreign Relations which is trust but verify. And that seems to work for a lot of issues we deal with in our life. But when it comes to government spending, y
Supply. It involves many issues including market structures. And we could go on and on. Substitution possibilities, etc. But but what we tackled so far were the difficult issues of things like helping ukraine face the winter, etc. This year and that will continue. But this year frankly a harder issue. We are due to report onto the g7 leader summit. And that is a real intermediate to longterm plan for integrated collective Energy Security. And that gets into some very fundamental policy issues in different countries. But that will be a big agenda item for this year. Finally let me say a few words on the quadrennial Energy Review. I have to say a few words about it first. Some of you are familiar and some are not. This is an admissionwide effort that is looking to weave together all of the equities and threads of an Energy Policy across the government. The first of the quadrennial. It to us its one plus one plus one plus one. And in the first one, we are focussing on energy structure. Tr
Reason and we believe thats the number it takes after being significant operational analysis to do Nuclear Deterrents and to do a largescale campaign and we need a large number of bombers. So were trying to keep prices independent and variable so we can afford that number of airplanes and staying on a very deliberate track on this program, limiting requirements changes and growth. Staying on the acquisition timeliness are really, really important to us in moving this program forward. So thats the approach and right now im really comfortable that we are about where we need to be. We are. Yes. Thank you all very much. Live coverage of the news briefing at the pentagon. The f35 program among the issues mentioned at todays briefing in Bloomberg News reporting that the pentagon will request funding in fiscal year 2016 to buy 57 f35 jets made by Lockheed Martin corporation two more than previously planned according to two government officials. The defense departments previous fiveyear jets d
Philosophically, but i trend back toward the chairman here, there are a lot of practical issues that could turn this into a free fire zone which is not beneficial to anyone. When you are shooting, they may not shoot back to you. That is the problem. And i am not necessarily opposed to offense the government has a very good offensive capability. We have not decided as a country how to use it or has a government policy body, no one has decided to use it, so we do not. The problem you are asking a corporation where you will get these mixed capabilities, and i cannot tell you how many cios i have met who say this is not a problem. You are going to have somebody come in and say i can figure this out. I have never seen such confidence as i have people in cyberspace. Somebody is going to misfire and it will not be that particular company that pays the price. It will be a swath of people who pay the price. A foreign nation state like iran or russia or china or north korea will not say it is fr