That is important that they forget numbers. Do you want to focus on that issue or how you see it Going Forward . Mac thornberry i agree, i think his focus on building the military is exactly right as was the piece you wrote that chris mentioned. Numbers do matter. Part of the reason we are challenged right now is we dont have enough aircraft i will just continue with that example. We are all flying more and more hours, and that is part of the cycle of how hard it is to get things ready if you dont have enough, and what you have got, you are flying the wings off of. What else is true, i was recently in the asiapacific region, you can have more capable ships we had this debate all the time with the Obama Administration. It can need more capable but only in one place at one time. You have to have numbers to cover geography. These days, when you have such a huge array of threats from russia and china, iran, north korea, terrorists that not only have gone away but are spreading out in more places, there is no substitute for numbers. Final point is, like with aircraft, we can wear out our people does well this way. Day after tomorrow in the house, we will pass this years conference report for Defense Authorization bill. Is of the primary features we stopped the drawdown on in strength on all the services, especially the army. Part of what has happened is we have drawn down the numbers so much we have warned people out. For the air force, 700 pilots short, 5000 maintainers short because we are wearing people out. They can only do so much. Christopher griffin i am cochairing at the partisan center, secretary panetta and jim jones. When you get into these subjects as you know, it is quite interesting what you find. One of the things we are seeing is that all throughout the force, one of the reasons morale is suffering so badly is people feel like they are having to do two or three josh jobs instead of one. They will do it, but you mentioned stress. Over time these are volunteers. They dont have to stay. It is amazing that the force has held up, has held up i think as well as it has. Mac thornberry it is a credit to them. One last point on this. When you do the drawdowns like they are in the process of doing, who are you losing . You are losing the people with some experience and so forth. You lose that capability. Even if you try to maintain it tomorrow, you are not replacing that experience. Europe up to train recruits. Dont lose them to begin with. Christopher griffin it is impossible. You also lose more fighters because to some extent, this is the old tooth detail ratio, two tail ratio, but you have to sustain the army. You do have to sustain the Institutional Army in order to continue as an organization, which means your strengths are going to fall primarily in the brigades and war fighters, which is what we want to see out in the field. Bethany is important Going Forward capacity is important Going Forward, and you are going to be working on what is the right capacity. We dont keep drawing down. I want to talk we were talking about the decline in our strength as a result of all of decline,tors, but that when you talk about the decline of the military, it is relative to the missions they have to perform and the threats they are facing. It is part of the danger, we are not only gradually getting weaker, maybe not so gradually, but many of the potential adversaries we are facing are getting stronger. You agree with that . Ago,hornberry two years when i first became chairman, we had a number of hearings. Senator mccain did the same in the senate, just the state of the world. Among others, Henry Kissinger did the comment that probably never before have we faced so many conflicts serious complex threats all at the same time. In addition to that, over the past 18 months or so, or committees had a number of classifiedunclassified sessions where we looked at our eroding technological advantage over others, and this is another area that in some ways may have crept up on us, but if you look at it objectively, we are clearly less superior than we have been in the past. So you look at what russia and china are doing, where they are making their investments it is directly focused on the way that we conduct warfare. Danger, whether it is nuclear deterrence, all the various cyber or counterspace activities you know, a variety of other abilities. Christopher griffin integrated air defenses. Mac thornberry absolutely. You look at the on russias side, the missile work that china is doing, and they are not the only ones. Because you see iran and north korea accelerating their missile testing among other things. Isis is getting more sophisticated with the cyber the point is, we have a huge array of threats, more than we have ever faced, and their sophistication is growing, and we have got to deal with it all. And that is the a factor. A lot of people say, we spent so much more money than all of these other militaries combined. We also have responsibilities more than anybody else combined. Without us, others step into the back the vacuum. We are starting to see that in more aggressive activity and in the world. Christopher griffin yes i too deal with that, we spend more than other countries combined. I thought how best to capture the right response. It is a fair question. We want people to ask questions like that. It is apple to apples. What are we spending . These potential adversaries in their regions of the world china has 140 billion a year, half again that much . Virtually all of the power you are getting out of that is concentrated in east asia and the near sees. Seas. So are we spending this money to maintain presence in that type of world, and the answer is no. We are like a company that is trying to market in all 50 states, and a regional competitor is spending three times as much in five states as you are spending, and you will lose market share in those states. You are correct. We will go to questions in just a minute, so be thinking about it. Time goes by so quickly. I think i do want to make certain we touch on Industrial Base issues. When you look at the buildup, and this is the difference between now and 30 years when reagan did this we have an incoming resident elect who i think is committed to a major rebuild of Americas Armed forces, but armed he does not have the robust Defense Forces like reagan did. Would you talk about that . Is thornberry i think it selfevident. We are down to one or two suppliers in many instances. If you talk to the major defense contractors, they are very dependent sometimes on a single subcontractor for various components. Of the reason for that has been the erratic budgeting that has come from our political system not the political system. Crs, all of that has taken a toll on the industrial device. One of the things, as you know, one of the areas i have focused on has been acquisition reform, and part of the reason is, i have grown increasingly concerned that Innovative Companies that do commercial work and do work with the government are going to make a decision that is just not worth messing with the government. Had are just i have executives with some of them tell me, that has been their calculation. It is just not worth it. What it nk about the way the world is moving, the investments that our adversaries are putting in if we lose the innovation that calms from a whole series of companies calms from a whole series of companies, we will have a very difficult time defending the country. And so, when you think of the Industrial Age as the prime defense contractors, which is absolutely true, they are essential, but really it is a much larger group, and we have made it very hard to did business with the department of defense, and we have made it very slow to take advantage of their innovations. While it is really important to get more value for the money we spent, what is even more of a driver for me is we have to be faster. We have to be more agile in fielding the best technology that will protect our People Better but also meet the adversary. We have got to have a better acquisitions system in the Industrial Base, improving those relationships. It has been a very hostile one in recent times. You know, i understand you they are in it to make money. There has got to be armslength transaction and all that, but we have got to get back to everybody being on the same team for the same purpose in order to harness that tremendous innovation that is in the american army. Christopher griffin all of this and we will go to the questions that have monopolized the chairman for an hour and a whole, a lot of that is creating a deeper understanding and colleague. Ng the and even within the defense or the press bring these things, the free press understand it of had whatsystem works kind of oversight and what kind of standards to hold them to our appropriate. Appropriate. When they are performing well, and with the 400 hammer shows something is wrong, that is hard to create that. Tell me, one of the big things the chairman of the House Armed Services committee has to do is help his colleagues in the house understand how it is hugely important how a very different part of the government works. Most of them will come in have a look at health care, education, but they dont understand this. How do you see of your role, and how do you think it is going . Ben cardin that is a question Mac Thornberry that is a question i get every day. There is always more work to do. For me, it starts with members of my committee, and so we have had a lot of informal conversations with people that help get a better feel for that, but for example, a couple of months ago, i took 20 or 30 folks over to the pentagon. We walked around a little bit, got to hear firsthand from many of the service chiefs. I do think for all the reasons we have been talking about, nearly all members of congress feel a responsibility when it comes to National Security. You are right, it is in many ways not something that many of them are used to dealing with, except we do have some key veterans who are elected. They bring their bases jim talent i dont want to overstate. Mac thornberry i think you are right. Members tohunger for understand better what is happening in the world, about our military capability. Is to help job provide the information, but also to be understanding. About how that works. The rest of the story is, i dont want to explain how this very obligated bureaucratic system works. Part of our job is to reform this and streamline it. The bill we are going to vote on day after tomorrow reduces some of the bureaucracy, begins to reorganize some of the functions at the pentagon. My friend senator mccain says the most extensive reorganization since goldwater and the other in 1986. But we are not done. Right, i amall going to be a little more disciplined than you probably expected. I will take questions. Chris, do i just call people . Ok. So i think this hand went out first. Hi, i am pat with defense daily. Chairman thornberry, you take candles position split into. You have a chief Technology Officer and the under secretary for engineering. How is that going to improve how you, the speed of which you get new technology into the field, take one decisionmakers decision and make it two decisionmakers position . Mac thornberry we have put too much under atl. What i say is no criticism of frank kendall, whos done a good job. But i am persuaded by those people who say, it is essentially impossible to make the person who is responsible for buying things efficiently the chief innovation officer as well, as well as many of his other duties. As you know, the senate bill had a very significant reorganization. But what we have agreed upon for this year is to separate out some of these functions, but also delay implementation for a year to allow the new administration to come and look at it, but also to allow us to study more carefully what the right way is and what the implications are. Part of the challenge with all of these Reform Efforts is, you cant take a break and rearrange things and then start again in two weeks. You have got to do the job every single day, so you still have to make sure the arrival gets to tomorrown afghanistan while you are trying to improve innovation and reform acquisition and so forth. So this is a first step in recognition that we have lost something on innovation. It is probably not the final answer. [indiscernible] Mac Thornberry i think it is the right thing for now. It will continue to be as i said, we are not done on organizational reform, on acquisition reform, on some of the personnel reform issues, so i think this is a good step for now. There is more to be done. Jim talent all right, this gentleman here. Chairman thornberry, you spoke about the need for a new aircraft, and the first aircraft i think of is the x35, which has been delayed for a very long time. If you think about how the u. S. Government could acquire new assets without that happening again, going over budget were being delayed by significant period of time. Mac thornberry well, part of what we try to think about over the last and really, we 2013,d this in november is to understand the problems for the f35, for the ford aircraft carrier, for future aircraft systems. We have had some problems in the past. Think wef the things i definern is, when you requirements at the beginning, it is a very important thing, and you really need to make it difficult to change those requirements. You try to put too much innovation into a new platform, it will inevitably delay its fielding and increase the cost. And you know, i just had a member on the floor tell me about listing some of the bases, training bases for the f35. Problems are being worked through. Computer issues they have had, helmet issues, they are working through them. But you are right. Budget, it is too long. If it takes us another 20 years to field the next aircraft, we are going to be in real trouble. So that is part of the reason this years bill, we really focused on incremental improvement and not committing to buy 1000 of something until we know that it works and have a separate funding stream for some experimentation. We need to experiment. But you cant experiment as youre building a program of record. And so trying to learn the , lessons of the problems we have had in the past is is important. , the answer is not to not build another airplane. The answer is, is to make these gradual steps. Can i just add one thing . And i am going to stick up a little bit for the department here. I say this as a person who has been writing for acquisition reform as you know when i was there. Part of this is the result of when you know you are not going to have all you dont have the money to buy all the platforms that you really think you are going to need. So 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 im not trying to say thats the only reason. But i think we have seen that. I think that hurts future combat systems. Mac thornberry you are right. Jim talent we have got this one thing, so we have got to make sure it can do everything we needed it to do. Mac thornberry when we started f35, the idea of having a common platform that would be adapted for the different services, you think, that could work. But it was much more complicated i think than anybody realized. Jim talent we can do a whole hour on that idea and how that has affected as you know. Im going to go back there to that gentleman who has been waving his hand. I think were 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, in the compromise version of the authorization bill, you ended up halting the increased, but billions got stripped out for f35s and lcs. Everything else. My question is, do you plan to come back for those in the next legislative cycle . Do you think those remain high priorities, and he will try to get an authorized next year . For senator talent, you praised the Incoming Administration. Do you have any plans on playing a role . Jim talent do you want to go first . Mac thornberry i am just 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 instrength 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. And so thats part of what we , had. But 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 years budget as well. Jim talent i would love to see a supplemental too. I really love the loved the president elects defense speech when i read it. I loved the tone. I loved the issues he took on and the way he took on. I am going to support that whether inside or outside of government. I would be very interested in doing something inside of government. We have had some i have had some discussions with the transition. I also know enough about cabinet building, having watched it in a number of instances that, you know he has to pick the people , that fit, that he feels the most comfortable with, and then also fit the overall pattern. They are working their way through a lot of progress. Ive been watching and pleased with the appointments ive seen so far. So they are going to work it out. I am going to support that plan inside or outside of government. Because there isnt anything more important to Americas National security or i would also argue to Donald Trumps domestic agenda of regrowing the Manufacturing Base in this country. And i think its been an untold story. He is starting to tell it. One of the reasons we have lost a lot of manufacturing is because we have underfunded capacity these procurement programs over time. Yes, sir. And then i will g