We know that this is a part of their foreign policy strategy in terms of elections.

I think we need to find ways to have a predictable and timely permitting process that still adequately protects the environment.

I think that is an important idea.

I think that is a very good point because if there is going to be an attack it probably will not be just one sector, it could be electricity, gas, financial and coordinating across sectors, I think, would be very important.

we are 100 percent dependent on 21 minerals from other countries, which is a dangerous place to be, particularly when they have strategic value.

Where did it break down?

Now, has the Army made institutional structural changes to deal with these issues?

The pointed language in your written statement that our Army is rapidly reaching a point where we will be outgunned, outranged, and outdated.

The first requirement would be that the requirements be expressed in no more than 10 pages.

So basically what you're saying is if you don't have additional funding over and above what you had for last year, you'd run out of money and that's why you'd have to ground those squadrons.

Too many defensive acquisition programs over-promise and under-deliver on cost and schedule.

Resources are never unlimited, and the Air Force must make investments based on near-term risks as well as future threats.

I just commend that to you. I would suggest a summit meeting in San Jose about what are the issues and how do we improve this program.

Practicality and buildability is part of the requirements process.

I am a great believer that structure is policy. If you have a messy structure, you end up with a messy policy.

What about that as an option?

But I would also add to that list of items the process itself as it relates to their ability to interact with the Pentagon.

I'm a big supporter of job training and apprenticeship programs that match workers' training with the skillsets in demand.