Technology of the past cannot answer our needs for today and the future. We need lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

It is not technology as the Senator has indicated. It is a resource situation.

If you are trying to stop a bleeding wound, it seems to me that is a little higher priority than gulping down a pill or two for whatever ails you.

Rest assured, this subcommittee will continue to make that investment that Dr. Kuper was talking about in science and technology because it is our future.

We need better forms of power storage. We need orders of magnitude increase in data storage capabilities.

I think that is justifiable. I think we could make that case.

How do we speed that up?

Seven years to get this damn thing done?

Let me interrupt for just a minute----

If so, in fact, this is the weapon of the future as described in the combat situations that you have described and this is acceptable to the Services, I am assuming the Army, and the Marines, and others, how many years away are we from…

We may have to have a bipartisan amendment along with Senator Santorum, too, on the funding level if we maintain the S&T budget to the degree that we remain competitive.

We need our soldiers better protected on the battlefield.

I am upset with the FDA. We will raise hell about that later.

We will call it the Bob Smith/Rick Santorum Initiative. We better find us some help from the Majority as well.

Do you see that as creating an incentive for the private sector to do more research funding?

Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, do you believe that the levels of funding for basic research are adequate to propel transformation throughout the services?

Do you expect that to maybe result in even more leveraging of funds?

Do you believe that this strategy fits the profile of a 'high risk' acquisition strategy?