Let me interrupt for just a minute----

Seven years to get this damn thing done?

over the last 3 years, a number of outside panels have been highly critical of the performance of the service laboratories.

Do not give the French anything to be--

over the last 2 years, this committee has been extremely critical of the Air Force for underfunding its science and technology programs.

I hope that our subcommittee will really rally and advocate and work in a bipartisan way to really press ahead

I think we are very much in agreement about the things that need to be done.

I just want to say that I am going to submit some additional questions for the record, but again, I just think this is a very important hearing.

You stated that it is not necessarily DARPA's job to produce completed designs.

Let me just follow up on that point and that figure.

This approach may serve our needs today, but it will most certainly undermine our forces in the long run.

do you expect to see a significant increase in the Air Force's S&T budget request this fiscal year?

When do you expect that review to be complete?

It would be counterproductive to generally require formal technology transition agreements between DARPA and the Services.

Some of our most productive 'leap ahead' technologies have often been associated with space.

I would encourage, though, that when one looks at whether decimalization is working, and I use it as a generalization, we want to be careful that one doesn't confuse a different market environment for the diminishment of liquidity versus…

I am very much supportive of and know that there are transitional issues here, but one that I think in the long run will serve investors and the providers of investment services great advantage over the long run.

In the depth indicators, has there been an embracing of this concept? Is it working?