tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 11, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
rule. so you can imagine what some of the officers think. so, to specifically advocate of the state, local level for officers to be required to live in the communities or at least allah is to be part of the city charge. >> we are running out of time devoted to the question real quick. >> my name is jo allen and i'm a candidate for governor in florida. >> i need you to get to the question. ..
republican. >> at this time. i know what the hell he is now. [laughter] >> good evening how can the national urban league support elected officials? >> they can. you cannot support them you can support positions or issues but not an actual candidate is against our covered. >> so can you clarify how to offset that? we have the keys deal. >> create the 501(c)(4) that allows you to run ads. >> and what you could do as an individual. we can volunteer and throat and donate. >> money is key. i've not just saying that because i am elected. >> yes you are.
[laughter] >> we give time then we give nothing else but it is essential because your and have our voice heard. >> god rest his soul all the white folks got together to say we want you to run for mayor. >> how much trading to police officers did your community received? and those with mental health issues? >> we actually have a great program where police officers received two days of trading relative to mental-health and we have a new unit that allows police officers to take you they believe have mental problems
to that issue but one of the savings we have been very strong is the escalation to get police officers to understand yes you have that done and the badge is a really you have the power and you don't have to use any of that. >> i got around to encourage police officers is set as saying they will be the peacekeepers they need to be the pace at one ashley peacemakers. they don't think like that they think i will make you do what i say. no. talk about making a peaceful so everybody can go home. >> obviously that was a problem that we had he had mental illness and was dead within 16 seconds a we have a lot more work to do. a large and small because the city department is large but ferguson is small.
and pass to go around the nation. >> final comment. >> is comprehensive with blueprints but it has to be community driven. not just the urban league of community-based organizations. >> resist and resisted resisted organize and organize and organize. pray and pray and pray. >> if you felt in the sense of urgency when it comes to how i am proceeding in the panel i am sick and tired of us having gatherings where we talking and discuss but we don't talk about real action plans their release 5428 different distinct things here is what i will suggest next year first of all, they should take all
the ideas that came out of this discussion to e-mail them to every single one of you. then while you decide as a chapter we will focus on, then come back next year and report on what you did because it is a waste of time to talk about what we need to work on and then don't comeback with we heard it then we implemented it so what has to be there i am happy to come back to hear what you accomplished and i will not come back to have a discussion on what we need to do freedoms will. the two of you you can talk right now from the freedom school i am only about us getting stuff done there is no time for talk but get to work. [applause]
>> the terrorist group will seek to put their message out on platforms that are accessed via the largest population is impossible then they bombarded with thousands of messages every day of propaganda it is across the board is a we are familiar with the shocking images and it is despicable but they show a of public execution but they are bombarding that same audience with those targeted messages the same way the market is due one they will hand out candy to children but then in a nother video
[inaudible conversations] >> good morning welcome to brookings with the center on 21st century we have a wonderful event here today i am pleased to have a number of members of the national security industrial base and the greatest companies to of defense and nondefense to represent companies that are for a number of years with a lot of expertise. with the introduction so trying to look at a few specific areas of technology and innovation to
haverford'' we will begin wetted is additive manufacturing or three the printing also propulsion technology that'd say -- that is day old-fashioned area but yet to a rapid innovation and we will talk about software with the electronic systems that have heavy electronics that has to be improved. all of this relates to defense strategy power is technology changing so fast with the pursuits of the revolution of military affairs. to what extent to make sure
adversaries do not do it first with that evolutionary process but we don't need to get overly excited or disruptive with resource allocation and this relates touse sequestration of the defense budget so those that we tried to facilitate or promotes, if it can figure out some way with the possibility of sequester or a shutdown that in the cosmic sense they don't look horrible to the have reagin server because it is only 54 7% of the budget but the program is much greater than that but we hope he will raise some of that in the discussion period. i will ask each panelist a
general question when of the areas of technology before going to your questions. standing immediately next to me is brennan hogan who will lead to the discussion of 3-d printing. and she will save more to explain this area of technology if you don't know but it is an area that is touted as a remarkable and important area of innovation that it could change everything because we could produce technology in ways and are entirely different to what extent that is hype or real she will help us understand as well james joyce.
and he knows a great deal about helping the department of defense to take advantage of opportunities for additive manufacturing in a realistic way. it is not future talk but we're also thinking practically about what dod can do it immediately. we also have another outstanding defense company and he will talk about software and information technology so we will look to david to explain how he defines this area of renovation the year's most focus on and what he recommends how we should pursue policy than finally we have james kenyon with
engine and propulsion technology to have the chance to say what ever else needs to be done to get ready for your questions as we try to preserve defense technology but neither is complacent. we thank you for your indulgence and the like to begin with brennan hogan that only to help us understand 3-d printing or additive manufacturing but the realistic aspects. >> first of all, thanks very much for having me it is wonderful to be here. i appreciate the baseball analogies. to a baseline additive manufacturing is not a new technology it has been
around over 30 years many organizations have been using an but if you are not familiar, how many of you have to build sand castles on the beach? you can build 12 ways fill the bucket with sand and put it down bed you have parts of the sand castle the other way put sand and water into a bucket and slow the drip the drip castle effected layer by layer and at the end you have to castles. verisimilar in structure but different make up in a component is a little different. that is additive manufacturing. making a sand castle in the new way. so with that we understand that dod with logistics and supply chain. just because a new
technology can provide a service it doesn't mean necessarily should. said to understand a strategic am policy level and is then just to major you can print the material or the part where to make sure you have material that is chemically able to produce for what you need but what are their trading and workforce implications the standard set you need to apply? how will you test these parts? in the field or before? what are the implications? with the traditional supply chain you have the parts that are manufactured then
they go onto a piece of machinery or into the field. the army has already started to deploy that technologies you can have that where you need it in the field. does that work? and what are the skills? there are different implications. if you are printing then you have have the 3d data. the department of defense is not alone that so what is that conversion process? is it worth and who owns that? the department or someone else and how does that fit together? then with the cybersecurity aspect. if you have that data out there it is critical parts to keep pieces of machinery machinery, how do you secure that?
in a very quick nutshell of what we're doing and what we're looking at how to think through the application of the technology whether or not it is disruptive or effective. >> a quick follow-up question. thank you for that background to original equipment manufacturer so we will try to connect some of the very innovative technology areas to a the conversation. how much of the dod budget could be lined up? and just to be clearer the budget is $100 billion per year and to those that have
purchases of hardware is another 30 billion so out of that is is so revolutionary to see tens of billions of dollars of acquisition produced over the next few years? >> i will not venture to guess a number i am not comfortable to do that yet but it would be in a modest and incremental way and one way to help the defense agency hundreds of thousands of parts every day seven of those are high in demand and some are low and demand some you don't even need may be replacing a car every 10 or 15 years than the original
manufacturer may not have the tubing to create that part so there is a need for a potential use for additive manufacturing that we're trying to determine where it can be applied we're actually working with doa now to evaluate which parts can be produced with additive manufacturing and still have the same functionality and is the demand signal appropriate? and can you print it with that process to get the part that you need in the end? is of modest incremental ted or 15 or 20 your time frame so you could potentially prints if you go through the whole process to evaluate the process.
>> so how big a deal is this and what will happen over the next 10 or 20 years as ec 3d printing come into effect? >> but i will say couple of things to bear in mind. the first is the next hot to '08 at christmas will be additive manufacturing. so with the ability to manufacture things the breaking of the tyranny of scale of capital machinery machinery, is the basis and additive manufacturing is the lead technology but cheaper robotics will bring
this to scale. what is the hurdle to get over before we can unlock this revolution? it is part cert so can i replicate the process to be sure that i did that? can i predict the fight night actions of that part? and then when i send it somewhere else to be made then we really unleashed the technology and why it is propelled it is costly and transfers resources so as the analog is a tethered
maneuver unit with a significant supply chain goes preindustrial revolution the way it operated with the napoleonic era, if it had a good carpenter and metalworker. to pick up materials and to modify the ship to transform its abilities when the new cap did and took over the ship's the first thing is try to get more speed out of the sale. so with additive manufacturing stars you do is it breaks the tether to weigh heavy industrial base.
how does it do that? looked at a machine shop they have a certain envelope of capabilities to manufacture repair things and with additive manufacturing does is it gracefully -- greatly increases that envelope because you are working from raw material rather than fabricated parts so the resolution comes as a result of the manufacturing because of that logistical pressure but it also comes because a environment of constrained resources were likely to see innovation in the way it
used to be done, which is for example, with additive manufacturing, as some have come up with a number of innovations with field hospitals to treat though wounds for specialize clamps and surgical guys. so you have day logistical component the derivative of both of those of the hacker i have been around for awhile and i can remember grenade launchers to put a
pistol grips on those. that is the innovation all of a sudden to not only have the much wider capability to spread more quickly so you will see innovation to bubble up that way. >> unit of this size the benefit for units of additive manufacturing is that the primary benefit or will receive traditional manufacturers just because they to make it more economic with less to living in their factory to be less
dramatic than the expeditionary? >> the changes will be more gradual because they are against edited manufacturing but with the benefits is contrary to raid a calculate their own economics and we need to take a broader perspective. but you will see the rise of individual companies that are producing obsolete parts and frankly into mainstream parts as they start to show out what is protected legally? becomes a commodity they don't use much money to set up a capable machine shop but then done by very large
defense companies. i see that change coming due to pressures of the defense industry as opposed to a revolution. >> i knowç(váu)s& bring to the discussion an area that is different as they have been talking about the additives manufacturing is part of a broader set of changes to what we have been discussing you have the whole i tv software world so please help us. >> i think many of of motivations that is called cognitive software systems is a similar inspiration to provide aid capability
quicker than in the past we could analyze the threats better out there to deal with competitive advantage and work through the acquisition cycle to get out there based on the time constant. our adversaries to commercial technologies with exquisite our resolutions and makes them more agile so we're doing similar things. look bad radio systems also investing in march lerner architecture and development
we're at the point to see the capability to run up against in fireman's that are ill characterized with the architects systems with this type of analogy may be with the communications example, if you would take a 20 - - radio 20 years ago you would find circuits and transistors most of the functionality of radios to day is in the software. we have the ability to upgrade them very quickly that what we did not anticipate was the potential
of cognitive learning to figure out communication strategies in realtime. with the as designed system to mitigate that interference and then turn over time as opposed to acquisition time this fall's broadly under the umbrella of the economy with investment that is one example. the idea that we come to the
systems that most of at adaptation wish you could build systems that characterize the environment and to optimize those but to think about take that same design pattern is the limited factor an algorithm for with the radio examples is it the antenna that was designed much earlier? so in field situations to allow that cognitive process to exploit that version.
>> this sounds like a round of activity of systems that i am trying to simplify a the dollar is at stake as a metric but do talk about the of wide array of the software that most of all advanced weapons to bear part of the discussions tonight that a mountain content there is no magic bullet that with that adaptation in you have other challenges to provide those behaviors and performance that you want.
and the environment where adversaries are able to cycle very quickly the difficulty of breaking good software, and the complexity is a responsories solution solution, but it sounds like you have the ability to continue the modify and adapt and to not be locked into the system that you started with and that could be beneficiary but if you make mistakes from the original and general if there were software problems that we could fix them more easily as we discover them
in the field. >> many suffer challenges from today for it to make this offer better but there is a challenge associated with how well we characterize the objectives so i do see this as an opportunity to have a broader ability for those environments we cannot anticipate? >> very important with those united states and around the world today to know as much about injuns as you are kindly helping us to understand.
>> that builds on what we have said already because as an engine manufacturer, we use things like software and work on how we improve software to make that more adaptive and techniques like additive manufacturing to make jet engines faster and better but at the end of the day we have the adaptability at a higher level. so to be released with is a new and difference of defense strategy more technologically and advanced and as a transition we still see a lot of themes as the
department tries to get more and more out of the systems. we see the same thing in the jet engine propulsion or aviation. if you follow along the maidu jet engines because of love the thrill of the rorer but is say bedrock of the strategy and how we do protection around the world. with every with tactical military aviation is built upon the advancements of propulsion and technology. we are on the cusp of another breakthrough with the introduction. what do i mean by the adaptive in june? let me give you the analogy. if you watch the two were in
france you watch cyclist trying to negotiate a course across france sometimes it is flat or mountainous they all have the same goal to get there first but they have to be sufficient to sustain themselves 300 kilometers that is a long way. how do they do that? they manage a change the gears and optimize whenever the train offers but that is a different discussion but we're trying to do effectively the same thing with jet engines. we are partners with the major program with a airforce that traditionally the agenda engine has a
course revers and the primary purpose is to cool the rest of the engine then you have what produces the thrust of when you design that is a wood is the most pressing requirement to make sure the engine can meet that? in maine -- a means he'll burn but that adapted venture program that is a third stream of air that we can modulate to adapt or optimize my performance the matter the flight positions and i get tremendous improvements of capability and flexibility and range and payload so it is a big deal to do is.
-- to do this. does not come without challenges. we have been doing battle long time we created the j58 the world's first adaptive engine to take off mach zero that to be sustained above mach three. but now we will power the of 35 and the marine corps version of the f35c can operate in a conventional flight but also into vertical landing and takeoff mud and. if you introduce those profound changes how the engine operates but the engine adapts to seamlessly accommodate those changes. but today as mayor this
program is across the flight envelope to give the efficiency throughout to maximize that capability of the airplane. we have design and architecture challenges to have a requirement to fit a certain size to forces some of the trade offs for the we're pushing the envelope on how we work to withstand those temperatures we have challenges of software. challenges in manufacturing some of those parts are complex with new ways to make components then we have all types of advanced
manufacturing techniques including additives manufacturing and then also at a time when we have tight budgets with the acquisition policies and procedures but we are being very successful we are projected to meet all performance goals and cost targets. on top of that we are working with the airforce to plan the adaptive in gin transition program that is a $2 billion investment to develop amateur these designs even further because it underscores the importance going forward with the recognition of adaptive technology how do i
make things work all went to the system level? so is exciting there is a lot of great things going on with additive manufacturing and how these play into the system and we're on the cusp of some big breakthroughs from just a few years ago. thank you. >> one more broad question. of life to broaden the scope talking about technology and innovation but what does it all mean in terms of the overall character? are read in a period of revolutionary change where exciting things with rapid definition? that will have implications of the defense budget to be
fundamentally rethinking how we allocate resources you mentioned the third offset that this day and age we need to you think about how to take advantage of technology just as we did with nuclear weapons just as we did with the precision strike in the late cold war and to what extent can we do the same kind of thing now with cruise missiles to take advantage of wet we hear about today to give america another leap forward? had to think of where we are today with broad historical sweeps of their
revolutionary change that is more or less continuous new things are constantly happening that is the case in the past but it is real world implication that is why will turn it over to you >> think about this of the last 10 years to the invention of the telephone and smart phones and the invention of the cellphone and hand-held computers things are moving at a much mower quicker pace but the other part is there is a recognition and that's with all the problems to constrained resources and a
great deal of people have the changing landscape of foreign policy and foreign states and all of that. you cannot throw money at the problem there is the potential for revolutionary change but to be more effective and should be a considered of addition from a strategic and level how you support that mission with whether jet engines or additive manufacturing or nanotechnology or different ways with the new threats
the ec internal and external. there is definitely a potential for revolutionary change but in order to be considering it should be evolutionary. >> that might be what you get when you're looking in their rearview mirror. >> so that is a renovation aspect so if you have the capability at the point of need or on the aircraft carrier or the international space station then you create things you didn't know that you needed because it's it's not exist then the supply chain now you can create them and use them right away is the revolution
as taking too long to develop what customers wanted so that is say playpen of machines so there is a democratization of it is of the manufacturing capabilities is what it is driving the next wave of commercial use and the revolution will come when they start to tap into that. >> one of the ways to spend a large part of her earlier life to disagree with people with the means of production
and we have to recognize that some the best idea is and adaptability with those structures coming up through the ideas so what comes of consistently with the background so getting stuff done is extremely hot. so one that is revolutionary and i believe that comes when we start to look as the our hierarchical. and that's needs to change
if we take advantage of the economy. >> to talk about acquisition reform we will come back to that but in the meantime have you characterize in a broad historical perspective ? >> there is the real opportunity and need the way we drive new capabilities. but the challenges we need to be aware of the way we are experimenting with this technology. so there is a renewed to enthusiasm to take the emerging technology to get together to do some experimentation. we're really trying to
figure out what is the potential? in many ways i cannot anticipate how the operators want to use a they have far better ways and i could ever conceive of. so it is the brainstorming process around the structures that allow years to adapt the evolution of the techniques and procedures in a way that allows you to see that through the acquisition and process to tighten up that cycle time. it is a coevolution as they worked together through the experiment to drive new capabilities. >> day you have an example of the thank you are talking about? >> one of the other areas of
technology is fusion data to take data from imaging sensors to bring those together. typically they want to bring every single information so when we engage more strategically with the operators with every sensor all the time but there is said vice positive feedback so that drives a different thought process when day
visualize and conceptualize differently than rare the technologist would go to maximize everything in the system capabilities. >> i thought of armed drones because that is with the air force didn't want to do with traditionally in the 1990's and it took a war environment which was the real version of experimentation to push the cia than the services to think creatively but hopefully we will not have quite as much fighting to do so we have to figure out that time without the
polish. is that fair? >> we had any event here in april with the undersecretary of defense for acquisition in the former deputy secretary now the ceo of the american branch. i ask frank how was it you evaluate the string of the american acquisition system today? he said pretty good. can least be plus or a minus. he is pushing reform the eiffel your still doing pretty well within the same question later he said i agree for a major platform. i am surmising but he did not say that.
[laughter] but i know that we do very well with electronics their adaptive software might be relevant so than many that reform he was talking about. we are hearing some people say is a rapid innovation in some sectors but also talking about ongoing improvements that your company has been doing for decades but maybe not any more rapid so help me to understand is it fast in some areas or slower in others? >> i would argue the potential for revolutionary advancement is absolutely fair and i think we have heard that already.
the where we are is to have a system that is sent able to deal with that because of complexity. all the things that we talked about this morning introduce complexity we heard you can do with additive manufacturing. how you manage that strategically? everybody would argue the more software you have a more complex the system is. the when you looked at all of these together globalization of the supply days and customer base and
by the way with the budget environment with the certainty of the requirements it adds complexity because the system that doesn't handle complexity very well. it is risk averse -- a first and they cost taxpayers money that the department tries very, very hard to manage as effectively as they can but it adds risk aversion into that process to make it very hard to introduce the more revolutionary capabilities. we have a system more willing to tolerate a budget increase than a performance
shortfall and we keep adding in adding and they cost more instead of getting the revolutionary things out more quickly we take more risk averse approaches for more off-the-shelf technology because theoretically less risky and more incremental approaches because i have more confidence we will get there but it takes longer. . .
rather than designing new technology. i think i just heard you say that you would probably end concurred with the school of thought that says we had better be careful about overregulating and over monitoring not that we are trying to encourage a lax environment that if we have too much regulation, too much restriction on companies they are going to fail to innovate so i want to make sure i heard you right. you can say anything you want to about where we stand with acquisition reform and work down the panel brother's comments. >> mike i think the truth is
somewhere between. if you deregulate too much you do run the risk of taxpayers getting ripped off. i like to think sadly on the half of my own company but i like to think most contractors are very mindful of their responsibilities to our ultimate customer. we take that commitment very seriously. but by the same token we don't always agree on the business baseness with what our customers want to do and that's a natural thing is going to occur in any sort of relationship like that. but that being said, you clearly don't want to create -- the government has a responsibility to the taxpayer to be fair and transparent. you have to do that. the question becomes how can you do that at the same time give industry the flexibility to do what they need to do. i don't know that there is a good which is why acquisition reform has been working for decades and continues to be something we continue to strive
for and continued to struggle with, but i would say that's probably the hard problem of the century. nevertheless is something we continue to strive to get better because there is a balance there. there's a balance between leading industry and abate, letting industry take responsibility and put goods into the hands of the warfighter but then making sure that the responsibility of the taxpayers upheld. >> let me follow up with a specific question. is there one word and based on your current understanding of our congress has left this debate is as leaving town july 31 in 2015 one-word advice he would give them in to push this process to the next realistic level knowing we are not going to have a silver bullet but based on your discussion where the debate is right now one thing you would like to see people do one word of advice he would provide. >> one thing i would suggest is understand the difference between business and government and understand he can't run government like a business and
you can't run business like a government entity can understand the differences between the two land rover differences between the two that help settle that relationship. >> thank you. dave and eight comments on acquisition policies? >> i do think it's about balance. either extreme you get the kind of behaviors that none of us want. so in addition to finding where that right balance is there i think we also need to step back to reflect a little bit on the kind of acquisition objectives we want to have as we see the cycle times and the technologies coming in. being able to acquire things that you know incrementally have capability over time. it's a different kind of acquisition that you do there. so in addition to getting that point right and the joint responsibility of the customer to help make that happen it's also sort of reflecting a little
bit more on how these iterative incremental enhancements help us with their our budget pressures help us get capabilities in the hands of the warfighters more quickly that there are challenges associated with how you acquire those. >> and where does that have to happen? where is the number one roadblock now? is it in existing law? is of the culture of the military services? is it in the nature of acquisition workforce and i'm sure you'll say it's a little bit of all the above but if there's one part of the process that most in need of fixing today organization what would that be? >> i think it is a little bit of all of those areas. i think that the technology in these future capabilities don't necessarily respect the organizational constructs that we have right now so increasingly in technology is forcing us to think about acquiring things that involve various stakeholders in ways we haven't had to bring them together in the past.
it's just the way it is, so part of it is communication across folks both in industry and government informed that community that have not regularly been working to acquire those businesses. >> jimmy called for revolutionary change. you have -- do you see where the cattle is that in this conversation? >> the million-dollar million dollar comments which is technology doesn't respect the current organizational structures and the way to overlap and so i don't know you could have a pretty good argument that white era our procurement system hearkens back to some people would say it's the solo war and it's about resources. we need a procurement system which isn't about mass. we need one that's about the adaptability and effectiveness of what we are procuring and to
do that what really needs to do is look at the procurement system not so much in terms of whether we have enough regulation to protect the taxpayer or not, or are we acquiring the right to weapon systems? we should look at it in terms of how do we widen the base of the sources and the resources being used for developing systems? when i talked to some of the leading folks in private industry about their technology and how it's being used, by the department of defense, they repeatedly say to me there are a lot of folks out there, folks like the chinese that are much better at taking innovation wherever it is and effectively militarizing it, bringing it and so i think our system is one of in some ways archaic procurement
it's about programs, spell large capital expenditures. it's not driven by innovation or adaptability, so if i were with the folks going on vacation i might tell them not to come back but i would also -- [laughter] i would also say the game has changed. it is not about massing resources. it's about accessing the whole continuum of innovation and effectively militarizing as required. ultimately the responsibility is not around protecting taxpayer money or executing big programs. it's about winning and a lot of folks in private industry will say the transition of civilian technology or technology
wherever it is to military use we are losing our lead on that. just because of the sheer weight and their respects to technology. >> i guess one question that occurs to me is the glass half full or half empty because we have contending teams in our conversation not really debating one person against another but there are themes that we are making the best stuff in the world and we have got the best of them the world and we are doing interesting things across the domain and yet at the same time we are bureaucratized and we are ossified and we don't innovate especially in these times very well. do you have a bottom-line view on whether the glass is half empty or half full? >> that's a great segue because i was thinking of one word i could apply and i would count on congress on being realistically optimistic which is a way of life that i try to describe.
you can't have everything all of the time and you can't tank that everything is going to go well all the time but you can be realistic about the potential and i think that all of the organizations we represented we really do have the taxpayer in mind and there seems to be a struggle between those of the current leadership on the hill and their understanding of what the industrial base is trying to do and whether or not they have actually the warfighters best needs in mind. we were founded because secretary mcnamara recognized the need of someone outside the pentagon needed to look at the logistic issues that were facing a military 50 years ago in to see it in a different light and solve this complex problems and we have since continued to support that mission and one of the things we continue to try and do is look at innovation as a way to support the mission constantly and there's a great spirit not to get philosophical but i will, in the country of
entrepreneurship and innovation and that is what will drive attentional solutions and the potential evolution and revolutionary opportunities that there is and i think trusting that entrepreneurial and innovative spirit is actually going to be okay and if we learn from most mistakes it isn't accurate and sufficient investment in technology, then it's all worth it but the process and the structure and a gentleman to my right has recognized, it does not facilitate that process. it ties up that process to the point that people who might have the solutions don't want to even participate. so i would counsel congress to be optimistically realistic about the future and to have a little bit more trust in the private sector and bringing these technologies to bear on the public sector problem. >> one follow-up. in what ways the congress not
trusting the private-sector? is a pushing that there are precisely decided methods of procurement and needs to encourage congress to take advantage of the federal options for commercial acquisition style procurement? i mean what is a specific way in with that congress can. >> the acquisition process is so cumbersome and a wired -- requirements to meet the needs of what are being proposed a lot of time the questions that come out are the problems that are trying to be solved that there's a new way of solving them there isn't a recognition that you have to look at it in evaluating it and try to apply old regulations and acquisition policy to new solutions and their visit disconnect between how you do it. there's also a think think sometimes they fear the unknown. if you don't have all of the answers at the beginning or if the evaluation process isn't educated enough or you have added value raiders better part
of acquisition process and understand it instead of asking questions again and again you better educate the acquisition policy process. there is a fear and a shutdown of the process so i think it's just the general bureaucracy and jim said complexity. and the amount of complexity in the acquisition process that prevents the solutions from being applied. >> we have about half an hour left. we will take two questions at a time. please wait for a microphone and identify yourself. if you compose your question specifically to one person that would help. we will do to a time. the woman here in the fourth row and the seventh row both in the aisle. >> good morning, thank you for your comments. my name is margaret cho. i have been at a consultant. i have a background in lifecycle management in airports.
my question has to do with pma product manufacturer approval. where is that with regard to this whole process? i know one you talk budget constraints, that was an area that we were looking significantly at and i would like to know if you have an update. probably jim, you are the one i would know the most about that. >> before we do that i think we will get to. >> i'm john with association of american geographers and my question is probably for brennan. we have been advocates for s.t.e.m. education united states. as we talk about things like complexity revolution evolution and what are the implications for the 24 century warfighter? how has the defense department and thinking about what warfighters are going to need to do with technologies in mind?
>> pma becomes an interesting discussion especially in light of things like what we heard earlier with manufacturing. i can figure out how to do it in the field and there you go. the problems we run into particularly with aircraft systems is that there are certain characteristics of those parts that you have to have. it's the material properties as well as qualities such as surface finish and dimensionality and things like that. if you don't have them that part can fail and when it fails it will be spectacular and not any good way way. so one of the things you worry about when you go to the pma process the whole idea is that you have proven that you can produce that part and have the right quality so that you have a quality part that can do what it has to do. if you decentralize that and take away that authority you were given things like manufacturing you can challenge that because how do you maintain that authority? the challenge for us as
manufactures is we stand by the quality of our products. if you start flying around and have parts that we can't stand by then it makes it very difficult for us to stand by her products anymore so i think right now where we are on pma is bureaucratic authoritative process on things like that. where you could essentially do it they can drive
to create a new part whether it's the same card or whether it's three parts they you can print as a singular part but you have to have that background in engineering and you have to have that capability to understand how to use it. with regard to how that applies to the warfighter, it is a question that continues to be answered and that is what we are working with on a training and workforce perspective. if you put additives manufacturing the field if you put it on an operating base then you have a temperature unit that
is -- who with an a-team has the capability to take the software to print apart to create apart as needed to use 3-d data to actually print apart so where those skills that and i think the s.t.e.m. peace continues to be an area that there is a growing need and i think that there will be a need for having specialists and in general that can facilitate the process of the technology can actually be applied in a forward or it deployed setting. >> thank you. let's take two more. these two gentlemen here. >> thank you. john with national defense magazine. i guess this question is probably for brennan and jim. can you give some examples of the ways in which the services are using manufacturing now and what some of their plans are for utilizing that technology in the coming years?
>> i am randall doyle from georgetown university. i would like to look at this from a different angle. the process and the acquisition and everything. i don't want to talk about external factors but the batsmen to fighter plane missile technologies in china. how much pressure is on you to be able to use these products for the military and whether it may be because of china's vast advancement in weaponry and so forth maybe that would be part of the process of breaking down this red tape that you talk about and maybe with congress. >> i will add one more and then we will potentially have a question for everybody. >> thank you. i am elliott a former member of the intelligence community and state department and world bank. for mr. kenyan, i have a question. what is the progress of our major adversaries at people's republic of china and the russian federation in terms of
adaptive proportions? >> why don't we begin with jim this time and we will work across the panel. >> the use of added manufacturing and the services as islands of experimentation. in many ways driven by either individuals or units that have an inherent interest in innovation, so using a concrete example of how it's been used would be the deployment of additives manufacturing machines with so calm. i mentioned the antennas and a modification of weapons so rather than being mass produced they are more custom fit to individuals and there has been an example of something that was
used for a slang underneath a helicopter that was made in the fields. again i would say that this is not in any way new. in fact when you start talking about maybes inherently anti--- the ship is out there in the middle of the ocean and the machine shop will come up with a solution and with this particular technology does is it widens the envelope on solutions that machine shop can focus on so the adoption path within the service is really a function of need and frankly immediate need. there is nothing like having to solve a problem that causes you to propel a technology forward. now, in the industrial base, the adoption of the technology is really kind of wide fluctuating.
these machines and the material the price performance envelope on them is crashing and effectively within that class of machines they are commoditized commoditized -- commoditization is going on with the terry olson machines. there are also machines and materials that are becoming highly specialized and regarded as a competitive advantage. so if i would turn to jimmy and say hey would you tell me how you lock down your process in variability, how do you guarantee your element analysis he wouldn't tell us because that is a competitive advantage so there are a number of folks usually with a lot of capital that are truly differentiating themselves and additives manufacturing and frankly they are having to build the machines
themselves. machines that are available just aren't up to snuff, so in the commercials industrial sector, it really is playing out as a commodity type capability with commodity materials or is there an opportunityo think of the competitive advantage and what we are seeing so far as it takes a lot of honey to lock down the process and create parts. when you do you have an advantage over other companies that is significant and justifies that capital investment. >> brendan do you want to add an example? >> i think there are two keys that are helpful to jim's point the navy has been using additive manufacturing for a number of years. printing bridges for people and our mouth for many years probably almost 30 years. with the evolution of additives
manufacturing the customization to an individual person's physiology there's a great opportunity there and the medical services continue to provide that. there is a lack of infection when you have customized prosthetics or traumatic brain injuries and so that's a growing area of. the other example that i like to use pretty often is the rapid equipping that i mentioned earlier socom special operations command that was deployed in afghanistan infantry units were given flashlights and there was an exterior button on the flashlight so they would put the flashlight in their pocket or on their packet every time they would walk it would click on and off. and a few that are familiar with my patrols know that's rule number one. so they came back to the rapid equipping force and they said we need a cover for this so they actually produced a cover that came up with a cover for the flashlight and printed them in the field and provided them immediately to the infantry units. so that is a key example of the innovative aspect of it very at
and they are is that that's continuing to go on and to jim's point earlier about the services, they are pushing the envelope constantly because they are primarily there to support the warfighter and sometimes luckily they don't want to put up with the impediments that i mentioned earlier about supporting that mission so they were just pushing the technology. that is where we are trying to help dod across the service is having a comprehensive strategy for how you apply the technology. >> jimmy i don't know if you are comfortable talking about global propulsion. >> it's a little hard to answer directly but here is what i will say. i actually touched on both of those questions. there has been a lot of investment and a lot of work going on in russia and china and has been fairly public. there have been a lot of articles in the press lately
regarding china's desire on the commercial side to develop propulsion capabilities so clearly that's something that bears watching. if you were to watch secretary kendall's remarks we have a 2 billion-dollar investment in propulsion even while we are struggling in other areas and why is that? propulsion is recognized as a differentiator for the united states something that sets us apart so that's why keeping that technological lead is a big reason for that. it doesn't interesting thing in looking at the bigger question, it's remarkable in this nation historically we have been able to rise to the occasion when we have a national imperative. when you go back to world war ii , we had the thing going on in europe and the thing going on in japan and the result of that was a tremendous blossoming of the defense industrial base and particularly the aviation base which produced airplanes,
punching them off the production line day after day because we needed them in the fight and we found ways to do that both by the government and the industrial base. fast-forward a little bit and once it was launched and detected we took off and not that long later we were putting people on the moon. that was just one part of what turned into the cold war and the technological advancement that was the cold war because of a compelling national imperative. where are we today when we consider what we see going on in brush and what we see going on in china and when we look of the defense strategies that we hear about? is a compelling national imperative? when you look at her defense acquisition system today you might argue not yet that are in that direction? ab. >> dave anything you want to add to that? >> i will hit on both of those as well. from the additive manufacturing perspective my organization is
in the r&d space but we are using that very extensively and there is being about able to respond prototypes very quickly and cost-effectively. i was in her proposal review a couple of weeks ago talking about how we were going to modify face to with an aluminum version of what we were actually going to be using as infrastructure there and also experimenting with far more sophisticated materials as well in the aluminum in that particular case. when it comes to the pace of our adversaries and what we are we are doing technologywise and capabilitywise i'm actually very optimistic in the sense of some of the dialogs that are occurring right now. you don't have to be more than a few minutes into a conversation with secretary kendall on this topic before he ask you a question. are you in the conversations with our folks about where our adversaries are going, where our
deficits are and what we are doing to potentially overcome those? they are very keen on making sure that those conversations are occurring and those are substantial conversations around scenarios and the like. and they are not just the stovepipes either. i've seen good conversations coming across services so i'm not suggesting those conversations weren't occurring before but they are occurring now with the sense of intensity that i can see the difference. >> i think we will do one more round of questions and allow everyone everyone to mag a final comment. well i'm looking for handsome going to say we have general campbell coming from afghanistan to be here tuesday at 3:00 to talk about the state of play there but that's also an opportunity and i'm sure everybody in the room will want to join me rate we may not have another opportunity in short order on c-span2 say thank you to the literary leaders. as many of you knew are leaving
now so we are seeing the chairman of vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the chief of staff of the army and the number of others but certainly those for a peer to be changing in coming weeks. the navy part is in transition as i understand it but i'm sure we want to thank not only general dempsey and general order your note that all the men and women who have served with him and to the sentence period of military activity in service of our country so i won't ask you to join me now but when we thank the panelists keep the round of applause also for all these wonderful military leaders it's a historic moment as the united states makes this transition out of or in same goes for leave simultaneously brings it home at least for me. so let's get three last questions and do a final wrap-up. i'm going to take the question the very back and you hear and then we will go cross the panel.
>> matt jones from the boeing company and i want to thank the panelists were very informative session. thank you very much. my question is related to i guess si would would aim it at jim. you have talked about the application of the additive manufacturing to logistics and other aspects but do you see much evidence of how additive manufacturing is changing design philosophy? in other words are people starting to really design for additive manufacturing? >> the gentleman here in the fourth row. >> ryan with the cownie group. i want to ask what initiatives you see in dod funding or potentially other departments for additive manufacturing and for example the white house has moved to set up this national network for manufacturing innovation, the first center is
on additive manufacturing in youngstown ohio and dod put down a fair amount of money to put that in initially. maybe you can comment on how that's going but are there others like that coming down the pipeline that we might see? >> thank you, over here. >> shown with federal computer magazine. dave you mentioned adversaries are moving away from a hardware approach to more software to having additional things earlier in the cycle, maybe a crude summary of what you said but can you elaborate on what you mean by that and the implications for how the u.s. does business in that field? >> because those questions were put sosa singly i will answer one more hand and then we will wrap up. >> my name is steve and i must soldier and defense fellow.
i would like to see if i can get remarks specifically related to 3-d printing and energy materials so as we look forward to have heard a lot of discussion about parts. if i can look towards individual cartridges for soldiers and weapons being produced or it airdropping so they can be slate slate -- tailored in more adaptable. two kind of zero and opportunities and efforts was going on right now do you know the merits of this kind of research and effort and lastly defense industry and academic partnerships, things that we can leverage our graduate students to do a lot of lifting on, what are the opportunities there are? >> why don't we work on -- and we will cover most of these questions as we conclude they have. >> i think i can yet to three of them with regards to logistics. the key part that we see in terms of applied additive
department of defense to have a conversation to continue to push technology forward and to facilitate the acquisition process and introduce that entrepreneurial spirit that you have any small organizations that focus primarily on the technology and the 3-d printing and the potential implications. they may not have any familiarity with the dod contracting process like most of us do so america make organizations to facilitate that conversation. the number of of investments that dod is making directly with schools so penn state and virginia tech are two of the schools we work with, since 3-d as the lap of the penn state the dream's lab at virginia tech is their 3-d arm and there are investments that different organizations within dod are
making to work with them collaboratively to look at what the potential obligations out and what the processes are where you can find efficiencies and what parts or components might be able to be printed and then we do a lot of work. we facilitate that conversations are taking our own funding and answering those questions and using academic expertise. a graduate students of those programs again still have traditional manufacturing and engineering background and are advancing at understand better how do you design in 3-d, how do you look at a part that was manufactured three or four parts and put them together and look at how they can be printed. so those are some of the things and hopefully i covered all three of those. >> i want to address the question around design for additive manufacturing. i would characterize it right now is being an art and not an engineering science. the software, the design software needs to make a jump
forward before it catches up with the technology. there is a lack of understanding or just frankly knowledge about how you design the digitally optimal part that is sometimes referred to and so in many ways i compare it to when composite came in to aerospace, there was just an incredible adoption cycle, i cycle that had to totally reorient themselves getting composite education and engineering schools before really flourished. that's it decades really, so there is still that going on with this line additive manufacturing. there are two interesting things though in the design space. the first is where designs are coming from. we have all heard about
competition on jet engine brackets or parts coming from design and art schools used in industrial applications so their assist about organization that designs occurring. where do you go for ideas and solutions to include the actual users of the product? the second thing is that my experience is the design for additive manufacturing path often veer off and start designing for their own supply chains. because as they lay out the economics and the need they revert back to i don't want to change the part, i just want to be able to go but at the point of use because of what that does to my logistical requirements, what it does for disappearing source of parts etc.. >> thank you. dave.
>> what are the implications for more software content closer to the front end of the system's? maybe i'm looking at that with the example that takes you back a couple of decades or more so are there a set of enthusiasts that have scanners and they listen to things going on in their radios and if you had one of those 20 or more years ago what you would do as you would figure out what do you want to listen to? to your local electronics store and you buy crystals. you go from the back of the radio and plug the crystal and they they're an event for spots were crystal. and if you change your mind you could go back to the store and get another crystalline than you could use that device to listen to the radio frequency that would most interest you so we take for granted that same kind of product, you enter in the frequency you are interested in, enter and boom you are listening to it created as new formats come out, in large part that new
system is able to address it and receive and understand those. the reason i can do that is because we are actually converting from the radio frequency that comes over the air into a format. we do a lot more in the processing of the software of much earlier so the change to accommodate a new system in this case or a new radio that you want to listen to is uploading software to the system rather than going down to the store and buying a crystals so you can extrapolate from there. the systems are made not listing the communicating. systems will want to bridge across different radio projects come in the past you might have to have different -- formats they want to bridge and an software make that connection occurs of the propagation is one of efficiency, cost sensibility.
>> and jimmy. >> i appreciate that relationship there. we can't make a replica if we needed one. >> not yet. >> so there are a lot of key ideas here. i think going back to the question on design for additive manufacturing at the end of the day that's the real opportunity. that's a real opportunity because it opens up a whole new way of making things that can cost less because they need less materials. they can take less time because i can no lemonade some privacy out of my manufacturing line. there are a lot of things i can do with that that frankly just make the product better. i can take weight out of products because i don't put things in other places where i can't remove it later on. i have design flexibility. right now i have got a program where i have a major component of the military test and we have
made parts of using additive manufacturing and i was able to lay in his german tatian leads and by doing that i don't have to add things that disrupt the aerodynamic performance. it just makes it a lot other so that really is ultimately where we need to go. what is the cat's? as jim alluded to as an art right now. we get used to thinking of physics. physics is physics but the way we think about it in the way we pose problems that's how we do our analysis, we have to rethink not only how we make things but how we design things and how we analyze them with this physics to take full advantage of that. the opportunities are things like the america makes initiative. america make so was intended to catalyze the industry and intended to get this started and
apparently it has worked because we are here talking about it and companies like my own and others are halfway gauged in it and working on taking it forward very quickly. the other part of that is universities are huge part of that. how do i think differently about the physics? we heard about two universities earlier. we have a relationship with the connected taste company and the university of connecticut where we are manufacturing with them and if you talk to different companies you will hear similar stories about the relationship they are performing with their universities that they have relationships specifically for that reason so there's a huge opportunity and it's only a matter of time before we get there. >> wonderful. thank you all for being here. please join me in a big round of thanks and appreciation. [applause] [applause]
iranian agreement. he and other experts gathered in washington d.c.. >> there's a lot of interest in this important matter. we thank also c-span and "cnn" and others that are either taping are covering this event. after the iran deal still has to go to congress and there are still some obstacles here and there but we are really looking at the regional dynamics, the regional repercussions as the deal moves forward. we have to i think an excellent panel. i'm proud to say all m.i.a. people to help us understand the thinking in iran and turkey and the gulf, repercussions on iraq and syria and help us get a handle on the very complex and unfolding repercussions and dynamics. i'm going to introduce our speakers briefly. they will speak in the order that they are seated and they won't make an initial remarks
and then i will engage them in q&a and then we will turn to q&a with you. two mighty immediate left is alex vatanka. alex is a senior fellow. he is iranian in origin and covers iran and iran's foreign-policy. for as he writes regularly and international press and comments in the media as well. before joining mei he was with james defense and was having their islamic affairs department so he has a lot of experience and covers iran. intensively. he will share with us some of his observations on how this is unfolded in tehran amman to different power blogs and opinion spark dems. to his left is tom lippman known i'm sure to most of you, is a scholar with the middle eastern antidote -- institute. he is an award-winning author
and journalist covered and written on middle eastern affairs in american foreign policy for several decades. he was also former euro chief at the "washington post" and is well-known in that capacity. he has a book coming out in early 2016 called of the crossing, the 1973 war changed the world. he will be sharing with us his views on how he sees the gulf countries saudi arabia and others reacting to the deal vis-à-vis the iran. he would be a followed by a doctor gonul tol. gonul is the founder and director of the center for turkish studies at the middle eastern institute. she is an object professor at george washington university lectures at the national defense university. many of you are familiar with the writing and appearances in
the turkish press and the international press covering turkish affairs both domestic and in terms of foreign-policy and we are very happy to have her with us to help us understand the turkish reaction interest policies and relations to this deal. to her left is ambassador robert ford, also doesn't need introduction. he's currently a senior fellow with the middle eastern institute and has had a long illustrious career at the u.s. state department was the last u.s. ambassador of course to syria but before that served as deputy ambassador of iraq senior political adviser to u.s. ambassador to iraq and was ambassador to algeria. extensive experience in iraq and syria in the middle east in general. he received a presence on her work for his leadership at the embassy in damascus and recognized in 2014 with the secretary of state's
distinguished service award. in 2012 he received the annual profile in courage award from boston's jfk library for his defense of human rights in syria he is a frequent writer, briefer and appears on the hill on issues relating to syria and iraq. we are very happy to have him with us to walk us through his views of the possible repercussions. alex let me start with you. let me start with trying to understand and helping the audience understand reactions in tehran so far, what is then the spectrum of the opinion, how you think this will impact iranian politics but more importantly it's foreign-policy towards the region. >> thank you very much paul and thank you all for coming. as we discussed i took note of the fact that you said five minutes and pretty much no more so what i'm going to give you a set of bullet points and talk to
about the pool of points that might be of interest to you but each of these bullet points will give you a flavor what's happening inside the islamic republic of iran following this deal. let me perhaps start but the most important bullet point that i have put at the top of my list. reformist moderate intellectuals most of the iranian media and public opinion is in favor of this deal so when i hear president obama talk about hardliners i have to scratch my hard -- scratch my head and look hard at those. that's in terms of the overall landscape to the atmosphere in iran is change. since this deal was signed now you can criticize the deal. there's a big difference now if you compare it to before the deal being signed. before the deal was signed you couldn't talk about the nuclear program. it was a taboo issue. now the so-called hardliners
that exist are out there criticizing the deal but what they have done perhaps what i wanted to do was open up an entire debate about the nuclear program. if you look at the course of the last 13 years of us having to deal with these iranian nuclear issues this is probably a unique moment where you actually have something that looks like a serious debate in iran but the pros and cons of having a nuclear program. people actually asking the question that we have -- that they have avoided as long as they have, what is the actual cost of this program and nobody knows. the fact that it's being debated publicly in iraq tells you that things are changing. as i said i don't see any credible hardliners that can do anything to stop this deal. the deal itself as we move forward towards implementation, stages will fall apart but that's not something you can expect the hardliners to be party to. that's something that will come
as a result of not being able to continue on a path of implementing this deal from the 14th of july. the iranian supreme leader ayatollah mccaul maney has been vague and i know there are press reports and analyses in the u.s. that talks about this vagueness and assumes that vagueness means that he is opposed to it. i don't read it that way and i think if you look at the course of this man's role as iran's supreme leader is very worried that he comes out in favor of anything in black-and-white terms. he keeps his options open. he wants to see how it unfolds but if you listen to the people closest to him, people like the seven-year foreign chief foreign-policy adviser he is out there in the media defending the deal. if you listen to people like a personal friend of ayatollah
khamenei they grow up as children happens to be the joint chiefs of staff today he has been out there defending the deal vigorously so i listen to people around khamenei and taken account given his position in the islamic republic is not going to be the type of person you might have expected from -- let me say something about the revolutionary guards because obviously they are the third key interest party and the islamic republic. if you put rohani on one side the supreme leader on one side and the third pillar on the revolutionary guards they have not come out against the deal. what they're doing instead is to sort of come out there and give speeches where they say you know we have to make these tactical retreats as part of the negotiations but the strategies are still in place. we will continue on the path. basically they are keeping themselves relevant in an era that might soon be upon them
where they might feel less relevant. certainly if you look at the rohani administration's key focus in terms of where we go from here onwards and i could give you names in the q&a we can talk about the individuals but from his office to his oil minister to his foreign minister there is a team in the rohani administration most of the mark so he educated in the west most of whom have known each other going back to the 1980s most of whom have worked together in a rafsanjani demonstration from 1989 to 97 and again from 97 to 2005. these are not people that by accident showed up and are joining the party. there's a cohesive thinking on their part in terms of where they like to say the country and i think that's their strength. so far they have been able to go over to the supreme leader and say look you need to sign this deal. you need to sign the deal because without this deal because without this deal the
system will start unraveling from within. i don't want to use a cliché but i am sure that something like china in mind open up and not come -- economically and talk about political reform later. we have seen a lot of movement obviously. we have seen europeans the french foreign minister visiting 13 years, the german minister for the first time in 12 years going to iraq. the italians have been there and there's a lot of movement that toppled we will be used by the rohani administration to say look when we talk we can go places. one thing i say about the rohani team and again if you listen to zarif i spent my mornings going through the iranian press on all these bandages in my head than i sometimes get -- but if you listen to the speech
of the iranian prime minister in tehran he was open about what he thinks they need to do, bring economic stakeholders from the west, tie their money and and therefore you're going to make this deal sustainable. what they are saying it is not about the irgc but how many corporations will come and invest money and go back to the capital's and. >> good of us. that's a thinking. whether that's going to work out as a whole different matter and there are many obstacles in the way. is it okay with economic report and soap are obviously has said nothing about these great headlines we are hearing from tehran. to give you an example $185 billion worth of investment up to five years in iranian oil and gas. that kind of investment in ways we have to deal with people that yesterday yesterday were an
amazing, and he has not opposed any of these projects or ideas so far. what i think you need to watch out for if i was an american and sitting there watching this i want to know how hard the people in the rohani administration are going to square this thing and going back to the global economy dealing with the western world. call me and he has stated as one of his key legacy issues what he calls for assistance economy which is to say we are not going to be dumping grounds for westerner chinese imports. we will learn some of the lessons from the last 10 years the rohani is very cautious in what he says. they're not saying forget about everything we have done in terms of sustaining our economy at home. he's very careful and says we deal with the europeans only one a make sense from point of view of resistance economy. i think i make this point because this is key to understanding whether the
supreme leaving office is going to come against this plan in the future. rohani like ahmadinejad has been careful to make sure the supreme leader at least in his mind is the one that's driving it. on the nuclear deal that is what rohani wanted to happen and i suspect the same thing will happen on this major plant to come back to the world economy. i have noted something here which i'm not going to get into but perhaps in the q&a we can talk about it. this is one of the key questions what are coming these intentions for nuclear -- was it to remove sanctions or to make friends and clearly a lot of people in nine states have question mark about the latter. you look angry. [laughter] i have so much more so let me stop here and hopefully we can get to the other points later. >> certainly i and i'm sure many
people in the audience would like to hear more about. let me quickly ask you in the u.s. where following institutional process and the veto and so on. is there any up to two small obstacle and when do we know it's officially accepted on the iranian side and how does that happen? >> we can play different ways. we can say they are rainy and parliament has approved it and once the congress rejects that the iranians have looked stronger case to say we been dealing with the americans for the last two years in good faith and this is how they treat an agreement so they will look like the good guys. that is one argument you could put forward albert. we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the iranian parliament of the islamic republic of iran is not a key decision-maker. if anything its use by the supreme leader's office to control the atmosphere quickly how much of a hard-line voice to a want to have in the system and they can do that by making sure