tv Military Reporters Editors Conference - Patrick Shanahan CSPAN November 30, 2018 1:00pm-1:59pm EST
world war ii's greatest unheralded commanders and lessons learned from the war. live saturday, starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv on cspan 3. and now portions from a recent conference hosted by the military reporters and editors' association. you'll hear from patrick shanahan who talked about the defense budget, military readiness and president trump's proposal to establish a u.s. space force, which would become the sixth branch of the armed forces. then remarks from coast guard commandant admiral carl schultz. he talked about maritime security and drug ent intradict efforts. this is about two hours 10 minutes.
everybody set? good morning, everyone. and welcome, my name is john donnelly. i'm a reporter with cq role call and i'm the president of the military reporters and editors association. great to see you all here today. quick word about mre, military reporters and editors. it's a membership organization. we're dedicated, mre, to expanding public understanding of u.s. national security and defending the public's right to know about the military through the press corp. our website is militaryreporters.org, you can find us on twitter twitter @milreporters. we address defense department forums. we have a members only facebook page with a job bank.
a members desk at the pentagon. we provide our members with significant discounts to our conferences, including this one. it's not all about what we get out of it. it's also about what we give back by advocating on behalf of press freedom and open government. let me give you a quick overview of today. we're going to hear from a couple speakers this morning and they'll each -- after they speak briefly, we are going to dedicate as much time, if we can most of the time, to your questions. and our first speaker may need to leave a few minutes early since he has some pretty important responsibilities today. we'll see. i wanted to give you a heads up about that. so after lunch, we will have another speaker, we'll have a coffee break, we'll have our journalism awards and we'll have our traditional panel on military media relationships with the services public affairs chiefs. everything today is on the record, as it always is on our
conferences. you're invited to join us for cocktails afterwards right here. our -- we have a traditional combat correspondent's dinner this evening at 7:30 at the national press club. that's pay your own way, but the first round is on the national press club. before i forget the restrooms are out the door and to the right. we hope you can tweet your hearts out today. if you do, i cordially request you use #mre2018. and before i leave the podium i want to say some thanks to a few people. i want to thank the navy league headquarters of the united states for making this -- generously allowing us to use this facility. and particularly our friends there, chris layman, max kaiser, and rachel osborn who works for
the property manager stream realty and without whom we could not have pulled this off. i want to thank the d.c. bureau, the mcdill school of journalism. they're going to sponsor the cocktail reception this evening. i want to thank our distinguished speakers of course for taking their time. now i want to introduce christina wong, who is a defense reporter with breitbart news. she's going to introduce our first speaker. she's going to field the questioners and she's doing that because she led the way in getting our first speaker here today. christina? >> good morning, i'm pleased to introduce deputy defense secretary patrick shanahan, our 33rd deputy defense secretary. he most recently served as senior vice president of supply chain and operations at boeing
where he spent over three decades. he holds multiple advanced degrees from m.i.t. at boeing he specialized in developing large weapons systems and bringing them to market. as a deputy defense secretary, he is the d.o.d.'s coo, overseeing the organization and operations. we're pleased to have him here today. secretary shanahan, over to you. >> good morning. if it's okay, i'm going to have short remarks so we can spend our time doing q&a. does that sound good? all right, good. john, thank you for having me here this morning. i do have a couple of just kind of wave tops i'd like to hit. i think the assignment i was given was make sure we are able to write lots of good stories. so that's my intent. joe, why did you say we had to
leave early? might have to, yeah. no. no. we've got all the time this morning. i do appreciate having this opportunity to spend time with you this morning. i'm hoping in the q&a session we can kind of do the behind the scenes or inside baseball to put context to a lot of the subjects you quite often write about. i think the role i have as chief operating officer is really about how do we operationalize -- my assignment is how do we operationalize the national defense strategy. and then how do we execute on the day-to-day responsibilities. it's less of policy rule than it is translating what we talk about into action. i think all of you have a good sense of what that means. if i were to characterize or leave you with some thoughts,
it's a lot different today than it was a year ago. i feel really good about the progress. the way to think about this is if it's that much of a difference from last year to this year, think about where we could be a year from now. a year ago we were sitting in the pentagon operating under a cr, not having a full team, not having a strategy and not knowing what budget number to plan to. there were -- you know, when you think about the -- what was going on in the world, we had everything from hurricanes to a lot of activity in north korea and the middle east. it's a very dynamic environment. the fact that the team there could pull together a strategy and manage all these dynamics. and today having a budget where the caps were lifted and not operating under a cr. we're not used to that. you know, a year ago no one would say we'd be in this place. we talk about next year and, you
know, i'll throw a teaser out there in the space force, the caps couldn't be lifted a year ago. think about where we'll be on the space force. i'm really looking forward to talking about that in my remarks. let's see. maybe just about where i'm spending quite a bit of time right now. the most important aspect of operationalizing our strategy is to put the resources in place in the fy2020 budget is probably the most significant lift that we'll have as a leadership team. it's not so much about the strategy, it's about the resources you put into place and the tasking that those resources are directed to implement. you know, we're very seasonal in the department of defense. in terms of level of effort and focus right now, it's putting
the budget together, the budget -- we go pencils down about december 1st. we're really kind of on final approach to putting the details and making the strategy driven components. making sure they're of substance and they really reflect the course we're on for the next five years. and then how about if i stop there and we just dive into q&a? does that make sense? >> sounds good. thank you for your remarks. i'd like to start with the first question before opening it up. earlier this week at the national space council alongside vice president pence you said the department's most pressing focus with regard to space is the construction of a space development agency. you also said that the statement of work has to be defined. so what is the problem that space development agency needs to solve and how will the agency
organize to solve it? >> and then when i answer these questions, is there any like, parameter on how much time i should spend? >> not the rest of the q&a, please. >> yeah. so you know, a couple minutes on that one. you know, the subject of space force gets a lot of attention. there's a broad range of topics people discuss or write about, so maybe just to set this up. when i think about the space force itself, i segment it into, really, three categories. there's the space operations. think about space command. then there's the component that actually develops the capabilities and the technologies that the space command or the space operators utilize. then we have headquarter and those types of functions. whether it's the training or the
resources that go into -- i'll call it the overhead. the most -- when you think about in terms of delivering effects, what's on the critical path is capability. that's not to say that headquarters aren't important. it's easier to stand up training and an office than it is to field technologies into outer space. when we talk about the space development agency, it gets after how as a government do we develop and field capability more quickly? my time in the pentagon, there's more effort spent on discussing acquisition authorities and rules than what are those technologies that aren't just survivable but allow you to dominate. in the world of space, you know, before it was uncontested environment, now it's a contested environment.
we think about the contested environment, how quickly do we get equipment and capability that is very survivable and dominant in that contested environment? that's where i've been spending my time. it's less about what are those technologies, but how do you organize engineering and how do you line the department so we don't solve the same problem multiple times. how do we deploy new technology much more quickly? when you think about what's happened in commercial space and the amount of money people have spent to develop commercial space technology, it's this perfect situation where we should leverage that. that doesn't mean we're going to take commercial space technology and just copy it over. the role i've been playing and formulating the space development agency is missile defense agency, the army with its army's future command. the air force with things like
joint stars, they're all going to use space. so what are those areas if you drew a venn diagram are common? this is the biggest challenge, it's not the technology, it's how do you get the department of defense aligned? right? the challenge won't be the technology, the challenge will be how we adopt commonality. how do we develop and deploy standards. in parallel, you know, there's a sequential way in which we're going to build out these technologies. how do we get more free riders? if the army is first in order to develop a component of our pace architecture, how do we get everybody to hold hands and say the air force is going to adopt the same thing? adoption doesn't mean, well, it will be like that. it's 100%. the notion of the space development agency is that's where all the players going. you are locked in.
you can't have, like, agreements. you don't have pieces of paper they say we're going to have the same standard and immediately everybody diverges. think of the space development agency as the forcing function so that we build out this new resilient survivable more evolutionary capability as a standard for the department and outside the department. as we all know there's other parts of the government that use space. i'll just close on this one part. we tend to talk about space like that's the piece of this that we're addressing. but it's ground stations, it's how we deploy 5g. it's how we built out the network. our approaches to cyber fit right into this. to me, this is the place where we do the systems engineering on steroids. okay. >> great. now, we'd like to open it up to the audience.
please introduce yourself and your outlet and keep your questions short. please wait for the mike. we have some mikes here i think i saw -- let's see. >> do you mind if i ask one question while you're on the space force? do you know how the intelligence apparatus is going to be integrating into space force? i'm sure people here are going to want to ask the question about the costs. there have been various estimates, including $13 billion for how much it's going to cost. do you have an idea on where that's going? >> john, two different questions, right? well, it's -- when we're doing right now the 2020 budget, what do we lay in for costs? i think, you know, maybe you're
pulling on there was an estimate of about $13 billion. where does that fit within the budget exercise we're doing? we -- next week we're going to start to see those initial numbers. i would put that number aside. but that's the big -- when we talk about final approach on the budget, right now is when we have to lay in those numbers. the way i think about it is how fast do we want to go? how many pieces of the organization do we want to move simultaneously? our biggest thrust is space command and its capabilities. now on the part of the intelligence agencies -- and i spent a lot of time with sue gordon, she's just absolutely fantastic. we are like 110% aligned in getting this architecture and systems engineering right.
there is no land grab the intelligence organization. this is why the space development agency piece is so important. over time -- i mean back to the question of -- over time will it make sense to combine or merge missions? i can't tell you what that looks like. we have oversight committees and congress gets to vote. we want to present them options over time. right now when we're spending hard dollars on capabilities we are 100% aligned on how to get there so we can get the most out of those dollars. good morning. >> good morning, inside defense. question about the budget. now we've got the president saying the department's budget, if he's taking 050, will be $700 billion. is that the number you're planning for?
also, are you still planning to move 50 some billion dollars of the oco budget back into the base budget for fy20 which could definitely stress what congress has to do to get you your budget? >> right. right. so the work -- if we had david nordquist he would tell you. if you went to the air force he would tell you they're building one budget. imagine we're going through this very disciplined process for the whole year to build a budget that's $733 billion. okay. and then last week we were directed build us a $700 billion budget. we are not going to reverse course on all that planning. but we will build two budgets. and the way i would think about
those two budgets and the approach, there are certain things you can't change, right. there are near term costs we're going to expend in the next year that are on contract and for all initants a intents and purposes are fixed. the exercise we're going through is there is prioritization we can make. for example -- this is probably a good way to think about it. we have a number of options going on with hypersonic missiles. these projects we can choose either to do them or to defer them. you can imagine taking a $733 billion budget and saying okay these are the area where we can either time phase this, but when you think look at the $700 billion it's not a one year drop down. it's a drop and then held constant over the dip.
we're in the midst of david nordquist's cape team going through and looking at what those projects would be. then it comes down to a judgment call, how fast do we modernize, that's the biggest knob we have to turn. the short answer is we are building two budgets concurrently. but it will give the secretary a clear understanding of what the tradeoffs are. we'll do as directed by the president and give him a $700 billion budget then everybody gets to decide how to work with that. >> do you intend to move the oco money? >> that's not been decided yet. [ inaudible ]
>> i wanted to ask you the election coming up -- obviously we had a story earlier this week talking about cybercom's activity with trying to protect the election. what is the agency's responsibility when it comes to trying to prevent foreign meddling in the upcoming election. not only responsibility, but what have you been asked to do? >> like any military responsibility is to provide security. i think if it's to get down into commenting on specific operations or tactics, i can't go into that level of detail. there at cyber command it's to protect our networks, protect and defend our country against these adversaries that want to disrupt operations.
i think our focus in the department is to continue to give him you know the tools and the resources for him to be able to conduct those missions and responsibilities. >> without asking for specific operations, but what in terms has the general been asked to actually assist dhs when it comes to protecting the elections? >> you bring up a good point. thank you for bringing that to our attention. one of the things that's happened, especially in the cyber area -- i'll make a little bit of a plug for cyber here. this year we're down and in in developing a cyber strategy. and then barring off the approach that was taken for the
nuclear posterior view that gets at if you have a strategy how well are you doing that implementing that strategy inone of the things we said we need to do more outreach with dhs and with the department of energy. because if you just do the where are all the resources in the government, most are in the department of defense, but those tools and those techniques and that insight also applies to what's going on within dhs. we put a team in place and our work with them has been more like how do we help them protect critical infrastructure? in particular, one of the ways we've gone about strengthen cyber in the department is the cio we hired. our cio was the cio at jp morgan
chase bank. he had 43,000 i.t. professionals working for him. banks, as you guys all know, are attacks all the time because that's where the money's at. he implemented the cloud. it's a very international firm, one of the largest in the world so he's had an outsider's view of what we need to do to protect ourselves. that was formed by working with dhs. in his role he's helped us create new relationships with dhs and financial institutions so collectively we can go after these threats. the way we've learned to work together is something we're going to carry over to the department of energy so we can do the same thing with critical fru infrastructure. we know there has to be a support role. by volume we have more resources and more skills. we're creating those relationships there and with the
fbi. >> thank you, mr. secretary. sandra irwin, space news. back to the topic of the space development agency, which you've been putting a lot of time and effort into thinking through this. what are you thoughts about -- how much change is it actually going to bring when you think about all the legacy equipment that most of d.o.d. has, that's where most of the money is? how can you change all that existing infrastructure? wouldn't it take a lot of years and money to do that? thanks. >> i feel i want to go back and forth with you on this one a little bit. the way i think about this -- and this is more from the standpoint of my industrial
background. first of all, we have to stop doing the things we know won't be effective. so the -- in the 1601 report that i put a road map together because there's things we know we're going to either put on orbit or develop, and those are the first ones we want to grab and say, all right, henceforth, we need to make sure that these systems as they get deployed are -- have high performance in that new contested environment. and then every other system to follow needs to build off that technology and that technical learning that occurs there. we've been a road map so the defense department doesn't fall back on past practices. then you think about all the things that are in work and that
we need to transition over. it's more than the legacy systems, it's the systems that go along with it that's sustaining those. when we think about the space development agency i think about it as we have to stand -- we can't let any new work be done the old way. what i think happens when the problem is so big is everybody tries to solve -- you know, boil the ocean? it takes too much time. we need to stand it up. we're not going to field new things that aren't survivable. then we have to start expanding. so we'll expand in parallel to how quickly the organization can restructure itself. think about all the resources we have at the smc. we have a tremendous amount of resources. it's like if i could snap my fingers and realign everything
overnight and have it, you know, operate perfectly i'd do that. in this work with the space development agency, it's about how much pace can the organization stomach? but we have to start tonight. i'm more interested in starting tonight than i am in capturing everything. >> in terms of the impact on the budget, some of the resources will have to move from the old way to doing things a new way of doing thing. i guess we probably won't see that in next year's budget, we'll see that in subsequent budgets? >> i think you're going to see more -- we might surprise you, okay? that's where we're forward leaning. you can imagine -- the system likes to say you guys all know the system. go slow. my experience with risk isn't
that you take risk that you don't understand. risk is calculated. this is the nice tension we have in the system. thank you. we'll get you, yeah. >> debra scranton, a documentary filmmaker. good morning, thank you for being here. i have a question as far as our reliance on russian propulsion systems, satellites, and it's their engines we use. so for space, how do you see that as of now we don't have the capability? we're relying on -- >> but we're developing a capability, right? yeah. i think it's always better to have your own capability -- >> but as we now we don't have it. >> we haven't fielded the capability but we have the capability. it's better to control your own destiny. [ inaudible ]
>> thanks for being here. >> good morning. >> good morning. i wanted to classify a couple of points from tony's question about the budget. number one, when you talk about the two parallel budgets, to be clear you're talking about a budget that was set at x-number. we've heard $733 billion was the top number, and then a $700 billion budget. that would be interesting. >> it was done at the cabinet meeting, right? >> yeah. >> it was pretty clear. >> i want to make sure when we say $700 billion, we're not talking about the pentagon's budget, overall national security? >> so the content -- it's apples to apples, $733 billion versus $700 billion. >> have you received guidance saying your new level has been set at $700 billion? this is your mission go ahead and do it. >> has nick mulvaney sent me a memo? but he called me on the phone
and said here's the assignment, let's get to work on it. i talk to the folks at omb all the time. >> this gentleman here. >> yes, sir, a former marine public affairs officer and defense freelance writer. realizing there are many, what's your biggest acquisition challenge, be it military hardware, work with space command? what keeps you up at night worrying about acquisition for what area? >> that's good. there are multiple themes there. maybe i'll just kind of loosely kind of walk you through the number one -- so i always think of like, well, where are the big dollars? it's easy to chase in the department of defense a lot of shiny objects. the top of my list is sustainment for the f-35.
so -- well, you know, so it's -- when you think of -- so that's one i've got more. you know, the second is -- and this goes back to the question of how do we transition as the systems we've built are more susceptible to cyber and other environmental changes. i think digital modernization is another really important area for us. because we will have to transition to a new environment. you can see how rapidly technology is evolving there. whether it's weapons systems or the tools that we'll use in the future around artificial intelligence, it's software bas based. for our infrastructure, how do we modernize? that's a very significant effort
for us. and then the -- probably the third one is army futures command. so how do we help general murray as he starts to undertake all this activity, how do we make sure the performance of the products and the systems he's going to develop, we understand when and are affordable. when i say affordable, we really understand what the cost and life cycle costs are. i've spent quite a bit of time in those areas. >> the gentleman way in the back. >> i want to say that in the building people have the highest regard for you and the secretary of defense and the job you're doing. i wanted you to know that. >> thank you very much. >> but i got two questions. they're not going to be easy ones. admiral mullen said some time
ago the number one threat to national defense -- this is a paraphrase -- was the deficit. i'd like you to talk about that if you agree or disagree or the way forward on that issue and then i have a follow-up. >> i mean, it's not a hard one. i think -- i don't know you can say there's a number one threat. first i'd say -- at the end of the day, we have to be able to pay all our bills. so the pressure of the deficit -- you know, if you look at the government at large, we'll be -- with much of a change in interest rates we'll be spending more money on debt service than defense. being fiscally solvent is a huge pressure ultimately. i'd answer it two ways. we are very mindful of our
fiscal responsibilities in terms of being able to take cost out. especially for how we spend money on our people and the environment that -- or the tools we give to them. from the secretary on down, stewardship is critical. but we can afford security. all right. we can afford security. with those two book ends we have to get more for less. that's why when you ask me where do i spend my time, it's where we're spending the most time. i spend my time where there are problems. it's because i'm an engineer, it doesn't mean there's problems, that's where you want to spend your time. we can afford security. the national defense strategy addresses what we need to be --
to dominant and win against great power competition. >> a follow up, the army is down about 23,000 from their goal for this year in recruiting between the active, reserve and national guard components. the number that we've seen is about 30% of american males between 18-25 only qualify to join if they wanted to. you cut that in half, 15 will not be in the service. army, air force, marines competing for the other 15. the 99% versus the 1%, how do we expand the pool of potential recruits to the armed services of the united states? what are we doing about it to show that it's not just 11a and 11b, but we've got s.t.e.m. and all kinds of other fields that are open across the services?
thank you. >> that question i think quite a bit about. it's more personal experience, the time i've spent in the department of defense has been awesome. most of america doesn't understand what the department of defense does or the careers or opportunities that the services provide. when you think about -- i don't know what the number is -- but the average student coming out of college is carrying $30,000 worth of debt. the training, the experience, i mean, set aside some of these requirements on physical performance. those are all solvable. i think we need to take some different tactics. i know secretary esper and general millie are rethinking some of that. but we need to educate america about how great it is to serve and the opportunities that are afforded by our military. i don't think we've done that to the best of our ability.
when you look at what's happening -- this is the same as what's -- these are the same conversations that are occurring in industry. there's a global competition for talent. these are good problems to have. but the tactics and techniques we've used in the past won't work. we have great people that should be serving today that probably don't understand what we have to offer. >> please remember to speak into the microphone, thank you. >> mr. secretary, in 2008 the use of existing stockpiles were elimth eliminated. those stockpiles in combat conditions fail at rate of about 20%. over the past several decades, those munitions have killed dozens of u.s. troops across vietnam and desert storm.
your policy change, which you personally signed, will make the future deaths of u.s. troops a certainty, why did you do it? >> let me tell you that policy was driven by the north korean situation. when we were going through our readiness exercises and we said how do we prepare for north korea, and we look at the munitions that are required and the munitions that were available. you're probably familiar with the fact we've been working on technology to eliminate cluster munitions. the timing of that technology to eliminate the danger and the need to back fill the short fall munitions didn't line up. >> funny thing about that, sir, is the two weapons that the
united states has cited has being 1% compliant, which is the israel m 85 dcm grenades were found to fail in higher rates than 1%. there's no reason to suspect that the bonus round and the smart 155 will be any different. what's changed? is there some reason you believe these technologies, which have failed in the past to meet the 1% rate, will somehow not do that? >> you said i need to conduct a certain mission and i have available capability, do i wait for a substitute until later? or do i utilize on a temporary basis available capability? how about if we do this, because you're tracking on the right
issue as -- >> u.s. troops -- >> how do we replace the munitions. if we could -- john, why don't we follow up, i would like to walk you through how we came about that decision. some of the conversations i have with senator leahy and senator feinstein. you know their position on those weapons. if i could follow-up on you with that and give you a backstory, thank you. >> thank you, sir. amy mccolloch with air force magazine. i wanted to go back to the space force question. right now all the services do something in space, so it's -- how much of the cost of the space force is going to be realivatireal oicating the resources?
it's a safe assumption the budget will take a huge hit. how do you make sure it doesn't impact other areas of readiness by pulling that money out? >> yeah, don't let amy -- don't take her microphone. maybe just let's go back to the they're going to take a huge hit. why do you think they're going to take a huge hit? >> it doesn't seem like it would be a one for one exchange. like we're going to take space operators and move it from the air force over to this new service. it doesn't seem like the cost would be a one for one. >> so let's -- back to those buckets, you've got space command, you know, where general raymond is. right now when he goes to a staff meeting, he goes to a staff meeting with general hayden. he's not going to go to a staff meeting with general hayden anymore. he's going to go to a staff meeting where all the combatant commanders, working for secretary mattis.
that won't -- so there won't be any hit inside space command. so now we kind of walk over into acquisition and we say today, i love the army, but they're going to go develop a new network as part of army's future command. they're going to go develop a pnt solution. what i've been able to work with general murray on is are you sure you want to do that? should maybe we be using some of the other resources in the air force? and the question becomes do we carve out some of those resources from the air force? what we can't have happen is that general murray goes off and develops a solution on his own. and that the ground stations and some of those other networking devices have the same capability, but they're different. and then we have the j-star's replacement and then the missile defense agency is going to do some things.
it's like, boy, when we look at the projects and technology, the people that should be doing the systems engineering and the development and the companies we'll be working with are all the same, we'll end up with what we need. the money is going to be all the same. the total dollars aren't going to change. we're going to do it three different ways. i don't think there's going to be hits. i think what we're going to have is general murray saying, already, space development agency, we're going to let you do the systems engineering. they'll probably do the contracting for the content, but it's back to this breakthrough. if you said what's the paradigm shift we have to drive in the department? it's that everyone can't do it their own way. >> that's how you get the dollars maybe less by having that uniformity? >> if i make that argument they'll tell me i'm wrong.
you know, my experience in doing these things is people don't believe it on the front end, but actually when you solve the same problem once, then people learn more quickly and then your cost estimating gets better and the resourcing gets better. that's the -- i have to prove it to people right now part of the exercise. >> thank you, sir, megan ecstein. back to the fy 20 budget, you mentioned monerizatiyou were lo modernization. i wonder where capacity plays into the budget options you're looking at between the 7$733.
$733 billion $700 billion budget? >> i know they all have their different plans to expand the actual size of the force. >> the size of the -- the strength continues to increase, right? so when i think about the navy, it's how do we get more f-18s flying? there's a lot of them that sit on the ground. we already have them. so there's a component of this that with the assets we already have -- we've put a lot of assets into readiness and we're thankful for the money that congress has provided us. i can tell you personally and with secretary spencer, we're looking at getting more. it's more about can -- this goes back to the 355 ships. in the work we're doing right now, it's mix, what's the right mix. it's predecisional here, but we want more, not less. we think in this budget quantity
is very important. less exquisite, higher quantities. capacity, when we've got through the exercise one of the first things we did when the services sent in their palms, are we getting smaller or bigger? is the quantity going up or down? fundamentally we think the quantities should be going up. >> is that something you're committed to even if you end with a $700 billion budget or is that something -- >> we're very committed had. i think -- you know, some of you have seen a memo of that the secretary sent out. it was let's move out on achieving more capabilities sooner. we can do that. but we're very committed to getting, you know, a lot more f-18s flying. thank you.
joe is over there giving me the sign like we need to leave. no. are we doing okay? >> are you scared me, joe? thank you for doing this sir. i want to follow on a couple of questions, you had told sandra that we need to stop doing what's not survivable in the long term. was that just a broad explanation of keeping everything piecemeal in the space force? in the space capabilities i should say, we don't have a space force yet. are there specific kpmexamples things we're doing in space that will not lost long term? >> i have specific examples. i'm trying to think about -- hold that. you'll go back to the pentagon today. i think i've got some specific examples that were in last year's budget where we made -- dr. wilson has changed -- so the
notion of being more resilient and survivable in space isn't new. the space force didn't generate that new idea. if we look back to last year's budget, it changes to reflect the environment, they're there. what i want to do is make sure chose specific changes in last year's budget i can give you those examples. they are clear examples. if you just said, you know, generalized thinking quickly close the door. that's the emphasis. the pentagon will talk about it, organized to do it, draw a line in the sand, and let's make sure we're developing those new systems. i've seen the proposals. they always come in. we'll get after this next year. let's do it this year. >> all right. i look forward to that -- >> can we do that? [ inaudible ] >> i've got some thoughts, we just need to make sure those are there. >> thanks. i want to follow-up on amy's question. i'm interested in the practical
implications for the personnel overlap. i know she was talking about cost overlap. i mean, is the army going to keep any of the men and women that can shoot up, or is the air force going to keep any of their space capabilities? is it all going to go to the space force? who decides that? are we going to have a space guard? i know that is like six questions into one. but really, how are we breaking down those practical implications for personnel? and how soon will we see that? >> we're in the midst of writing this legislative proposal, and so the specificity around the transition of let's say people that are in the army today, we're not at that level of granularity. this is really -- >> when will we be there, do you know? after that proposal comes out or -- >> i don't know. i mean it is not going to take that long. i mean if we just, i kind of
think about it this way. let's say, if you're one of those people, it is really important to know that detail. but like how many people are we talking about? they're not huge numbers. but for the person who is in that job, it is really important to know where they're going to be. the notion around the space force is this. if you're involved with space, there will be professional development. and so this is kind of back to the, you know, the so-con model for the readiness, training, of the preparation, we're working out, how would we actually develop these space professionals, and you've got people that are in the space command, that are actually conducting space operations and then you've got people that are deployed. the process that we do that is what we're working through. and then the timing of the transition fallout of that. so it is an insufficient answer to like when will that definition appear. but right now, it is the model of how that development will
occur. >> when that proposal is due -- >> by december, i need to have a legislative proposal. and think about the legislative proposal is this. if it is really vague, they are going to send it back, right? so we have to have enough detail so that our engagements with congress are credible. because everybody is going to say, i haven't found people that say, that getting after the threat, or being, you know, defensible in space, isn't important, they have all said that's universal, it is the how, and if we serve up a big bill, that's not okay. so that's the piece we've really been working through. >> we have time for one more, maybe two questions. >> let's do two. >> okay. >> the congressional quarterly. given your background in supply chain and logistics, what if anything did you learn from the defense industrial base study? and what coming out of that study do you see as actionable?
>> so this is the part you have to write down. eric did a wonderful job. i don't know if you guys know eric, but he, you know, the intent of the defense industrial base study was not to create a doorstop, so you know, it wasn't to write a report, it was to develop actions, so there is a classified annex who has 300 actions and they range from technical to i'll call it systemic, so you know, what to do with china inc. and all the, you know, intellectual property theft that occurs there, to, you know, we have certain suppliers that are single point failures that we have to address, and not any fault of their own, they're either in a financially, you know, weak position, or they have capacity, they're overcapatatized, so that study identified those things and it
is our responsibility to implement those 300 actions, but the good thing about the study, and this is why i kind of foot stomp, eric chuning's work, nine agencies involved, over 300 people, so it was really a whole of government effort and then the defense industrial base was very active in the development. but it was always intended to be the, this is the question we always went back to eric with, is so what, you know, what are we going to do about this, and to his credit, that's how he built the report. and others. i'm not just saying to single him out. but his fingerprints are on that. >> last question. jeff in the back. >> i think it is probably for the people that aren't in the room. all right. >> this has to do, i'm just curious what your thoughts are regarding d.o.d. medicine and the role it's played in the opioid crisis, in terms of prescribing to active duty
service members and dependents, and you know, i guess i'm curious what role you think military medicine played in this epidemic and what are you guys doing now at the d.o.d. level to change things? >> eric, was that eric? >> jeff. >> i'm sorry, jeff. at the opioid level, i don't have a good working knowledge of that answer. what i've been doing is working with dha, to make sure our medical force readiness is high, and that we transition the defense health agency, the management of the medical training facilities, that being able to deliver more and better care, so like friday, i will go to, next friday, i will go to madigan, what is it, madigan hospital out there in tacoma, washington, to look at the
implementation of our electronic health records. so it is not that i don't united states the relationship around opioids, i've been kind of operating here to how to better integrate with the v.a. so they have the tools to go after those things, how do we with the electronic health record not have a drop so that, you know, one of our members, you know, health history isn't lost, so they can get as much care and as timely care as possible. but what you bring up is very important. okay. so i'm getting the hook there. thank you very much, everyone. >> we have something for you. >> before you run off -- >> you know, these things have to get reviewed. i won't be able to keep this -- you know how this process works? so about six months from now, i will see this, right? >> well, thank you very much, mr. shanahan. before we let you run off, i wanted to offer you a memento of your appearance here. you can choose between to stay or to go versions of the mre
coffee mug. assuming you want either. >> i will take this one. >> you're a man on the go, right? >> thanks, everybody. >> thank you very much. >> before everybody runs off, it's 10:05, and our next speaker is coming at 10:30. so we want to thank you, colonel, thank you, mr. shanahan, but we have a little bit of a presentation here, i want to take advantage of this sort of gap in the schedule, we will have a little break, but i want to make a little presentation here.
and what i'm about to, what i'm about to do is give out our first-ever journalism service award. and at this time, i would like to ask louie martinez to come forward. louie is pentagon producer with abc news. on behalf of military reporters and editors, we'd like to present our first journalism service award to you for outstanding and dedicated service to your fellow members of the pentagon press corps. you've always gone above and beyond to help your fellow journalists, including setting up the extra pressroom, and countless other acts of selflessness. please join me in giving louie a round of applause.