Transcripts For CSPAN3 Fmr. 20240704

Virtual planes very excited for todays discussion around securing space and addressing the cyber risk that could not ask for a better group of speakers than than were privileged to have joined us today before doing that. Those of you. My names frank cilluffo, and i directed the mccreary institute for cyber and Critical Infrastructure at auburn university, our eagle. For those of us who follow our work, you know, this is not a new theme for us. But what is new is weve collaborated with wonderful partners at that Cyber Solarium Commission to point out or csc to point out, as well as the foundation for the defense of democracies. Were also going to be releasing a paper more on that soon. And later. But but at the outset, i did want to thank the amazing work i share and card ash on my staff, l. C. Shields on my staff of course, my coauthor, mark montgomery, who will be hearing from soon and the amazing staff at ftd, led by the one and only annie bixler. So without further ado, i want to jump into the conversation to kick us off. Were going to have mike rogers framing a number of the a number, the pressing issues facing our country right now. And as everyone, i think ewing knows, mike was not only a former congressman, but he was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence. He is a true leader on National Security issues. I think we first got to interact around the early, early weiwei discussions and in the words of mark twain, whereas history may not repeat itself, tends awry. And i think we have a lot of similar challenges where were grappling with today. Mike came to congress as a former army officer and an fbi agent and really thrilled to have you join us today, mike and in your voice, i think is so important for iraq, for our country to hear. So what i thought id do is rather than jump right into the discussion, id love to have you frame the issues. Obviously, where the communist party of china is in some of these issues. And more broadly, why are we where we are and what do we need to do to get to where we ought to be . So pretty broad question there. Well, thanks, frank, and thanks for the great work that youre doing there at auburn. Its incredible. I think there may be a rogers wing in auburn, mainly because my brother put all four of his children through auburn university. I told them, you should at least have a wing named after you for that that amazing feat. They all got great educations. Were all going out doing great things. Most of them are engineers of one sort or another, you know, space. Lets talk about it for a minute. You know, the first real wakeup call when when i was part of that National Security structure in congress, in the United States, 2000, roughly about 2007, when the Chinese Communist party fired a missile and hit a satellite, happened to be theirs. Just to prove that they had this anti satellite capability and we all started saying this is a bit of a game changer. Remember, prior to really those early 2000 years, the United States was dominant in space. No other really competitor, no near competitor prior to that. So we did what we wanted to do in space and built those markets in space based on the fact that we were unthreatened and undeterred. And that allowed us some immense capability in our warfighting capabilities in a smart, plain, smart ship. Smart soldier, smart bombs, all of that space based. And so the Chinese Communist party for several decades now has been saying, hey, were going to compete with the United States militarily. Were going to create a blue water navy, were going to do all of these things. And they look that, okay, what are their strengths, the United States and what are their weaknesses . And they came to a conclusion that space was both a strength and a weakness. So they invested a lot of money early on, developing capabilities for antisatellite technology, both ground based missiles, lasers and anti satellites themselves. And i dont get again, not to stir up a vision that this is about, you know, a star wars type fight in the in space. Its more of a more of a bulldozer pushing a satellite off its course or sapping its fuel or destroying its sensors in a small but effective way is what youre going to see in the near term. And china has stated in that nearterm theyd like to control space between earth and the moon. Lots of strategic reasons to have that happen. And so when we started looking at this, it was hard to get peoples attention even in the u. S. Government about, hey, we have this big and growing problem. And im not talking about the folks who are doing the work every day who can see this happening, something about the investment that it was going to take in a couple of things in the United States. One, we needed to make an investment that that also protects the very expensive things that we are firing up on rockets into space really expensive operations. Are we doing enough to protect those assets in space . How do we protect those assets . How do we protect assets that are already up there that dont have new technology that allows them to do two, to protect themselves . In the case of someone trying to get that satellite out of the out of orbit in any way, are we resilient enough . Can we fire up an architecture and lowearth orbit fast and quick . So that if somebody wants to take out some of our capability in low earth orbit, we would have the capability to very quickly create a new architecture, fire up a new satellite, get things to happen at almost real time speed. Are we ready for that . Have we developed that . And now you have commercial space integrating with our military and security infrastructure in a way that i think is very positive, but it also has some challenges and some hurdles that were going to have to get over, mainly because weve inherited this legacy system of space. That said, hey, were, you know, unchallenged and undeterred. This seems crazy to me that we may have to have body guard satellites, which some people are calling them, which may be a very real possibility, very real and very soon to make sure that we can can maintain capabilities. And then you just go right down the list from that. Frank, the cybersecurity threat isnt necessarily just disruption, and certainly thats a concern. But what happens if the information that is coming down is been corrupted in some way and so your positioning system has you in one place and the folks who are making battlefield decisions or seaborne decisions are getting information that has that battle group or that ship or that submarine in a very different place, because theyve been able to, through cyber attack, been able to disrupt the information flow and insert packets in there that lead to bad decisions on both the sea and land in other places. A real possibility, unfortunately. And so trusting information becomes now a huge issue. So disruption, we have plans. We understood the ability to lose assets and other things. Now what do you do when it comes to distrusting the information youre getting because you had a successful cyber penetration of your network somewhere . And so you start thinking the next layer down, okay, okay. This goes we know the chinese and the russians have a have designs on trying to take out a lot of our satellite capable i. T. Early on in any kind of a conflict, do we have the supply chain to sustain Rapid Deployment and resiliency of of the architecture that we have deployed . You know, theres a pretty thats a very hard question for the United States and one i dont believe we have gotten right exactly yet. So if you take those issues just in that order, you can see where were going to have to act faster. Were going to have to deploy faster. Were going to have to have robust Cyber Defense upfront, enduring and any conflict and were also going to have to have a supply chain that does not rely on a single other country. If we believe that when that balloon goes up or hopefully not, but if it went up, wed have the ability to sustain our space advantage. All of those things are hard. I dont believe the government today is configured for a fast paced, rapid or interoperability between commercial and space. And theres a lot of reasons that that legacy kind of keeps nipping this in the backside, if you will. And i dont believe that we have taken seriously enough what happens when we lose key pieces of our satellite architecture. How do we make up for that . So its not just defending it, but what do you do if it goes out . And so those are the kinds of things i think hopefully well get a chance to talk about today. Im not saying its over and we havent done things that the u. S. Government hasnt done things they have china moves at a very different pace when they show up. The whole families there right in the u. S. , we dont quite do that. Right. So when they show up, they have the diplomacy arm, the economic arm, the military arm, the intelligence arms. All shows up with a hand in hand. They skip down the street together. Here in the United States, we have to have meetings across different sectors and we have to have some kind of a group hug meeting to get to where we need to go for Rapid Deployment of anything. We have to change that and not saying we should adopt the communist system. What i am saying is we should adopt an American Innovation system that allows us to act quicker and faster because the chinese are moving out. They know that they have a slight advantage in the fact that they can rapidly deploy and innovate after some theft of intellectual property. I guess what we need to be able to move equally as fast to counter that growing threat in space. Thank you, mike. Very sobering thoughts as well as very. Yeah. I mean, you covered death covered this space. You covered the waterfront in in an incredible way. In a short amount of time. And im glad that you brought up its not when most i think most americans are not aware of just how dependent our way of life obviously from a military standpoint economically from an assured positioning, navigation, timing, i dont want to sound geeky here, but clocks to run the world if you can mess with that, you can be ahead of anyone. And and we need to invest accordingly. Now our report does touch on some of the streamlining process, which i think is im glad you brought up as well as sort of harnessing innovation in the commercial sector rather than treating them as as the stepchild, having them as a genuine partner in all of this. And thats where i think we can we frog anyone when we put our heart to it in our and our minds to it. But but i but i would be curious in terms that i see behind you your chip warhead, the bulk. And when we look at semiconductors and we look at the dependance that the whole world has on taiwan in terms of production and obviously the potential implications asians have of whats going on in the south and in the in the south sea and the like. What what should we be doing more around supply chain . And then im going to ask you a very pointed question. If you were commander in chief today, what are the three things you would like to see done . Medium well, writ large or related to our topic . Thats a very big topic related to our topic. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think three things in just about everything as my wife would tell you i would and im going to eternal optimist. She also says that may be a genetic defect in me, but i do believe we can do this if we unleash American Innovation. I a we the three most important things that we really are. You know, weve had some fits and starts on the way that government handles cyber risk across the entire Us Government enterprise. And we just have not gotten it right yet. And i know theres been some small and important steps. We just have not gotten it right yet. I dont think we can wait too much longer to have a cancel sedated effort on things like Cyber Defense. And remember why this is important because the private sector is playing an Important Role in space. Defense is, you know, they can protect their networks. The Defense Department does a pretty good job of protecting their networks, not perfect. But imagine now you multiply your your threat vector here by adding all of these suppliers and everybody in the chain that helps build the satellite. And now youre dependent on their Cyber Protection and resiliency to keep you safe, to avoid getting into your Networks Later on. That is a huge challenge we have. I dont believe weve gotten it right yet. We have to do that. Secondly, i would make sure it very quickly that we create an architecture using our private sector and commercial enterprise to get these low earth orbit architecture. So that makes it very on appeal for the chinese or the russians to start taking out these low earth satellites. They know you can get one, but you wont get it for long. And we need to build that kind of resiliency in the last part of that is the supply chain piece. I would say early. We need to friend. Sure. And we need to build capability, not capacity necessarily, but capability in the United States. We have atrophied ourselves in a way thats very, very hurtful to the ongoing National Security protection of the United States in many ways, chips being a part of that. A big part of that. And you think those microprocessors, how important it is, again, there are certain types of microprocessor lasers, even the ones that arent very boutique and and specialized. But those microprocessors need we need to have the best and latest capacity and ability in the United States. Remember, if this goes up, its going to disrupt commerce and transportation and all kinds of things. And we should always plan for the worst, for the best imperfect work, for the best, and i hope for the best and so in that process, we need to make sure that we have that that capacity and again, in cyber, we dont have a Cyber Workforce that is going to meet the demand today. And i argue we need to change that as a part of this. So its a very complicated and multilevel layered effort that we have to go through. And i believe we can do all at once. The u. S. Government has done Amazing Things when we have a threat on the horizon. I cant think of a bigger strategic threat to the economic and National Security prosperity of the United States than what china faces to us today. And theyre telling us that we probably ought to listen to them. Mike, thank you for your sobering comments. Keep working for the best as you said, keep fighting the good fight. And and id be remiss if i didnt mention auburn is represent by the great mike rogers of alabama is well and on my board is Admiral Mike Rogers so weve got a lot of weve got a lot of rogers is but i cant help mike rogers frank you cant have enough mike rogers in National Security i think. Well, our next event is going to be mike rogers, too. So its going to be the three of you talking and says all authority are incredibly informed. So thank you, mike. And and keep fighting the good fight. Were going to go into a little more depth of discussion, unpacking some of mikes excellent preview here and and well start with sue gordon, who i will very quickly introduce sue, as i think everyone knows, is the consummate Intelligence Officer. Shes led shes been in leadership positions at the National Space intelligence agency, Central Intelligence agency, and also served in the highest civilian Intelligence Officer role as Principal Deputy national pd, Principal Deputy National Intelligence director. So its almost like npd in is at what does now say bye bye to i mean ive had the privilege of learning from sue for a number of years and and and quite honestly the country is better off with the role that you played here. So i, id like for you to unpack back a little bit of what mike discussed here and and maybe specifically sort hone in on how does this all evolve and and what are some of the wildcards . I know youve done some amazing work in to tell where you look, the different ways that the Intelligence Community can work with the private sector to to to drive solutions and and rather than me leading the witness. Sue why dont you jump on in. Well one thanks, frank for having me clearly, i need to pay you more so i dont have to follow chairman rogers. Next time, lets see if i can give a little context. I love that. That mike talked about advantage it it it actually is my favorite way to think about National Security because it forces you into a temporal context. And if you take this concept of advantage and play it through the history of space that neatly enough is is my personal history. So ive seen it all. You kind of go early on. You have the United States and russia nation states using space for National Security advantage. The United States was super dominant in the capabilities that we were able to put in space. That gave us ability not only to see beyond the horizon, but to project power, to for the point of purpose, of deterrence, but also enablement of mission activities. It was one or two of us for almost the whole of the history were talking about until really in the late nineties, when you start seeing china, japan and others coming on the scene, but they were not big actors, so it was two countries playing out the game of advantage and i think it was disproportionately on the american side simultaneously you see the bleed through of technology and you see the rise of commercial space and you start with landsat and you go through what we have now. And now you start thinking about societal advantage and space as an infrastructure that allows human activity in really interesting ways to see their work. The earth, from earth observation to communication to communication at speed to communication at reach to now being able to use it for change detection in really interesting ways. So nations, state actors, few too many commercial narrow missions to now dominant mission. And if you look at just ukraine, you can now see that the benefit and the advantage of commercial and National Systems are very clear. The effect of that is that anything they provides advantage becomes of interest to adversaries and competitors, right . So the threat surface is now not just National Systems, but the aggregate of systems. And it was proven in front of the whole world over the last year. So what does that mean . That means that the threat surface extends to the private sector. We need to find a way to ensure that that will be protected. But you protect it that differently and neatly enough. You cant insert hurt the government so strongly that you slow down what our industry does because in fact that engine is part of advantage being technology with the leaders is part of advance. So i think whats interesting about this moment is its a very busy space. Its benefit has been recognized. Technology advantage has been really diminished. Everyone has access to roughly the same technology, the control of it extends beyond governmental control. And so the security of it, which is disproportionately important to free and open societies, has to be shared between the private sector in the us and so how do we get awareness and investment in security without retarding the innovation engine that has served us so well and well over the course of time . So i think its just a really interesting moment to think about how you do that effectively. And we could we could talk about the intersection of space and cyber, the very similar arcs of advantageous and adversarial aerial use of that space, but i just think in understanding this moment of whats playing out is actually the key to understanding all the pieces that we need to address. Thank you, sue. And going back to one of your your your your your old leadership roles, do we need to build on a bid for where we are in this . So i think you and in many ways for that and and donovan was able to work with industry in a westbrook cradock kind of way and maybe was able that but i want you to jump in to that because i kind of feel like we do need that equivalent for this domain but you want to jump on that quickly. Ill be ill be brief and then well come back to it. This is a leadership moment. This is a time in aggregate of strategic uncertainty, right. Where just Growth Without constraint is not going to do it. You have to have a vision of the outcome. You want to have happen. But heres the rub. This is not a moment of simplistic outcome. This is not a moment where the outcome is holding and protecting what we have, because that wont ensure that we have something worth protecting. So you do need this is a leadership moment. You do need National Security Community Leaders to think about how they pursue the mission theyve always had in this environ, but that is so integrated, so connected, so data abundant, so technologically ubiquitous. How do you do that . And the answer is you do it by partnership, by the government doing what the government does well, allowing the private sector to do with the private sector does well and recognize it that the citizen is the one that is actually the player in this across the way. So we can go into it later. But but yeah, its a moment of leadership where wellsaid. And for those who dont know bill donovan was the founder of osa, which ultimately became the Central Intelligence agency. But i think you teed it up perfectly for general thrust. General costa, for those who dont know, is ceo of skype corp in inc that Amazing Service inside us air force rising all the way up the ranks, started as a pilot in desert storm so has a lot of scar tissue as well as leadership roles inside inside the air force. And what i found a little amazing is he grew up raised in a remote african tribe. So not not exactly the the experience everyone is had, but i think it has definitely influenced the way he leads. So general quast, i want to start so sue was talking about the private sector and i thought maybe we can talk a little bit about the space economy, where it is now and how you see it expanding in the future. Well, thank you. And i think weve spent some good time understanding the nature of the problem. What i would kind of state as the beginning of this is that we have historical examples where we have done the same thing because space is not new with regard to the fact that its interesting, it hasnt ever been done before the way we need to do it. And, and and its important to realize that, you know, as i went from the National Security role in uniform to the commercial private sector as a ceo, its based on this understand that all National Security is economic and that the governments role is to protect the Industrial Base, to be stronger, more affordable, more agile and and faster than the competition, no matter where that competition comes from. And sometimes itll come from one state, sometimes itll come from another. So ultimately, this is about stoking the fires as sue and mike both said of the Industrial Base, the commercial sector, the private sector, and allow the government to put its thumb on the scale in just enough way to help. And the two examples, all ill cite is when we were deciding whether we should have a navy or not. And our Founding Fathers wrote in the federalist papers for years argue in that point we decided that we needed one because of the commerce of the open oceans and the need to be able to protect our economy. When airplanes were invented, you know, the the open skies economy of transportation and logistics transformed the world. And what did the government do in both of those situations as they stoked the shipbuilding industry and the fueling stations in the pacific and the atlantic and the navigation and all the technologies that are in the layered approach to dominating the open oceans for the commerce and the benefit of all countries to include america. Because it lifted all boats, no pun intended, when the airplane was invented. Look at what the American Congress did to stoke the aviation and the aircraft building industry. So many examples. The boeing 707, you know, all of these examples and all both of those were just like space where there are multiple technologies that were groundbreaking. So in space, we have, you know, things such as Artificial Intelligence and and and we have things like quantum and we have things like Laser Communications and all of these nuanced technologies, the journey ahead can be simplified by the government partnering, as has been said with private companies and industry to stoke Industrial Base and our young engineers and scientists will just knock the ball out of the park with all of these inventions that bypass the architecture we have. Because architecture we have right now was never built or designed to be fast, to be affordable or to be resilient. I mean, think about that. It was never designed to be fast, to be resilient and to be affordable. Its just like the internet was never designed to be secure. It was designed to be open. So everybody could benefit. And then evil people started using it for bad things. The same is true of space. We cant try to double down on the current architecture and make something secure fast and affordable that was never designed to be secure, fast and affordable. We need to let the Industrial Base bring us those Clever Solutions that only Business People will think of. Only these young engineers and coders, hardware, logistic agents, rocket scientists. Theyre the ones that can bring the capabilities faster, cheaper and more resilient to the government to include rapid access to space. So you can have a Fulfillment Center somewhere where if you need a new satellite to develop a capability, its in orbit within an hour and not months, years, which is the current battle rhythm or pace of space. So ill stop there. But the Economy Foundation is key because without a strong economy, no competition can be successful with any other country because wars, you know, the american way of thinking about war is this decisive battle. And we win and we go back home. That is not consistent with nature. It is not consistent with history, struggles between values of different worldviews, different cultures is a long slugfest of power. And if you cant do it cheaper and for longer than your competition, you will eventually lose. Because humans are stubborn. And china is not going to change their mindset and america should not change its mindset where we value every human being, no matter where they were born, what they believe, as long as they respect human beings, this is the game changer in the history of mankind that starts with our constitution. And thats what spacex is fighting for. Spacex is the saving grace for American Culture, and it grows the economic pie as we watch a global slowdown with 8 billion people, this grows the pie. So that Industrial Base in space can bring unlimited information, unlimited energy, and unlimited resources to people on earth and people in space working. Thats the promise that were talking about. And its that simple. Dont overreach government. Put your thumb on the scale yet like you did with the panama canal, with shipbuilding industry, with the aviation industry, that is the key. A general you you you drop a whole lot of knowledge there and and one question and how you ended i do want to take up that discussion with with others as well that Technology Changes human nature remains consistent. And the reality is is when we look at these issues, its dangerous to look at them. So narrowly that we dont appreciate the bigger struggle thats honestly democratic regimes versus autocratic regimes and really do hope we can pick up on that discussion. But when you started an air force officer was was espousing the the greatness of navy, which is and shipping, which is a perfect segue way to our next speaker. Were admiral mark montgomery, retired. Mark mark and i have known each other way too long. I work in cyber. Before it was cool and and and he not only directs csc 2. 0, he also directs the cti at the foundation for defense of democracy, iss. And bottom line was did yeomans work as executive director for the Cyber Solarium Commission. Mark, youve got the youve got the tough job here and, you know, i have some opinions on all this, but but to unpack our paper little bit and and i thought wed start this specifically sort of getting a sense of what are the three big things that the executive branch should do to get us closer to goal here in it . Well, thanks, frank. Its great to be with you and my friends, too. And and steve now i will say ive never heard you know, i always rely on him for a strong spouse to of why at the heart of maritime nation. But look on our report i think the first thing id say is the key finding that sharon, you and i had, which is that we we to strengthen the space system, name it a u. S. National structure. And in doing so, we would close the current gaps boat and signal, both at home and abroad that the United States is committed to the resilience and security of space system. We also set and defined what Space Systems were. You know, we looked at the whole ecosystem around orbit, sensors and signals, data and payloads and the critical technologies, Economic Opportunity and supply chain space. So its a big issue. And and to unpack that, we you know, the key point was that it needed to be designated a national Critical Infrastructure and that the background on that thats those are infrastructures detailed in president ial policy 21 which they a ten year old Obama Administration directive that really should have been updated, you know, three years ago. So you know, seven years ago and five years ago and seven years it was meant be you, you know, consistently updated, you know three administrations in a row really failed to do that at this point. But there is a way to designate critical sectors on the fly. The secretary of Homeland Security do that. And in fact, we designated a subset there in 2017 the election subset underneath the government sector. So we need to designated that. The reason we do is because it meets those three. You know, theres three things that make your chapter National Security, economic involvement, economic productivity or or involvement in public and safety and in space is all three. You know, we clearly need that. So the first and foremost thing i would say is we needed those data a a we need to designate Space Systems, a national Critical Infrastructure sector. And i dont think we should wait for the rewrite of ppd 21 that administration is promising because they look, there are good people working hard. They say things like well have a new one in september. My answer to that is, which september . I dont think itll be this september. We can do this now. The section of Homeland Security and send to the president through the National Security advisor and Homeland Security advisor a request designate. And i think that should be happening now. So the very first thing we have to do is that and know tie to that is which federal agency is going to be the lead for supporting is that is a yellow 41 no we led there were a lot of ideas in here and for sure no one agreed on any what there was not a consensus but we looked at it hard and i think the area where we landed is the right one, which is that you need a sector respected agency for the overall sector. Thats nasser. I think theyre uniquely positioned have the relationships they really get at those that economic you know they get at the it all the different elements National Security opportunity Public Health and safety of this issue and but i do recognize like many other sectors, transport, energy. We need subsectors and there needs to be a Department Defense of a sector for defense, intelligence issues probably managed by the department of ed, as they do the defense Industrial Base that subsector and then i think you need a subsector for communications because the fccs already got a very strong relationship in there. So i think with that, you could do it. If i could say one other thing. The government has to do, theyve got to set up a supporting ligature around that and thats the the gtc, the government coordinating and the center for Training Councils and they sound boring and bureaucrat and they are a critical the sectors that are run well and i put the department of the Energy Sector have great sex and gcs where the participation or the ceos of companies no tom fanning you know for years was the chairman of the electrical sgc deeply involved with the government and brought, you know, a commitment from his company and got the commitments of the other ceos that were there alongside him. And so, in my mind, you know, setting up naming in a sector is a national infrastructure, putting nasser in charge of the sector with two arm out your subsectors for defense and intelligence and communications and then really getting the gtc, which is the government coordination. Right, with the scc, the sector coordinator. And if we can do that, were going to really put ourselves in a good spot and we dont have time. This isnt like a well, you know, in the next administration well no this is a this year thing so that we can get moving. Hey, mark, just to underscore, this is not an academic exercise. This actually has real implications to designate action and prioritization, not only signaling to industry, which i think has to be integral to the way forward, but also to our allies and to our advocacy areas where were putting a few markers in the sand with this, know exactly that. To me, its its the achieve. Its the achievement. You know, its the its what you get out of being creating a critical structure. Its a signaling industry that were serious your industry is asking for this sort. Youre not asking for an aca or dod or fcc theyre asking for engagement and theyre asking for the the government to be more involved in. Ill tell i love that the Space Council, im glad we create the National Space. Im glad we created it. But you know, i worked at the nsc for three years. Were there in the white house, you know, that you could coordinate things from the white house. You cant do the blocking and tackling of leading. Thats done by agencies. Thats done by the national, the dni or the secretary defense. So its eight or the Homeland Security, right. But that is who gets things done at the white house . Is a in theory, an agile, streamlined organization to coordinate. I joke a little bit out, as i said it, but its an agile, streamlined organization to get the president s intent transmitted to those federal agencies and the Space Council at the sitting at the white house like that and communicate that it cant lead it. The leading has got to come from your sector as measured agency. And as i said, the gcs as easy look and nasser they can do this. Theres some things were going to have to do. Well talk about that. But but to me, that is the critical role. Thank you, mark. And i want to pull out soon and steve in on this discussion and then i want to pull the thread on steves points versus autocratic democratic, because i know that thats something mike rogers has been very eloquent on. But before we go to that set a question. You know, when i came into this study, i immediately thought of the title ten and title 50 equities. And i thought this had to be dod. And the reality is is we got great input from some of the top subject matter experts. And i want to thank them in terms of that that. The folks we interviewed across the board on on some of these issues. But where i ended up was yes, the title ten, title 50, National Security mission is critical. The department of defense still must and should play a key role in all that. But space is much broader than simply those activities. I mean, sue steve, i will start with you. Sue, id be curious what your thoughts are on that because i came in, i ended up in a very different place. I normally know what i want to write before we jump into something, but in this case i visited, so id be curious. We all pivoted. And when i say that, all of our authors so sue steve, what would you what would you think on this . So ill jump first and then steve you you fix it and make it better. Lets see, you know, in 2023, National Security includes Economic Security, right . It includes it includes. The systems were producing, the commercial systems. How you protect, how you how you create advantage is not the as it was in 1947 or 1963 or 1996 or any of those years. How you assure National Security now must go through Economic Security, must involve participation with the commercial sector, cannot be controlled in the way you control purely governmental assets. And so i think youre right that we have benefited from defense and intel over all these years, but they have a particular view of how you maintain advantage. We need to include what commerce is doing, what transportation during, what nasas is doing, how we protect the companies in the event. So i think youre right that it cannot be just left to the department or the National Security community as narrowly defined in order to ensure that we have advantage in this space. So i think your instinct to try and come up a way to do that is good. I think youve done that by this consort new approach, which anyway, everyone will worry about because that isnt the strong suit of the government. What i would hope is that this consortium recognizes the imperative and then does a little bit what the sec did back in the thirties, which says were going to set the imperatives and the standards, but we are going to allow the private sector to input how we achieve that and so youll get this benefit of the government setting the framework and the standard and the private sector saying, okay, heres how we can meet that. So i think youre on the right track, but its going to have to go beyond just a governmental solution. Its going to have to include them. Well said. And and yes, weve been long announced short on verbs, on a lot of these issues. And and if we dont hold the private sector in not only a seat at the table, but a a front row seat at the table, hand in glove, i dont think we get that far at general. Id be curious what your thoughts are on all this. Yeah, for me, the this really starts with a Record Mission by the executive branch and the legislative branch that. We are in an economic competition with other great powers that want their values to be the dominant predicate for the economic global enterprise. And and so its its not yet we all all of us on this panel have lived through leading through leading change. You know, this disruptive of reality that new things threaten old models of business and governance, regulatory, statutory. And so things need to change and nobody likes change. So for me, the three things you need, we all need focus on if we want to do this is one, the recognition that weve got a competition on our hands that could threaten our ability, protect our society, our economy and our and our government. And the second is the leadership when you look at historical examples where we had to insert capability that was going to be disruptive to a certain component of our government or our economy. You needed to pick leaders that know how to lead, change and large bureaucracies. You need to have the money protected by the top level of the executive and legislative branches so it doesnt get swiped away by you. An appropriations act, you know, at the last minute or and you need, you know, the person be protected, the leader to be protected. When we were trying to usher in the the the triad to combat the fact that russia had built a nuclear bomb and was building rockets to launch those intercontinental ballistic missiles. The only, you know, general schriever was put in charge of building those rockets for america. And the first 13 rockets blew up and the only reason that money didnt get stolen from him after the Second Rocket blew up was because he played golf with president eisenhower. Okay, now, we dont need to play golf with the president , but need that recognition. And congress is he had allies in Congress Without congress and the white house on board, without the right leader of courage that knows their way around the bureau. Cradock knife fights in the back alleys and committees and in meetings that take place and without a personal protective ideology where they pick the right leader and they protect that leader to achieve success. Without those three components, no matter where you put this, no matter how you divide it up, it will fail. So we need to move fast. And the only way to move fast is the right leader, the right money protected. And that individual leader protected by the executive and legislative branches. Thank you, steve and mike. I want to bring you in because i know i think there have a heart stop soon, but steve brought up the culture, all sets of issues and i always grew up thinking the american way, the democratic process is the only way, and i still believe it is. You stood up a an Organization Called lead, which is very much behind that philosophy, which is to leadership to ensure the American Dream. And and when you really get down to it, the secret sauce, the ingredients that make that American Dream so unique is not just the traditional hard edge of power, but all the other in it native components that that let us lead. Is this hyperbole . Are we am i over hyperventilating here or are we at a point where technology is a double edged sword . And and and and we cant take for granted that our democratic norms will drive the way forward . Id be curious what some of your thoughts are on that and then bring in the panel and then go a little further into the eye before we lose you, i wanted to make sure we we we give you an opportunity to share some thoughts. Yeah. Thanks, frank. I dont think we have two or four years to dawdle on this problem set. We have never really faced a strategic competitor like china. So think of the soviet union. Only with money. And what china was very successful at doing, where the soviet union was not, as the soviet union was a little bit more brute force and they used their brute force element to lock people up and send them to the back of their houses and tell them not to come out until they were told to do. The Chinese Communist party is doing something very different. Theyre using the economic power that they have in an extortionate way to isolate resources and, Natural Resources around the world for their own successful Economic Future in a way that the United States doesnt have a consistent policy between National Security, Economic Security and energy security, which we didnt mention today, is equally as important as all of those elements. And we havent lashed all that together to say, okay if were going to compete and were going to win, which we can, we are going to have to start lashing things together across the government. One of the things the admiral mark was talking about kind of send a chill down my spine about, hey, were better at this if we have a coordinating body. And then our body, the coordinates with another body that comes up. I dont think we have time for any of that. I would have one person in charge of making this happen and what youd have to do is try to eliminate much of the red. I call them red cards. Right. The everybody gets a red card. Very few people get a green card. We need more green card holders in the government to make that. Were advancing at the pace we have to. And that means coordinating resources. Yep. That means youre going to take something on as somebody sandboxed. Theres going to be screaming that youll hear in california from washington, d. C. But if we dont do this and we dont do it soon, we will not be able to keep pace with chinas investment in the next generation of technology. And i tell people for our listeners here, you thinking i dont quite get that were good with technology. Theyre good with technology. But youve talked about this, frank, about this clash of values. So what china wants to be data dominant 2025 and what are they doing with the data that theyre extracting from their citizens in voluntarily . They created a social credit system. A social credit system. You get a score as a chinese citizen by the communist party if you dont do well enough. And that social credit score, they can deny you access to bus tickets, train tickets, airplane tickets, the right travel anywhere else in their own country. And there are some middle aliens of chinese who have fallen victim to this. Maybe its a tweet that says president xi isnt always cracked up to be. Whoops, thats a negative score. And if you think about what the chinese are trying to do in data, data dominance, its not just in china. Its going to be internationally. You want to do business and there have a large you the largest supplier of fill in the blank. Yes. What you dont hit their social credit score. You as american businessperson, youre not going to get an opportunity to compete in that space. Thats how serious this is on that level. That is a clash of values between the United States and china. And its happening now. This is in ten years from now. Theyre already doing this. Theyre making those investing months to beat us in space, to beat us. You know, theyre navy just surpass the number of ships of the United States navy, you know, as they say in the military quantity, as a quality all of its own. And the fact that theyre using their economics to take in france is a great example. Theyre using their economic power of government that they lash up with their military and intelligence, part of their government push. And france around and thats all about contracts in the future and what macron felt trapped, too, was this notion that china was basically saying theres good things that can happen to French Technology companies in china or bad things that can happen to French Technology in china and he stumbled around on the National Stage wondering if the United States was the right bet. We should take away this notion that you should bet against the United States any day of the week, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 12 months of the year. It will always be a bad bet to the United States. But what does that mean to us . We have to get our act together. We have to stop spending so much money. We cant afford the interest on our National Debt will be bigger than the department of defense. Very soon. The fact that we china is having eighth graders learn Quantum Mechanics last year. Think of this 69 of eighth graders across the United States could not read at the eighth grade level. We are in a crisis mode here across our value system in the United States. China knows who they are and are moving out. I suggest we have to do the same and i would go through the government here. This is really important for all of us. I think if you really ask the admiral, do you want all these coordinating bodies . And this group was asked to ask this. If you have to have five meetings to get a decision, we lose. We need we need to streamline government, as you said, frank, early on in this process model tell you Congress Needs to say heres what we need to happen they can do that in conjunction with folks who are a lot smarter and the defense and intelligence business and have guide that decision tell them thats what we need. Give them the resources and say, come back in six months and 12 months and tell us how youre doing, how were going to compete with china. This notion that weve got to spread it around and have the battle of the inboxes is really costing us in a way, hard to visualize through the rest of the world. If youre in that system and you talk to these folks who are doing it, theyre pulling their hair out. Lets lets let them, you know, get back to stop pulling their hair out and start doing really creative, innovative things. And it happens in space and cyber in our in our era force need to have Decision Makers in a vertical getting these things done. And then maybe you know what after we win this technological battle, if they want, go back to the battle of the inboxes, which is a very american trait. You know, have them let them have at until then, we have got to get our act together. We just dont have a lot of time on this. If. Right. Thank you. Thank you for your great leadership here, sue. Im going to let you, mark, because in fairness, i think what mark was proposing is actually streamlined. Its taking the spaghetti chart and and streamlining the process. But one thing i want to mention, and this is the highest i wish we wrote this report, but the austrian alien Strategic Policy institute had a study recently that looked at 44 key areas of technology. 37 of those china is leading the United States. So thats the first empirically based study i have seen and all in the areas were discussing right now. So its not reading in basket weaving, its leading in Key Technology areas that we cannot afford to be left behind. But mark, im going to let you jump into that quickly, because i know that theres more there. And then, sue, i want to get your thoughts on this as well. So mark, jump on in place real quick. I will say also that apps that study seven were leading in seven. Good. What a short seller. But it thats embarrassing that weve really thought about it so our i may not have made it clear our our goal is to put one agency in charge and it happens to be so what we are trying to do with the secretary because i tried to explain. Right. Thats actually the private sector and whats different. And i think whats different than schriever experience back in the 1950s are or rick over experience in the 1950s and sixties where you could have the government lead, it was the government owned all the tools of research and development nowadays i think the private sector is actually in a much better position to the guidance thats provide advice and counsel. So the one thing where i would say before i had a strong leader move out, the group is the top washington set up. Is that at sector corps they also and thats where weve seen that like i said, an energy with with someone like tom fanning is what happens after he provides his advice is he then helps implement it within the industry and even when its not exactly what he might have wanted or that you want to do a pretty good job of that. And i just think its that is the one area where the government, probably during the cold war, didnt need to consult with industry. But in the competition, which china, some of our frontline fighters, soldier, so to speak, are in the private sector. So i think that that thats what weve got to get it and right now they dont have a place without us as it, you know, putting nasser in charge and saying youre at we dont have a the government does a pretty good job. And i agree with this setting up, you know, 50 different places to go to. And after a while, you just have a completely deluded leadership process. And so thats our goal is one to joe the center in our our slam would say. And then strong input from the private sector into that decision making. Im glad you brought that up, mark, because that is, i think, the differentiator is the private sector role in all of this. And the this would be a ceo led. So not to go back to World War Two analogies, but one of my heroes was vannevar bush, who sort of brought industry and it grew into the defense base, but it initially started out with ways that government could really lean on the best thinkers and minds and and and resources that the country had. And the truth is, is we need the same. But sue, i know weve had some discussions around this. Anything you want to weigh in here . Yeah, mike, im just like you. I always have three things. Ill say three things on this topic. I think i think one of the areas where the government does need to get involved in ways that it hasnt and that weve been to do is i think we need to get involved in the standards bodies we have been philosophically to do that because we so wanted our the industry to drive what those are but as were moving to an area where you have platform technologies that absolutely technologies are our adversaries and competitors are controlling those standards bodies. And as you set the standards you do set do some. So i think standard setting is in International Bodies is something the government might need to look at. The second thing is i think we need to look at our whole ecosystem that is involved in technological superiority. So thats everything from investment in research to students in schools to foundational education to the labs, to the company, just to make sure that it is all tuned and fighting against each other with different rules and different imperatives. And you see this when it comes to students and what are we doing with immigration . You cant exclude foreign students from the United States because that would be antithetical to the advantage that we have had historic. We we want to attract the best talent. You cant then simultaneously drive them out of the country as soon as they have a degree. We need to tune the ecosystem for technological advantage. And then i think the third thing that ill end on is you heard me mentioned that this is a time where every technology is available to everyone. What that means is that the person that can put it to clever use fastest is the one that wins. And one of the things thats going right now is we dont have a technology problem. We have a use problem. We just arent driving it into use as much as we may need to. And whether that is the Defense Department figuring out a way to use this really in credibly emerging commercial space market or whether that or some of these really technologies getting deployed into the field to transform how we engage. I think i think focusing not just on the technologies were getting them into use will be an important part of advantage. And then i learned i have a fourth and i think well get to cyber at some point, but i will say that cyber attack are really an assault on trust, right. And a erosion of trust, disproportion really hurts free and open societies. And so as you have space free, the great enabler for the way society and security moves, making sure that that is protected against those who would erode our ability to trust it is an important part of, you know, this this discussion weve been having about systems success, not just individual performance success. So thank you. And im really glad brought up how application of technology i mean even in the war fighting domain if you go back in history its the application and the use of technology that that that that changed the game not so much was invented it was how it was applied. And you can go all the way back to the hun and how he was able to use different means to acknowledge this to to achieve as objective some really really glad you brought up because that often gets lost in the discussion and i think thats part of the secret sauce thats in the dna of the United States where we do better than the rest of the world because not trying to necessarily control the outcome and and i dont mean to be too too born in that, but but that is an area that think that if we harness and harness. Right we can have reap big rewards. And its when when you look at space its very much like cyber. It is its own domain, whether its war fighting or economic or you name it, its its own domain, but its transcends all the others. Cyber transcends air, land, sea space and space. It transcends air, land, sea, cyber and. And mark, id to sort of get back a little bit to the paper and i know were running out of time here, but what are some of the congressional priorities that you think are worth sharing today today . So we first, angus has done a good job laying out what a sector manager in aid is. The Warren Commission came up with some language with some alterations in law. So whats massa or whomever is designated leader . Itll tell them what to do and ill and heres congresss number one goal object they need to resort to that because. The one way this will fail is if we any federal agency except the department of pets that is at war. But if you tell any federal agency, hey, do this thing on the side and were not going to resource you because what will happen is they will figure out how to do whatever you asked or the minimum amount of money achieving the minimum, whatever you describe, the minimum level of. So what Congress Needs to do, i think and you know the way we are and know is the same way we we put a number on a time. And so we said first year needs to be 15 million, but it really needs to build up to 30 to 45 million. Thats how much it costs manager sector because you have to do is be out and present working with the private sector you know doing Risk Management understanding look through the different supply issues that exist and then investigating this Space Systems is probably the highest upside of needed search development of any critical structuring United States you need money to do this so Congress First job is resource whomevers Risk Management the other group i got to give a big shout out to the private sector. They have created a legitimate space isac with a watch center without the government being focused on this i mean thats that you just how just how how clear the need for you know the government to step up and play its role is it the private sector in the absence of the government has gone and done many of the things that i wish other said at this level the space isac is more advanced and many other isac that have in theory government and help the problem space of course is that youre going to have to is a very good effort by u. S. Department of defense to grow and develop and nurture a space and space command. Were going to be involved. And that is to build that ligature over in with the speed that to steve and reps have. Rogers have said is necessary means we have to get involved now. So in my mind, yes, our designation has to happen. This calendar, this fiscal year and the budget reviewed right now there needs to be a person, whomever they designate as us. And look in the big picture the federal budget this. Is 50 million the first year but you got to get it. Mark, thank you. I mean, all things said and done its marrying up authority with resources and leadership. And and i think thats the the case. We want make since i would say the tyranny of time requires i be a little bit of a tyrant going to let everyone sort of say their last parting shots and and see if since we havent heard from you you triggered the last discussion. Dont we start with you and then go to mark and then with sue. Let me let me let me turn to you, steve. So we didnt really we discussed the economy. I know that theres a whole lot going on there. And i know im asking for parting thoughts, but i know in our interview you were really thoughtful in terms of exploiting minerals space. Its not just the trip Additional Industries were looking at. Were going to build new industries. There are going to be massive. So id like for you to touch on that and say your closing shot and then well go to mark and sue. Okay. Well, ill be brief, but most average citizens in any country in the world do not realize how much the universe is filled with resources at our fingertips. Literally, a shorter drive and a ship going to africa and all of those resources at our at our fingertips with Current Technology today, it is profound whether its mining that turning it into 3d printing material that can be 3d printed in space or on earth. I mean, space can benefit the human race with unlimited resources is unlimited information and unlimited energy. Thats the reality, what were tapping into. So ill leave it at that. But i want your listeners to leave this conversation with a tremendous lightning bolt of excitement and hope. And ill use the fact that i grew up in a different world paradigm and a different culture, and i never really knew the American Culture other my parents. But i was off running around as my dad was a cultural anthropologist and missionary. My mom was medical, helping the kids and the women, the tribe. And when i came to america and i saw these free society and this constitution, this is why i joined the National Security arena. And i will tell you, having traveled the world and lived the world and been a student of culture, history, human nature and how Technology Changes history everybody else in the world fears america. And if we want to get out of this. We build on our strength. Why they fear us is because we can innovate our way out of any problem. Economic, military, informational, you name it. We are the most innovative on the planet because we believe that the respect for every human being is in their brain and in their heart, not in their money or their status. And we dont pick winners and losers based what we think we base it on performance of the idea. This is why we are going to do well and i am in the private sector now and the commercial sector and ill tell you the Software Engineers and the hardware engineers that work for us that are, you know, young and they they they understand and they believe. And the human spirit and protection, the protection of people, they are agnostic of culture, but they believe in the values and they will find a way. All these things we need to be careful not to pick winners and losers in the government and let our youngsters free and they will find a way Business Leaders will find a way. Government will not. So thats an important between the roles of and the private sector and. Thank you for let me encourage that we are going to win this race. Its just a matter of time and urgency. And the urgency is now, like mark said, got to do it this year or were going to be in trouble. Thanks, steve. Thank you for a very optimistic ending to all this. Id add a third. So brain, heart and hands, because at the end of the day, its that application piece that i think is is so, so important. And and i dont want to get on a soapbox and talk about how academia has to be more. But but at the end of the day, its those three criteria just to give you the third. Thank you for that optimistic message. Mark, anything on the paper and how when we close leaves, make sure to let people know where to access the paper. But but any any parting thoughts here we are leadership authorities and resources. We felt that space system required a good Public Private partnership a real one because the role the private sector is already playing and that the appropriate sector Risk Management agency is going to be have a demanding task. But nassau can do this and i would just go back to, you know, youve you alluded to Something Like this having a policy without is rhetoric. So its a policy now resource set agency. Now its and back and let them lead a Public Private partnership or something. Mark sue, last thoughts. In all threats and opportunities are going to go two and through space. That means its worth advancing and assuring and because it is now shared between public and private sectors. This is a great for the government to do what it does really well, which is to set a mark for the horizon, use its deep pockets and to illuminate sand in the gears and to let the private sector what do what does better than anything else. And well be on our way soon. You, mark. Thank you. Thank you. And i know we we had to lose mike rogers earlier. I mean, theres so to unpack here bottom line is with this event with paper theyre all meant to tee up and elevate issues. If we dont take serious we were in deep danger. If we do take serious lightly, we will get out in front of. Our adversaries and quite honestly, back to the cultural principles of what is all underneath that. Thank you for all those in we had big numbers. Thank you. Those tuning in on c span and for those that are interested in the paper it can be downloaded at the 2. 0 site at ftd website as well as the mccrary institutes website. So thank you. Onward and upward. And thats ayoure watching w d. Its. Reid now whos gay gonna stand at that 10 minutes ago and whats up jay is that a psl, a Pumpkin Spice latte . Yes, i am drinking a Pumpkin Spice latte, and its pretty good. Yeah, i am too. So, jared, why are you here . Well, im here for the artsy dinner. Its the tryouts to be the host. I mean, i think weve got our work cut out for us. Look at this list. I dont even know any of these people. Who the heck is tyler fisher . Man, i cant believe were holding tryouts. No, i didnt get this locked up. I mean, i had a few fires pop up i needed to put out, you know how it is . No, not really. Listen. Well, this whole tryouts and whoever does the best job will be the host. What can go wrong . I am jared moskowitz, and im here to audition for the arts aid dinner here that theyre looking for a host. And clearly, i have Nothing Better to do. I know youre a miami vice. Maybe we are going to get you on the miami vice steam. And i know youre very miami where i am. Okay. Is that is that an adult jacket . Because its not for us. Its from the Kids Department ten. Were going to have a shoot. Were going to have a problem. Im on this island and diet. Its just plain nuts. Why cant you trust a politician or a ladder . Well, theyre always up to something. Whats a dentists favorite time . What . 230 . I havent. Aliens come down to washington. They say, obviously, because theres. Theres no intelligent life there. All right. Thank you all for coming. The committee has made a decision and the winner will have the honor of performing in front of the most prestigious journalists in washington. He was actually invited to the state dinner. Thats tonight. Tonight. Thats why the pm of australia didnt show up to try us. Can i still drive the dadgum ferrari . Unfortunately, no. When noah rented the car, we put himself down as the only person allowed to drive it. Now i blew the budget on transportation and so somehow ubers. Live from the anthem in washington dc. Its the 2023 radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner and the awards show. Now, please welcome your host for the evening viral actor and stand up comedian tyler fisher. All right, thank you very much. How about the band, everybody. How about that video there . That bomb . Did anybody laughter in that video . Well, that thats great. Im obviously a last minute replacement, but how are you guys doing . Thanks for coming out, huh . Thank you for coming to the 57th speaker of the house vote this month. Sorry. No, the 2023 radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner. An awards round of applause. Everybody, for coming out. Were here to celebrate the free press on capitol hill and throughout america and honor the work you guys do every day. We appreciate it. We appreciate you guys dividing the country the way you do. Its oh, i just got a quick note. Just a quick housekeeping thing in case the Sprinkler System goes off, please ignore it. Jamaal bowman is here and thats just a false alarm. So. All right. Yeah. Screw that guy, huh . Thats not cool. We did it in high school anyways. Oh, you know, were keeping with the theme here of finding a speaker of the house just like mike johnson. Nobody has any clue who the hell i am. And i look like a far right extremist. So you know what i mean . They could they couldnt even agree on a speaker. Thats how a divided we are, because everybodys so controversial. Every comedian i was not this isnt al franken was supposed to be here. This was supposed to be his outfit. But as you know, al franken, his hands were a little busy because of the teddy thing. Im still remember that