As some of you may know, for 24 years I worked for then Senator Bill Cohen, 18 years of which I was his Senior Military Advisor on the Senate Armed Services Committee. During that time I had many occasions to fill in for him and here I am again this evening trying to fill his shoes. It's a rather daunting task, but one I gladly accept when it comes to speaking on a subject that is so near and dear to both my and the Secretary's heart.

Over the course of those many years on Capital Hill I spent countless hours in committee hearings. There were few witnesses who really stood out, and who attracted a standing room only hearing. Those that did were refreshingly honest, did not mask or blur problems, if something was broken or about to break they would advise the Senators accordingly, they would wander from the Administration's position when they felt it necessary to do so, and they would disagree with a Senator, if necessary, to set the record straight. At times, more often than not, they would be painfully blunt. I would like to see this 4th Symposium emulate that stylefor telling it like it is. I believe it would be a significant step forward to see both speakers and participants being open and frank in their dialog, and thereby, fostering an environment where a real exchange of ideas can take place.

This week we will hear that there are capability gaps because of a lack of appropriate technologies to address them and, you will hear about promising technologies and developments that have not been put to use yet. In the various break-out sessions there will be many opportunities for you to talk with colleagues and share progress and results of your work. But, I want to challenge you to do something Instead of putting the focus on purely highlighting your own work, be diligent to identify other technologies and other people you can potentially team with to help fill the capability gaps. Capability gaps are not going to be filled because you have had a technological break-through in a lab, they are going to be filled because someone or a team of people see how to exploit your break-through and combine it with other technologies to create a SYSTEM that can be delivered to the Fleet. Will that someone who exploits your work be you?

In a minute I will return to this subject, but for now let me take a moment to follow my own advice and be blunt with you. Defense dollars have never been tighter. In 1964 the Navy's S&T budget was $2.3 billion in fiscal year 1999 dollars. Compare that with our 1999 S&T budget and you will see that we were down by a billion dollars down by 40 percent to only $1.3 billion spent on S&T. In the years ahead, it's only going to get harder, the operations and maintenance funds required to sustain our troops are going to continue to be the overriding priority. Then will come the requirement to modernize and procure the systems that we have on the drawing boards today. And if history repeats itself, and I fear it will, the last priority, and the lowest share of the dollars, will be put toward S&T. So, who will be the winners in the search for S&T funding? Will it be you?
A moment ago, I told you that I was going to come back to the question of who would be exploiting your work. I believe the questions of who will exploit your work and who will be the S&T funding winners are linked. Those of you who can effectively communicate not just the import of your science, but also translate that important science so that it CAN be exploited in a transition plan for the acquisition community will be the winners of the S&T dollars. Your own preservation is linked to your ability to communicate and then work with others to create a technology pull to get your efforts fielded.

How do you do this? Well first, let me tell you that it means you will have to take off your lab coats and put on your business suits. Of course I don't mean that literally, but it will probably be a real mental exercise for some of you. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I pretty much have an open door policy in my office, and my staff and I frequently meet with people from organizations, companies, or government activities who think they have a new idea to offer up for the mine problem. We always hope for the best and are anxious to hear something new, but in many instances the people who come to talk with us are wearing their mental lab coats. They're ready to tell us about their new experiment, new algorithm, new test result, but they can't really translate what that should mean to us in the big picture so that we see a need to exploit it. They can state that the result of this new thing will, of course, be better, but what is that in acquisition terms or business terms?

Representing the acquisition community, and not just the science and technology community, I have to tell you that while we recognize the talent and the dedication in the S&T community, the acquisition community doesn't celebrate with you when you come up with that new idea or break-through. The acquisition community is only going to get excited and celebrate when someone can take that idea and combine it with other good ideas to turn it into a system that will do something for our Sailors and Marines. And you are only going to be able to do that if you can effectively communicate your science so that others will work with you to put together a system. Well, what will that do for you if WE finally get excited about your work? When the acquisition community, the resource sponsors, and the Sailors and Marines, or the users, start to get excited about something and they see the usefulness of your work in the big picture, they will start being interested in protecting those S&T dollars that you are fighting for, and YOU will be the S&T funding winners.

Now that I've told you what the acquisition community wants, let me tell you what we don't want. We're certainly not interested in waiting for someone to take some new break-though technology and put their own spin on things, all the while wasting precious time and resources to make it their own before turning it into something useful. We don't care that the break-through technology wasn't invented by you, we only care that you take that new technology, team with the expert in that break-through, and exploit it to turn it into something useful. And the key word I just used is team. We want to see teams between laboratories, academia, government activities, industry, or whomever it takes to bring a SYSTEM together to get it delivered to the Fleet in the shortest time possible and at an affordable price. I'd like to ask you for a show of hands on this next question. How many of you were ever Fleet operators? Not many of you I see. So, with most of us missing that first hand knowledge and experience, how do you know when the Fleet would prefer for you to push some new technology to them NOW rather than waiting for it to be refined into a second or third generation? That answer can only come from constant communication on what new technology is likely to provide and what the Fleet needs are. Let's put that into perspective by asking yourself if you would like to build a house with a contractor who you never met to talk about what you wanted in that house? Do you think the contractor could guess how many bedrooms or bathrooms you want? Now what if that contractor also saw no purpose in talking with his mason, roofer, plumber, or electrician? He just expected them to show up with their expertise and put it all together. I know this is a bit of an extreme analogy, but sometimes I think that's how our really smart folks on technology think. I'll just build my super piece of technology or make my incredible scientific break-through and even though I haven't talked with anyone about it, I'm sure I've got just what they need and they're going to know how to use it.

In 2 years, when this group convenes again for the 5thsymposium, I would be interested in seeing how many of you have taken up this challenge and actually formed a team to transition something into the hands of those who need it. I suspect that many of you will still be working on your same projects, trying to take it one step farther. And our men and women, who are facing the mine dangers, will still be waiting for the solution. Let me tell you something, they are not waiting for the perfect solution, they would be happy to have even a first generation system that gives them some capability oraffords them more protection than they have today. So don't fall into the pitfall of trying to make it just a little bit better before you start talking with people who can transition it into a deliverable system. Start that dialog today what can be done with what you have now? Woe be it unto us if we loose a ship or even one Sailor's life while we are collecting one more data point or adjusting one more variable in an algorithm before we start talking with those that could tell us they need what we have now.

Let me summarize my perspective and the challenge that I've just laid out with a quote from General George S. Patton. A good plan executed now is better than a perfect plan next week. War is a very simple thing, and the determining characteristics are self-confidence, speed, and audacity. None of these things can ever be perfect, but they can be good.? Of course, Patton wastalking about plans, but the same principle holds true in business as it relates to time to market.

Now I'd like to give you an update on some Navy Mine Warfare Initiatives where we are and where we're going, with your help:

I have presented some numbers to various audiences inthe past and I would like to review those numbers with you to set the stage for where we have been:

- The SAMUEL B. ROBERTS and the TRIPOLI each detonated 1 mine.
- The PRINCETON detonated 2 mines.
- The combined cost of these mines was ONLY $11,500.
- The cost of the damage they caused was $117 million.



In short, for a very small investment, our adversary was able to stop the Navy in its tracks. Here's another number for you:2005 -That's the year we deploy the first organic mine warfare package.

Given the newness of the organic mine warfare concept, I don't believe it has been introduced or explained to this forum. The Office of the Chief of Naval Operations has defined organic MCM as a capability that is carried in deployed forces to allow early MCM operations and to conduct MCM operations en route. To explain the organic concept further, I am going to walk you through a brief that I presented to the Under Secretary of the Navy, Jerry Hultin, when he became very interested in the Navy's mine warfare capabilities after his visit to the mine morgue at Coastal Systems Station last year. I talked to the Under Secretary about the Navy's past, present and future capabilities against the worldwide mine threat, which as we are all aware, is rapidly proliferating, both in numbers and sophistication.

I reviewed the threat and the impact of those threats to the Navy. Of course, I discussed the Navy's favorite mine warfare chart; the one that shows fifteen ship casualties due to mines since 1950 against the ship losses as a result of torpedo, aerial and missile attacks. I also made the point that if you just considered the last ten years, we have lost three ships to mines, the SAMUEL B. ROBERTS, the TRIPOLI, and the PRINCETON, and only one to a missile, the STARK. I also described to the Under Secretary the challenge of underwater search. I compared Desert Storm and Operation End Sweep timelines with timelines provided by the Supervisor of Salvage for the search and recovery ops associated with TWA-800, the Titan-IV rocket and the Piper aircraft carrying John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife and sister-in-law off Martha's Vineyard this past fall. I showed the Secretary that even though the search area is fairly localized and the search objects fairly large, that given a requirement for a 95 percent or better clearance, the time required to complete the operation stretches considerably. Because each of the salvage ops occurred just off the East Coast, it was also evident that having forces located close to the scene saves considerable mobilization time. Furthermore, I made the point that even though both salvage and mine countermeasures operations currently require the use of divers and ROVs, the inherent risk of placing men and ships next to explosives slows the operations significantly. Why you might ask, did I make these comparisons? To drive home the point that the Navy must invest in organic systems to reduce the tactical timeline and to remove man, and mammal, from the minefield.

At that point I showed the Under Secretary graphically what our pre-Desert Storm capabilities were, how our present force shapes up, what we are doing in the Five Year Defense Plan (FYDP) to gain capability, and where we see the future of mine warfare going. I closed the brief by pointing out that in order to counter the expanding threat and to provide assured access for our expeditionary forces we, the Navy, are investing in

• organic systems that will shorten tactical timelines,
  
• remove e man and mammals from the minefield by using autonomous technologies,
• provide platform protection because of off-boardsensors,
  
• provide for stand-off delivery of clearance andbreaching systems, and, provide seamless C4I for a common tactical/environmental picture or decision aid.
  

But what does this organic concept mean to you, the Science and Technology community? To get to that, we have to dig a little deeper. Establishing the organic mine warfare concept in the Fleet means we are going to be putting equipment on warfighting platforms and that equipment is going to be operated, not by dedicated mine warfare personnel, but by the crews of those warfighting platforms. We are going to be displacing weapons, reducing lift capacity, taking deck space, and adding weight to the platforms as we add equipment. We are going to be adding one more mission that people have to train for, be proficient at, juggle, and devote time to conduct. We are going to be adding maintenance requirements that will take time away from other tasks. You may think this is sounding pretty grim, but the Navy is committed to doing it because it is the only way we will meet the tactical timeline requirements and assure us access so that we can accomplish our other missions. I can tell you that many people in Washington and the Fleet ARE worried about those things, so that's where we need your help. You can help us reduce the impact of establishing this organic capability. As you are working on the technologies of the future systems, you are going to have to understand early on that we ARE concerned about size and weight. We ARE concerned about it being operated and maintained by the average sailor, not the specialist. We ARE concerned about overburdening the operators who may be conducting other missions as well. We ARE concerned about ease of maintenance and reliability. And, as always, we ARE concerned about the cost of all of it.

We need the assistance of the science and technology community for something else also. We are looking to you to help fill our capability gaps. Our number one priority is to be able to get from the 40 foot water depth, through the surf, to the beach exit zone in order to get our marines ashore. And we still have the age-old problem of countering buried and pressure mines. You will hear more about these capability gaps and priorities from RADM Marsh when he speaks to you tomorrow about the organic MCM Future Naval Capabilities initiatives.

When I took this job 30 months ago, I felt my number one priority was to bring funding stability to the mine warfare program, and although at times it's been a frustrating adventure, I believe that we have been able to do just that. The FY 2000 Presidential budget request for $4.7 billion over the FYDP for all of mine warfare coupled with the $315 million provided by the Secretary of Defense for organic mine warfare in January, 1999, has for the first time, given the mine warfare claimancy the building blocks, in acquisition, it needs to address these crucial imperatives now and for the far term. The ONR Future Naval Capability spike for Organic MCM should provide that same stability for the S&T community.Today, we enjoy the combined interest and visibility of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary and Under Secretary of the Navy, the CNO, and of course, the Commandant, and equally important, the Congress. I have already mentioned the Secretary of Defense's assistance to the mine warfare community. Also, I hope you are well aware that on Capitol Hill, we have a very active, supportive, and growing Naval Mine Warfare Caucus.

But I must strongly caution you that this interest and visibility is a double-edged sword. While we currently enjoy very significant support, we cannot rest on our laurels and tell one another what a fabulous job we are doing. Remember, several areas of significant technological and programmatic challenges remain. We must manage and execute our mine countermeasures programs like never before. We must mainstream mine warfare and we must deliver the tools into the hands of our Sailors and Marines sooner rather than later!

And the cornerstone of that strategy is partnering. I have said it before, we just can't afford, either time-wise or dollar-wise, a bunch of separate job SHOPS. Nor can we survive the death of a thousand cuts where every program review reveals additional cost growths, schedule slippages or changing requirements. We must talk with each other, inform each other, and help each other. We can't survive constant feeding of the S&T tree without it bearing fruit taking the analogy further, we must understand when the right time comes to pick the fruit and we must not let the fruit spoil while waiting to get it to market. Farmers form co-ops to help them harvest and transport their goods, the S&T community might need to take a chapter from the farmers. Only through effective partnering do we stand a chance of making the organic vision work in the near term and achieve our mid and far-term goals.

Let me take a minute to ask you about teaming within Navy communities. Why can't the ASW and mine warfare communities work together and develop common sensors, consoles, and software? For example, I am very encouraged by the initial performance results of the Automatic Radar Periscope Detection and Discrimination system being developed by the ASW community and the potential of adapting that system to the detection of drifting or surface mines. My point is that in today's limited resource environment and with the strides we are making in the technology world, we must reemphasize the need to work these problems from a common framework. It is for these reasons that I challenge you to continue to seek out those common frameworks that make sense and find those common solutions that will benefit our Sailors and Marines. I talked a little while ago about the similar nature of the work performed by the salvage and the MCM communities. Are there areas that both communities could benefit in by working together in shallow water (as they have at least twice in the recent past)? Are you thinking about these opportunities? I certainly am.

I would like to conclude my remarks with a short, little story. And while you may not remember my remarks this evening perhaps you will all remember the story. There was a wise old man and three mischievous young boys who set out to discredit the old man's reputation for wisdom. So the boys snatched a young sparrow from its nest and placed it in their hands. Their plan was to ask the wise old man whether the young sparrow was alive or dead. And if the wise old man responded that the young sparrow was alive, the boys would close their hands together and crush the life out of the young bird and show the old man to be a fool. And if the wise old man said the sparrow was dead, the boys would open their hands and let the sparrow fly into freedom. So the young boys approached the old man and asked him whether the young sparrow in their hands was alive or dead. And the wise old man said to the young boys, ?Its future is in your hands.

And as I look around this room, I see enormous dedication and talent and I would like to suggest to you that the future of mine warfare is clearly in your hands. Thank you. God bless our Navy and Marine Corps and God bless America.