 Just in time lunch was outstanding, I want to thank the staff. I also, as we're heading into the home stretch here, I want to take the opportunity to thank all of those folks who made this possible. Again, I'd like to thank CSC for underwriting the event and for providing a couple of folks to help explain and understand it, although they were here for reasons that you all got to see based upon their experience and background. I would also like to thank the CSIS staff who made this possible and ask you to join me in a round of applause for those staff, many of them are still here. In an institution like this, we live and die on the capability of people who bring to the table that which they bring and we are really blessed to have wonderful staff who work for us here. I'm going to turn the microphone over to Austin Yerks to introduce our luncheon speaker. Austin of course is the president of Computer Science Corporation's Defense Division. He's been in that job for a few years here and he's been at CSC for about 15 years I think and he's got a very successful career in defense systems. Of course, as we've heard over the course of the morning, success is a relatively elusive term when it comes to defense systems, but from a career point of view, Austin has been there and done it and so Austin, let me turn the floor over to you. Thank you, sir. It's always funny to come to some things like this because you don't realize who you might see. A guy in the back walked up to me and he said, hi, I'm Fred Downey, I recognize that name. There's second lieutenants in Wildflake in Germany 40 years ago, so it was 40 years. He recognized me because I hadn't changed at all, but I couldn't pick him out of a crowd, but I think it has been a wonderful gathering this morning. The panels were great, the speakers were great, excuse me, and it's always interesting to hear from folks like Dr. Gantzler, who has an interesting background because he was once one, a logistics guy. He was also a Pentagon guy, he's also an industry guy, so he can answer a question like the young lady asked there and he can give you three different answers. Insourcing is great and now insourcing sucks. No, it's really not too bad when you're walking on the E-ring. For my industry position at the University of Maryland, it's really not such a good idea. It's hard for anybody to follow that act because you don't know who he is on any particular day, but I really did enjoy that. David Fisher from BTA, I thought that was really a very, very good, not only answering the questions but from a presentation standpoint because that's an exceptionally difficult role, new agency, I mean it's only four or five years old, so it's very difficult inside the building to birth an agency, run it successfully and then get your linkage into policy. So it's just interesting to watch how logistics has gone from kind of a quiet, if you will, back room effort from an industry standpoint over the last 20 years to where it is today. And it's a preeminent field. It's not one of the things, when we always talk about tooth and tail, I did really like the idea of the alligator. I never thought of it that way. But you can't get anything done unless you have effective logistics systems. And to have an enterprise system at logistics is wonderful, but you have to have an enterprise system, I think as David Fisher was saying, that has to support the enterprise. And that's all things together. I think that's our next challenge from a professional standpoint is how do we get from a successful implementation of either a logistics program or a financial program or an HR program to a true enterprise over this next five or six years, and that's going to be the tough one. And no better person to tell us how to do that than our luncheon speaker, Tom Davis, because Tom is kind of unique, because he's not a stranger to industry. And he's certainly not a stranger to our industry. He's now a force to be reckoned with, although not yet a competitor, but pretty soon he'll be a competitor at Deloitte. So he has to also kind of march a little bit gingerly here on the fact that he's now back as one of us. I met him for the first time about 20 years ago at a small company called Advanced Technology where he had a bunch of jobs. He's kind of like had a government affairs. And then Advanced Technology got acquired by a firm called M-Heart. Nobody knows M-Heart anymore. It was a financial buyer in the early 80s. And they bought a company called PRC. And then quickly all of a sudden Tom and I started working together at PRC. And he was our general counsel. And I used to slide notes under his door, which was always a two-page note. And the second page says, if you read this page, I'll buy you a bottle of Shabbos Regal. Well, for three years I never got a call. You know, he's had a very distinguished career in Congress. He's chairman of the House Government Reform Committee. He oversaw directed and oversaw legislative changes that directly impact the business that we're in. And one of the things that he probably is not so well known is when he was chairman of the House Government Reform, we had the issue with steroids in baseball. And Tom, being an avid baseball fan, if he ever went to his office, there was probably half political memorabilia, things that looked like elephants, I think they were. I can't remember what they were. But I'm pretty sure they were elephants. And everything else was directed at baseball. He volunteered as the chairman to do all of the field work with regard to finding out just how bad the steroid instances were in the Major League Baseball. So that required him to go to just about every Major League Baseball field game. And it was always coincidental. But it seemed to be around playoff time. It seemed to be around World Series time. But I'm not quite sure. But he applied absolute knowledge of firsthand logistics as he directed that. He also traveled to the Middle East in all seriousness in Afghanistan many, many times. And he clearly understands that the linkage for the American military to take on very difficult missions. When logistical requirements impeded by some acquisition rules, it was Tom who sought and struck a balance between legislative reform and directive and his direct involvement in changing some of those rules and activities, which is very, very good. Tom did not get his education about the importance of effectively connecting sound management technology after his election to Congress. He got it earlier than that. He has been one of us from an industry standpoint for as many years as he has been and served us from a congressional standpoint. He's a great friend, a great personal friend, and a great friend to our industry. Missed on Capitol Hill. Please welcome Tom Davis. Well, Austin, I don't know how to respond to that. That of all my introductions, that's my most recent. And just to note a couple of things in the bio he did not note. One is I did retire from the Congress undefeated and unindicted, something I'm very proud of. I learned to give three different answers a long time ago when I was first running for office. So we're always good at that. When somebody said, I disagree with your position, I'd say, which one? So I was, we learned to do that. And Austin, the reason I never returned on the bottle of Chevy's Regal by religious tradition, I'm a tea holder. That's it. I answered all the memos. I was there. But I was happy to do this when Austin asked me a couple of days ago. I didn't realize I was missing Jeans Day at the late today so I had to wear a tie. But I'm happy to do it for Austin and for this because this is a subject that's close to my heart as someone who worked a long and hard in Congress for procurement reform and trying to make things right, giving contractors and the government the tools they needed to get the job done. So often in contracting, we all, we belabor the point about how inefficient government contracting is. But I just put an addition on my house. Now that I'm back in the private sector, I could afford to put an addition on my house. And we went out, we got the whole thing done, the drawings, everything done in six months. And it's a great job. And it came in on time and under budget and everything else. And I was thinking, if I were in the government, how would I have been able to put this addition on the house? I would have had to advertise it, right? We might have gone to a schedule from that way. But I would have had to have competed it. I would have probably had some Buy America provisions in there. Would have probably had some small business or 8A set-asides in the whole thing. Would have been undergoing a lot of different transparencies. And when I was through, I'd probably subject to some bid protests. And my addition still wouldn't be completed. And that's the difficulty in contracting, is we try to do so many things with it and try to fulfill so many different competing public policy goals that we forget. The goal is to forget the best value for the government at the lease price. Something I did when I put my addition on the house, something government doesn't really look at because they're trying to do so many different things. One other thing Austin forgot to mention in my introduction to Austin is that I was chairman of the DC subcommittee. This is the least sought after subcommittee assignment in the Congress. But I took it as a freshman, first freshman to chair a subcommittee in 40 years at that point. But the great thing about that subcommittee, I wrote the Control Board Act, the College Access Act, for any of you who have kids in DC. The Revitalization Act closed the board in prison. But the most important thing about that assignment was it got me on the front page of the Washington Post, my freshman year in Congress. And I'm not kidding, 12 times above the centerfold, which is a big deal for a freshman in an area where you have so many members competing for. The problem with those 12 pictures is eight of them I was standing right next to Marion Berry. So I had four stand-alone that I could send to my mom and make her proud of me. But since Austin and I worked together, this is a much, the government contracting has changed a lot. These were the days where they used to have the RFP and the responses. And you go to a best or final or two and then always to the bid protest. I mean, government contracting has changed markedly in the time that we've been working together about 30 years. I think he said 29, 30 years. Washington has changed a lot too. I don't know if you've noticed, but this is a very, very polarized town right now. I mean, the Republicans and the Democrats aren't speaking to each other. They can't just get around the table and talk about an issue and try to solve it. Everything is sound bites, talking points. The House and the Senate don't get along very well either. I remember when I first went to the House, New Gingrich said, remember, Tom? He said, the Democrats are the competition. The Senate is the enemy. And you saw this with this health care bill and the animosity between the House and the Senate. And then you have the traditional tensions envisioned by our founding fathers, the tensions between the executive and the legislative branch. So it's a polarized town. It's hard to get anything done. And then you have all the rules and regulations you have to comply with and try to compete for a contract and then perform it. There is one thing, though, that brings this town together, however briefly, each year. And that is when the Washington Redskins open their season, you'll find out everybody is there. Republicans, Democrats, they're all sitting there, toasting the town hoping for a good year. It's been a while, but the Redskins bring this town together. And to just illustrate this, I was out a couple of years ago of my last year in Congress. I went out to the opening Redskins game. There were high hopes that year, as you might remember. And for the record, since I was still in Congress, I bought my own ticket for the record. I was standing way up in the nosebleed section, but I noticed that there was an empty seat on the 50 yard line. And it was empty at the start of the first quarter. It was empty at the end of the second quarter. So at halftime, I walked down about four tiers to where that seat was, and it was still empty. It was next to an elderly lady. And I tapped her on the shoulder and said, ma'am, is this seat taken? She said, well, as a matter of fact, it's not. I said, would you mind if I sat here for the second half? I said, I've been sitting up there. I can barely see the field with my binocular. She said, no, please, be my guest. She said, you know, I'm happy to have a company. I said, I can't believe there's an empty seat right here on the 50 yard line close up here. These seats are scalping for hundreds of dollars out front. And she said, well, she said, that was my husband's ticket. And she said, we'd been to 30 straight Redskins openers together. But he died. He said, but I know he would have wanted me to be here today. And I said, ma'am, I am so sorry. But couldn't you have found a friend or a relative or somebody that could have used the other ticket? And she said, no, she said, they're all at the funeral. So it's that kind of loyalty that we're missing, I think, in the town today. I wanted to make just about three points today Austin wanted me to make. First of all, I think we all need to understand the climate on federal spending is rapidly changing. This year, well, this last fiscal year of every dollar the government spent, $0.43 was borrowed. The same is projected for next year. We have a deficit last year, the deficit, ongoing deficit, $7.5 trillion. It is masked right now in terms of our annual spending because interest rates are so low. We're still spending only about 9% of our budget goes for debt, for debt service. It was actually 14% when I came to Congress in 1995. But interest rates are so low, it masks it. I don't think anybody believes interest rates are going to stay where they are. When they naturally climb, this is going to take up and eat up larger and larger parts of the budget. And it becomes a real problem. The other part of that is this deficit is projected to go up and up and up and up for several reasons. Number one, baby boomers are retiring. As the baby boomers retire, we become eligible for Medicare, for Social Security. These are gaping holes in the budget last week for the first time in history. Social Security started paying out more than it takes in. In the past, Social Security has generated surpluses. We have been living off these surpluses, $100, $200, $300, $1 billion a year sometimes in surplus Social Security revenue that we've been taking. And instead of putting in the bank somewhere, we put in IOU, we've been spending that on other programs. That's masked the deficit. That's ended. Now we're having to take dollars out to supplement Social Security and pay off those IOUs that we've been piling up over the last 40 years. Medicare costs will continue to rise, Medicaid. And if you look at this globally, what America is doing is basically we are investing in the past. Our global competitors are investing in the future. We're investing in the past. Over half of the federal budget goes to finance our older generation, retiring baby boomers and the generation ahead of us. Medicare, Social Security, 80% of Medicare dollars on people over 60 years old, a lot of that in nursing homes. That's where the spending, plus interest on the debt. So over half of our budget goes to pay for the past, where we ought to be investing in the future. Education, research and development, infrastructure, the kinds of things that will get us to the next level. We need to go as a country and compete in the 21st century. That's what our competitors are doing. They don't have the legacy costs. We bemoaned the fact that General Motors was spending $3,500 on every car for health insurance for retired employees. And how could they compete with Toyota or Honda? But we're doing the same thing at the federal level. And at the state levels, it's just as pronounced. And this new health bill even more pronounced because it kicks down more health care costs for state matching money for the increased cost of Medicaid. Now, what does this mean to you? If you're an older person, it means you're sitting fat and happy, and you're soaking up the dollars, and your kids will be paying. But it also means that in terms of constant federal dollars and annual budgets, there is a day of reckoning coming sooner than later. And it means that in terms of federal spending, we're going to see some fairly substantial reductions in the ways we do business. Entitlements will probably be one of the last things that Congress touches. You talk about partisanship. I came into office going after my opponent because they taxed social security benefits. When Bush came forward with the idea that maybe we ought to have private accounts instead of social security, we got attacked, and I had the ads coming my way. Anybody that touches this issue, the benefits issue, they do have what the Washington Post calls Medicare. Both parties use it, and you go after seniors and talk about you're going to tax their benefits, or you're going to take away benefits and the like. And yet that's where the money is. If you really want to reshape the federal budget, you've got to go after that 50% of the budget. It's actually two-thirds that are in entitlement costs. Instead, what they do is they've gone after the other third of the budget, half of which is defense, half of which is discretionary spending. And basically what the president did this year with his freeze is he freezes 17% of the budget. And we end up with a deficit for this next year alone of over a trillion dollars projected. And that's before some of the health care costs and increases and everything else come in and start increasing it above what's projected. So the day is coming sooner than later, where it's going to come into federal programs, it's going to come into contracting, it's going to come into everything we do every day, and we're going to see a change in the way the government does business. And defense, and my second point is having painted that rosy picture, is that defense is not immune. Now we're fighting a couple of wars right now. So the warfighters, we want to give them everything we can, a lot of that money, by the way, going to boots on the ground as opposed to some of the larger systems and things we're talking about. But that day is coming to an end very, very quickly. And we have to be understanding what's going to happen and prepare for it. And these failed systems don't help when you run the narrative on Capitol Hill in terms of how we're spending our money and where we're spending our money at this point. But defense is not exempt. Today, the impact on the tightening defense predictions in recent years of this eminent downturn in defense spending have just been premature. But they are coming. A year ago, January, the business board urged the secretary of defense and his top deputies to give strong priority to fiscal prudence. The board recommended that the secretary engage key stakeholders, including the Congress and defense industry, to gain their support for dramatic cost reductions focused on infrastructure, health care, and acquisition. Specifically, the business board called on DoD leadership to reduce overhead and infrastructure costs for installations, management functions, personnel support, central training, the streamline operations, and maintenance costs. That's what they are recommending over time. And I think those programs are about to be able to hit the ground. To someone from the private sector, these recommendations look like a commercial best practice. Putting them into action, though, is a lot harder when you get into the public sector than in the private sector. Political constraints affect flexibility and agility in the public sector much more than in the private sector. Complimenting this, though, are the competing political demands within this administration, where they owe a certain fealty to organized labor, which has helped supply a lot of support for their programs, for their candidates going into a midterm, which has put limitations in terms of what can be outsourced, how it can be outsourced. We've seen this reflected in a number of ways. The end of the old A76 is gone. Competitive sourcing is gone at this point. Really forced out by the public employee unions. We saw the new personnel system, the Pentagon, be knocked out in the last defense bill. Just abolished all together, basically from union opposition. Very split among the rank and file supported by most of management, but killed by organized labor. We see now edicts going out to various departments saying, we want you to bring 3% of your workforce in-house. And I don't know how many of you have seen some of your employees have taken in treaties from the Defense Department and other agencies to now come into government to fulfill those obligations and swelling the government ranks. By the way, completely different from what the Clinton administration did, the last Democratic administration, where they prided themselves on doing more outsourcing and being able to brag there were fewer federal employees than when they took office. So this is the exact office, but driven again by union. So these are the constraints that we are operating with it, and there are others we can get to in the question and answer. And so the questions from us is, what does this mean at the end of the day for all of us that are in the government sector? Rather than making tough calls necessary to target savings and overhead, the task force said DOD had historically used uninformed across the board personnel reductions to increase efficiency, often reducing the tail that the warfighter needs in support. And that's been government's tendency through time is that when we need to lose weight in government, we end up chopping off fingers and toes. Whereas I think we all understand that at point of fact, the fat is layered throughout the bureaucracy. It is layered in just the way we do business. It is people who are filling out forms that probably didn't need to be printed, working on tasks that didn't need to be performed, people working on idle, doing their jobs. But are they jobs at the end of the day that efficiently utilize taxpayers' dollars? And putting some of the new transparencies that are coming online in place, it raises the specter even more. And I'm not opposed to transparencies, I think they're wonderful, but we have a system of government in this country that makes it very hard to steal money for public employees and it makes it very hard to do much of anything else either within those same constraints. And what I'm saying is with things coming down the road and the tightening of the budget, we're gonna start seeing some changes. Let me just talk about some of the large programs that are going on now in terms of where I see it going in my discussions with high administration officials. Government several years ago moved to commercial off the shelf. This was the way we were going to go. We're gonna move to these large COTS programs. And what they found out over time is this is not working. It's not working the way it was intended. Agencies are coming back and they're saying, you know, we don't need all of that stuff. It's wonderful to be able to have SAP or Oracle, but these are F-14 fighter planes. We really need a Piper Cub to be able to get the job done. I use the same with my Blackberry. I've got a Blackberry, I can get ball scores, I can get stocks, I can find out. I don't use it for any of that. I just need this thing for email to make my phone calls. And that's all I utilize it. Now, the theory has been, well, government time is gonna grow into this. We're gonna make it. But in the meantime, we're faced with a lot of programs that just are over budget. They're not on time for a number of reasons that were discussed earlier today. I didn't hear them all, but we all know that. And agencies can't deploy these business transformation systems very well. They're not good at utilizing what is given them. They're very expensive, as I said before. They're rarely on time. Government knows how to use them once they're up. The myth is that somehow, as I said before, agencies are gonna grow into these systems over time. But that has generally not been the rule. There are certain exceptions. President recently had a summit at the White House. They had CEOs from across the country come in on who were active in the IT industry to try to look at what does the private sector, what are the metrics they use for these? And what they found out was very interesting. In one of the seminars that was chaired by Jack Lew, who's the undersecretary at state, noted that the public sector operates completely different metrics than the public sector. The private sector, for example, does their transformations in chewable bites? They do it short-term. They don't do these large, ultra-ultimate projects that take several years to do. Opposite of what government has been doing on these issues. It was a surprise to, I think, a number of members of the administration who had kind of previously bought into the fact that we have to transform government. We have to end all of these stovepies. We need to bring it together where we're talking across platforms and that kind of thing. So the end result is what I think we will be seeing over the next few months and the next few years is a stricter diet on the requirements that go into these areas. No longer looking for the ultimate, ultimate solution and going out there and looking for all of the bells and whistles that the private sector can provide. Modest upgrades versus cuts. Something like the Treasury Department doing all payroll instead of having it done in each different department. That makes a lot of sense when you look at their capability. Very hard to implement, by the way. And the goal, I think, executive branch is to keep Congress out of it. If you can keep Congress in our committee structure, which is more arcane and more jurisdiction-driven than the executive branches are, I think you can be better off. But I think the administration is seeing it and my gut is this is the direction they're going. SAP, Oracle, Momentum are very powerful tools, but the government doesn't know how to use them many of the times once they are set up and there's been a reluctance on the part of some employees to learn new areas. The choice of a larger change management versus government cleanup that they can handle, I think, starts moving the way of government cleanup they can handle. Let's do this thing again. Let's do it incrementally. The F-14s, as I said, versus the pipe cleanup. What do you need to get from here to there? And I think there have been enough failures and enough costs in there and they're going to be, as I said, with starting to get more cost-driven, I think you're gonna see more modest changes in some of these areas. So you'll find it will be easier to upgrade legacy systems just to keep yourself afloat than trying to do these huge business transformations. What they're hearing from civil servants is it's a shame to dismantle our updated legacy in favor of a new system that we really don't want, that we're not sure we can handle that we don't want to be trained for. And I think that's the direction it's gonna go. I don't know what you heard this morning, so I may contradict everything, the previous folks, but from the folks that I talked to at fairly high levels, and as we look ahead and predict, I think you're gonna see more. Doesn't mean the end of the ERP at all, but I think as you look across the board, you probably see less of it and I think you'll see it redirected in some cases to something that's more affordable. Cost is going to matter in the out years. Government doesn't have money. And the fact that the defense community has been immune in the past from a lot of these cuts has got to end. It's about 17, 16, 17% of the budget while we're fighting two wars. As those wars wind down, assuming they do, you're going to find money moving into other areas. And the last thing that Congress is gonna cut, one thing they probably should start with, but the last one they'll be cutting are these entitlement programs where all the money is. That just puts more and more pressure on the discretionary dollars every year. I wish I could give you better news in terms of what's likely to happen. Eventually, I think they'll come in and they're gonna have to attack the entitlements in total. There was a bill before Congress this year that would have appointed a commission appointed by both parties to look at the budget and come back with a plan to balance the budget. And Congress would have to vote it up or down without amendment. It would have passed, except that a number of members who sponsored the bill decided at the end of the day they weren't gonna vote for the bill. Because, well, it could include taxes, but you have a tremendous interest groups out there on the right and the left that are putting pressure on members to adhere to some ideological rigidity as they move through these discussions. And that makes it very, very difficult to go after the tough problems. You have your spending groups and what I call your entitlement groups and your groups basically on the left, your move-ons, your AFL-CIO that are vested in a lot of these programs. And members who dare come forward and say we need to cut and look at some cuts or readjustments in this are going to face retribution of the polls. On the right, you start looking at, I don't even call them tax increases. I learned a long time ago, we call them revenue enhancement measures. But whatever it is, you start talking about this, you get target on the right. There's a Tea Party right in your backyard. In the way congressional district lines are drawn today, where most of these seats are pretty safe and off the table for one party or the other, most members look at their potential re-elections in their primary. Republicans looking over their right shoulder, Democrats looking over their left shoulder. That means when you compromise, like Al Wynor, Wayne Gilchrist, just to get local, you get a primary and you could get taken out by some of these groups. And as I'm looking at these rules that are being written now in these states, John McCain's got a very tough primary because the state central committee ruled only registered Republicans as of a certain date could participate in primaries. Independence are out. In Utah, Senator Bennett, who's pretty conservative record, is getting taken out because he's too liberal. Number one, he's been in Washington, so that's bad by itself. But secondly, he has to go through a convention system to just get on the ballot and there's some question whether he will even make it or not. We've seen what's happened to Charlie Christ. But this is going on in both parties across the country and wide awake members, particularly those that were viewed as having safe seats, are looking over their shoulders. And that means folks, discretionary spending is gonna get, is gonna take the major hit over the next few years before they get to the big issue of entitlements which have to be taken off the table. I'm gonna end a minute and take some questions. I'd like to tell my favorite story, so you've heard it before. As many of you know, I was the head of the county government in Fairfax before I went to Congress. We were always very proud of our technology community in Northern Virginia because we felt we were bigger and better than what was going on in the Silicon Valley. We certainly understood government better. But I went out to Silicon Valley and just to take a look at what they had going on and had lunch with Dr. Bert Richter who was the head of the Stanford University Laboratories. Dr. Richter's a Nobel Prize winner. He administers their lab out there. I found out that the same thing drives their technology that drives our technology and that's government spending. You take the government out of Northern Virginia technology and we all go home. Same out there. The four laboratories at Livermore, Sandia, Berkeley and Standard drive a lot of innovation. Federal spending. As I said, remember before, we're spending a lot on entitlements and on old people. Not spending as much on innovation. That spending's going down. But it drove what was there. And he explained to me how it worked and then he noted that one of his colleagues at Stanford who had won the Nobel Prize found out immediately upon winning the Nobel Prize. He could go around the country making more money giving speeches than he could writing books or teaching. So he went on the lecture tour. Well, he just won the Nobel Prize. This was a hot topic in the scientific community and he could go to an audience and get 5,000, 10,000, maybe 25,000 dollars, maybe 50,000 dollars if it was to CSC or somebody could afford it for one speech. For one speech. And so the money started, he could give two or three speeches in a day. So the money starts pouring in. Well, this guy's been an academician all his life. He's been in the academy. He never really thought about making money. There are only so many liberal causes he can find to give his money away to. So he figures, you know, he said, I'm going to go first class. So he bought one of these new high-tech limousines you read about. I mean, it had everything was digital. It had the global positioning systems, the wet bar in the back of the, everything you needed. He hired a full-time chauffeur to pick him up in the morning, drive him to his beach, wait for him to get out, put him in the car, drive him to the next beach. Everywhere he goes, he'd get out of the, limousine, he'd be greeted to take him to the green room, give his speech, hand out his check and go on to the next town. This went on and on. Finally, one day there between towns, and the chauffeur said, professor, I've just got to say something. This isn't fair. He said, what do you mean? He said, you make more money sometimes in one day than I make in an entire year. And yet every day I'm the one who has to work the longer time. I have to drive you through road traffic, through rain, snow, sleet, icy roads. I've never gotten you there one minute late. He said, but the worst thing is, he said, I've had to listen to every one of your speeches. In fact, he said, I've heard your speech so many times. He says, I can give it better than you can. Well, this kind of upset the professor. This guy said, Nobel laureate. And he says, all right, hotshot. He said, you think it's that easy? He said, I'll tell you what, this next town, they don't have the slightest idea what I look like. Well, they got my curricula vitae. He said, we're about the same age. He said, I'll tell you what, right outside of town, we'll switch. I'll put your uniform on, drive you and you give the speech. And if you pull it off, I'll split the fee with you. He said, if you screw it up, though, he said, I'm going to have to get up. It's going to be embarrassing. And I'm going to give him the money back and we'll make it right. He said, you got it. So they switched uniforms. Sure enough, the Nobel laureate drives into town, opens the door, out comes the chauffeur. He's ushered into the green room. He makes some small talk for a few minutes. And then he goes on his stage. And it is a huge auditorium. I mean, people have paid top dollar to hear this Nobel laureate talk about all of his treatises and how he won the Nobel Prize. Well, he proceeds to give, after a lengthy introduction, he proceeds to give the speech. He gives it perfectly, flawlessly, except for one thing. Since he has memorized the speech, his cadence is a little faster than the professor's. And he finishes up about 10 minutes earlier than usual. Well, he gets a thunderous ovation. The MC comes out, shakes his hand, hands him his check, looks at his watch. He says, ladies and gentlemen, he said, this is entirely unexpected. But I see we have a few minutes for questions from the audience. First question, professor. He said, I noticed in one of your earlier treatises, you discussed the effects of photosynthesis and sun spots and their effects on avic migration in southern New Zealand. He said, in a recent scientific periodical publications, completely debunked this theory. I wonder if you could explain to us some detail of this dichotomy. Man, the chauffeur is looking around, scratching. He said, finally, he looks straight at the question. He said, you know, he said, you ought to be embarrassed, asking such a dumb, stupid question like that in this room full of, well, I felt we're enlightened people. He said, that question is so simple. He said, it is so easy. It is so elementary. I'm going to let my chauffeur in the back of the room answer it. So we've got about five minutes. So if anybody has any questions on the future, I just, hey, I hope this was worthwhile for you. But Austin would have been better. But he's, you know, any, any, any, any hot issues on the budget where we see this stuff going. If not, let me just, what's that? Yeah, that's right. Thank you very much.