[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-30]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE (DOD) SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 16, 2013
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-759 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer
Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman
JEFF MILLER, Florida JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DUNCAN HUNTER, California DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York DEREK KILMER, Washington
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada SCOTT H. PETERS, California
Kevin Gates, Professional Staff Member
Tim McClees, Professional Staff Member
Julie Herbert, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2013
Page
Hearing:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013, Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for Department of Defense (DOD)
Science and Technology Programs................................ 1
Appendix:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013.......................................... 25
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013
FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats
and Capabilities............................................... 1
Thornberry, Hon. Mac, a Representative from Texas, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities 1
WITNESSES
Klunder, RADM Matthew, USN, Chief of Naval Research, U.S. Navy... 6
Miller, Mary, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research
and Engineering................................................ 5
Prabhakar, Dr. Arati, Director, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency................................................ 10
Shaffer, Alan, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering................................................ 3
Walker, Dr. David, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Science, Technology and Engineering, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Acquisition............................ 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Klunder, RADM Matthew........................................ 87
Miller, Mary................................................. 61
Prabhakar, Dr. Arati......................................... 132
Shaffer, Alan................................................ 29
Walker, Dr. David............................................ 103
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Nugent................................................... 147
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Carson................................................... 156
Mr. Johnson.................................................. 154
Mr. Langevin................................................. 162
Mr. Maffei................................................... 159
Ms. Sanchez.................................................. 153
Mr. Thornberry............................................... 151
FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, April 16, 2013.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:34 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mac Thornberry
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAC THORNBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS
AND CAPABILITIES
Mr. Thornberry. Let me call the subcommittee hearing to
order, and let me welcome the distinguished ranking member and
our witnesses and guests to this subcommittee hearing on DOD's
[Department of Defense] science and technology programs.
I don't think any of us need to be convinced that the money
we spend on science and technology is the basis for our
country's future security. I was pleased, in the President's
budget, that if you take these accounts together, at least they
are basically flat, and not going down. I guess that is looking
for some good news. But, of course, it is not just how much
money you spend, it is how you spend it. And those are some of
the issues that we want to get into with our distinguished
group of panelists.
So without going any further, I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, for any comments he
would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
Mr. Langevin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I really do want to thank all of our witnesses for
joining us today. All of you oversee a portfolio of issues that
I have particular interest in. And obviously, defense research
is an area of great importance to all of us, and I know that we
can all appreciate the benefit of your testimony today.
The health and vibrancy of our defense science and
technology enterprise is critical not just to our national
defense, but to our Nation's innovative edge in the world's
economy. And I am pleased that the President's budget request
recognizes this and largely preserves the investments that our
warfighters will depend on in future years.
However, I am deeply concerned about the effect
sequestration is having on our science and technology
investment base. And I know you all touched on this in your
prepared testimony, but I would appreciate it if you, in your
opening remarks, you could speak to the long-term effects of
sequestration, to the research and development being undertaken
by the Department, as well as to the longer-term effects on
your workforce.
Sequestration is, of course, not occurring in a vacuum. And
there are compelling longer-term trends toward ever more
sophisticated technology for our warfighters, requiring ever
more capable RDT&E [Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation] workforce. I believe that DOD has an important role
to play in responding to those trends across the STEM [Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] spectrum, from the K-
12 education efforts that prepare a pipeline of confident
operators and maintainers of cutting-edge technology, to the
basic research that expands our understanding of disciplines
affecting our national security.
Mr. Shaffer, you mentioned these challenges in your
testimony, and I certainly look forward to exploring how
Congress might assist DOD in addressing those needs. It is
imperative that, to preserve the vitality of the workforce.
Similarly, Mr. Shaffer and each of the service
representatives, I would be interested in an update on your
examination of laboratory facilities and whether action is
needed at the congressional level to ensure the vitality of
those institutions. I would also appreciate an update on the
Rapid Innovation Program.
While I know that this is not the venue for detailed
discussion of your entire portfolio, it certainly would come as
no surprise to the chairman or to our witnesses that I am
particularly interested in hearing your comments on just a few
areas.
Dr. Walker, Ms. Miller, and Admiral Klunder, you
highlighted particular efforts within the directed energy field
that show particular promise, and I would be interested in
hearing more from my panel on DOD efforts in that regime. I
would also welcome comment, Admiral, on your development of
unmanned undersea vehicles, which you and I have had a chance
to talk about many times.
And, finally, I recognize you have all highlighted the
critically important role that cyber innovation plays in our
defense enterprise. And I look forward to hearing more about
how the Department's research could result in a stronger
national defense.
With that, the DOD/STS [Department of Defense/Science and
Technology Strategy] enterprise is crucial to our Nation's
national security over the long term, and I look forward to
working with the chairman and with all of our witnesses today
to make sure that we get it right.
So with that, I thank the chairman for holding this
hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Thornberry. I thank the gentleman. And I would also ask
unanimous consent that other committee members be allowed to
participate in today's hearing after all subcommittee members
have had the opportunity to ask questions. Without objection,
they will be recognized for 5 minutes after everybody else has
had a chance.
Again, let me welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses,
Mr. Alan Shaffer, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering; Ms. Mary Miller, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology; Rear Admiral
Matthew Klunder, Chief of Naval Research; Dr. David Walker,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science,
Technology and Engineering; and Dr. Arati Prabhakar, Director
of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and a
distinguished graduate of Texas Tech University. So if you want
to know how come she is so smart, it is because of where she
got her bachelor of engineering degree, just for the record.
Without objection, all of your written statements will be
made part of the record. I would appreciate it if you all could
summarize your comments in approximately 5 minutes. And I would
be particularly interested in your summary, if you could--in
addition to talking about the things Mr. Langevin talked about,
kind of where we are with budgets and what its effects are--
what the budget effects are on your programs, but also talk
about the trends. What do you see as the changes?
I mean, we have this hearing year after year. I would be
interested in what is different, what you see is--where the
movements are, again, the trends of what we need to keep our
eyes on.
And with that, I would turn to you, Mr. Shaffer, for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALAN SHAFFER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
Mr. Shaffer. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin,
members of the committee, I am proud to be here today to
represent the scientists and engineers in the Department of
Defense, a group that includes science and technology
researchers, systems engineers, and developmental test and
evaluation personnel. And I will try to address the questions
on the update of the lab facilities, the rapid innovation
program, and the trends as we go into the question-and-answer.
Together, the professional scientists and engineers
conceive, develop, and mature systems early in the acquisition
process. They work with our partners in industry, academia,
other Government agencies, and international partners to
provide unmatched operational advantage employed by the men and
women of our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, as well as
allied personnel.
When we look at the capabilities developed and delivered by
these people during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I contend
the Nation has returned good--has received good return on
investment. Each of my other four leaders on this panel can
cite capabilities they delivered for the war. I will cite three
that came out of the Office of the Assistant Secretary.
We brought forward the mine-resistant ambush-protection
vehicles, the persistent threat detection systems and
persistent ground surveillance system tethered surveillance
systems, and the use of multispectral imagery to detect
explosives remotely. These three alone greatly enhance the
safety of our deployed force. We met the demands of an armed
force at war.
As we wind down in Afghanistan, the national security and
budget environments are changing. We are heading into
uncertainty. The fiscal year 2014 budget request for S&T
[Science and Technology] is $12 billion, a nominal increase
from the $11.9 billion requested in 2013. However, it is not
possible to discuss the 2013 and 2014 budgets without
addressing the impact of the sequester, which takes about 9
percent from each of our programs and each of our program
lines.
This reduction will result in delay or termination of
efforts. We will reduce awards. For instance, we will reduce
university grants this year by roughly $200 million and
potentially reduce the number of new smart scholarships in
fiscal year 2013 to zero.
Because of the way the sequester was implemented, we will
be very limited in hiring new scientists this year. Each of
these actions will have a negative long-term impact on the
Department and national security. While there are budgetary
pressures, there are new challenges.
DOD leadership has made a strategic choice to protect S&T
where possible. We did this to provide options for the future,
as well as meet new challenges that have technological
dimensions. These challenges include instability in nations
like Syria, a state with weapons of mass destruction that could
fall out of state control; North Korean nuclear weapons coupled
with a means to deliver them; the emergence of very
sophisticated anti-access/area denial capabilities in a number
of nations; the emergence of sophisticated cyber exploitation
and attack; and the increase in sophistication of advanced
electronic attack capabilities of some of our potential
adversaries.
The challenge is clear, as is the guidance from our
leadership. The President and the Secretary of Defense depend
on defense research and engineering to make key contributions
to the defense of our nation. S&T should do three things for
national security. First, mitigate new and emerging
capabilities that could degrade U.S. security. Second,
affordably enable new or extended capabilities in existing
military platforms and systems. And, third, develop technology
surprise through science and engineering applications to
military problems.
The Department's S&T programs are focused on meeting these
goals. We have emphasized cross-cutting programs. For
mitigation of emerging threats, we have focused S&T programs on
electronic warfare, counter space, cyber, and countering
weapons of mass destruction. For affordability, we have an
initiative called engineering-resilient systems. And in
developing technology surprise, we have initiatives in
autonomy, large data, or data to decisions, and human systems.
While there is very good work ongoing in each of these
areas, these areas focus the DOD on some of the emerging
things--emerging technology areas. In summary, the Department's
research and engineering program is faced with the same
challenges as the rest of the DOD, but our people are
performing. We appreciate the support of Congress to let us
continue to meet the national security needs of the Department
and the Nation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaffer can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
STATEMENT OF MARY MILLER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
Ms. Miller. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to discuss the Army's science and technology
program for fiscal year 2014. I have submitted a written
statement and ask that it be included in the record.
Over the course of these past 12 years of war, the world
has seen firsthand the value and impact that technology brings
to the battlefield and how capabilities enabled by technology
are critical to our soldiers and their success. The Army
depends on its S&T enterprise to research, develop, and
demonstrate high-payoff technology solutions for hard problems
faced by soldiers in ever-changing, complex environments.
Uncertainty and complexity are at the heart of the Army's
challenges. The Army of the future requires solutions that are
both affordable and versatile and relies on the S&T community's
contributions to ensure that they remain the most capable in
the world. We are grateful to the members of this committee for
your sustained support of our programs.
The overarching vision for Army S&T is to foster
innovation, maturation, and demonstration of technology that
provides increased capabilities for our warfighters. Our
mission includes a transition of both the understanding and
knowledge acquired while developing technology solutions, as
well as the materiel itself.
While the very nature of S&T puts our focus clearly on
providing capabilities for the future, we continue to exploit
opportunities to transition solutions to the current force. Any
effective Army strategy starts with an understanding of the
national military strategy, joint warfighting concepts, and
both current and future threat environments. This strategy has
expanded our focus from the current fight to the situation at
Pacific Rim, a situation where we may well face a more capable
enemy in an environment that is much more contested and
complex.
Given the current budget environment and prospects of
funding in the future, it has become even more important than
ever that we clearly understand our current capabilities and
what we need to address ever-evolving threats. With that in
mind, the Army has initiated a comprehensive strategic
modernization strategy to better facilitate informed decisions
based on long-term objectives within a resource-constrained
environment.
This 30-year look requires us to think beyond the easy
answers of just doing what we are doing now but for a bit
longer. It forces a new look at what else we might need to do.
The world of 2040, 2045 is clearly not going to look like the
world today. The threats we face and capabilities needed to
address those threats may, in fact, look very different. It is
through this type of lens that we will identify key areas in
stable investment and those that we will, by necessity, begin
to take risk.
In the Army's fiscal year 2014 S&T budget, you see a clear
move away from investments in advanced technology development,
budget activity three, and advanced component development and
prototypes, budget activity four, to comply with the defense
planning guidance. This resulted in a number of efforts being
slowed while we reinvested in applied research to facilitate
that next generation of capability. In addition, you will note
an increase in efforts to assess our vulnerabilities to
anticipate threats at both the individual technology level and
also our integrated systems levels.
It goes without saying that the underpinning of all Army
S&T efforts is a strong research program that builds an agile
and adaptive workforce and technology base to be able to
respond to future threats. Investments in S&T are a critical
hedge in acquiring technological superiority, with
revolutionary and paradigm-shifting technologies. This includes
the development of the next generation of Army scientists and
engineers. Investing wisely in people with innovative ideas is
our best hope for new discoveries to enable the Army of the
future.
Sequestration impacts not only our ability to maintain this
important investment in technology, but also our ability to
recruit and retain the scientists and engineering workforce. In
a fiscally constrained environment, we will emphasize S&T areas
that address truly Army-unique challenges. We will collaborate
with our Services, national labs, academia, industry, and
partner nations to solve common challenges. As good stewards of
the taxpayer dollars, it is critical that we use finite
Government resources to maximize development of technologies to
meet Army-unique challenges and constraints. It is important
that we complement what the private sector is already
developing and that we leverage the work being done by our
sister Services and allies. Most importantly, our investments
must translate into capabilities as we successfully field to
the Army of the future.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller can be found in the
Appendix on page 61.]
STATEMENT OF RADM MATTHEW KLUNDER, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
RESEARCH, U.S. NAVY
Admiral Klunder. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking
Member Langevin and our subcommittee members. Thank you.
It is an honor to report on science and technology efforts
in the Department of the Navy and discuss how the President's
fiscal year 2014 budget request supports the Navy and the
Marine Corps. Our objective is to support a Navy and Marine
Corps that can operate and prevail in any environment. We work
directly with the Secretary of the Navy, the chief of naval
operations, and the commandant to strike the right balance
between near-term technology innovation and long-term leap-
ahead research.
The Office of Naval Research, in partnership with the
Marine Corps Warfighting Lab at Quantico, strives to create
game-changing capabilities for our sailors and marines, while
improving system affordability, communication with the
acquisition community, and constructive engagement with all of
our stakeholders. We do this with the understanding that anti-
access and area denial threats will continue to increase. Cyber
war challenges will also only increase and become more complex.
These are not easy tasks and easy problems. We recognize
that. And certainly the sequestration has had a dramatic
impact. This year alone, we terminated 300 university small
grants, and over 50 percent of our future naval capability
efforts. But we are up to the task, and we are still making
progress.
Furthermore, we are striving to get away from using $3
million weapons to defeat $50,000 threats. We must get on the
right side of that equation. And I can report that we have
weapons in development and being fielded that will allow us to
reverse that asymmetrical cost advantage that currently is held
by some of our adversaries.
The bottom-line imperative for the Department of the Navy
is, we can't just make hugely effective systems anymore. They
also need to be extremely affordable.
With your permission, I would like to highlight an effort
which has been in the news and highlights recently and a
specific approach to that effort, and that is our laser weapon
system, LaWS [Laser Weapon System], as we refer to it, part of
our solid-state laser maturation effort.
Energy weapons--and specifically directed energy weapons--
offer the Navy and Marine Corps game-changing capabilities in
terms of speed of light engagement, deep magazines,
multimission functionality, and affordable solutions.
Now, laser weapons are affordable due to the very low
engagement costs. Right now, we are projecting under one U.S.
dollar. That is what we have seen, which is critical to our
current fiscal environment. They are capable of defeating
adversary threats, including fast boats, UAVs [Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles], other low-cost, widely available weapons.
This LaWS system leverages advancements we discovered and
worked with in the commercial technology for use in rugged,
robust prototype laser weapon system. It is capable of
identifying, illuminating, tracking and lasing enemy surfaces
and air threats. And it works. I can offer that we have been
thus far 12 for 12 in our prototype testing. We have not failed
yet.
If you have seen the news or were able to attend the Sea-
Air-Space last week potentially, you may be aware that the Navy
is scheduled to install the LaWS system aboard the USS Ponce in
the Arabian Gulf in early 2014. That harsh and operationally
important environment will provide us an ideal opportunity to
evaluate long-term system performance. The LaWS has every
potential for being an extraordinary success, in terms of
fielding an effective and affordable weapons system for our
sailors and marines.
We will continue to duplicate this kind of success in our
other S&T areas with our innovative research and disruptive
thinking. Mr. Langevin, again, you talked about undersea
vehicles. That is exactly where we want to go with that, sir.
We are also trying to make existing systems more affordable and
effective with improved transitions to acquisition programs.
In that area, we start with the effective evolution of
current systems. We move to incremental improvements and spiral
development of known technologies. And then we go on to
discover disruptive technologies that are a gold standard of
our Navy and Marine Corps warfighting.
Our research is both exhilarating and unpredictable. We
balance a range of complementary, but competing research
initiatives by supporting advances in established operational
areas, while sustaining far-reaching, long-term efforts that
may prove disruptive to our traditional operating concepts.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not mention the
stellar contribution made by our entire workforce at the Naval
Research Laboratory in Anacostia, as well as all the Navy and
Marine Corps labs and warfare centers around the country. I
certainly always invite everyone in this room to take advantage
of that opportunity to go down to NRL [U.S. Naval Research
Laboratory] firsthand. The work there is absolutely impressive.
The people are much more so.
One of our greatest challenges is to recapitalize NRL and
ensure a continuation of their cutting-edge work. I thank the
committee for your help in that area and helping us modernize
our labs. I certainly want to thank you again for your
support--excuse me--and look forward to answering any
questions.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Klunder can be found in
the Appendix on page 87.]
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you. And we will, along with you, I
think, watch how this deployment of the laser goes, because
like Mr. Langevin, I share his enthusiasm for the potential of
directed energy of all sorts. And so I appreciate getting
something out into the field to see how it really works.
Admiral Klunder. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Thornberry. Dr. Walker.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID WALKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE
OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ACQUISITION
Dr. Walker. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin,
and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to provide the testimony on the fiscal year 2014
Air Force science and technology program. This is my first
chance to address you since I took over as the Air Force
science and technology executive in August of last year.
As the nature and sources of conflict throughout the globe
have become more diverse and less predictable, our Nation
continues to face a complex set of current and future security
challenges, many of which are outlined in the defense strategic
guidance issued by the President in January of 2012. This
guidance directs a renewed focus on the Asia-Pacific region, as
well as continued emphasis on our current conflicts. As
Secretary Michael Donley shared his testimony last week,
investment in our science and technology base is necessary to
ensure the future balance of power, and remains in our favor.
The Air Force fiscal year 2014 budget requests the S&T at
about $2.3 billion, which is a slight increase over our
previous year's request. These investments support a robust and
balanced foundation of basic research, applied research, and
advanced technology development, or provide for demonstrated
transition options to support our future warfighting
capabilities.
This year's budget request reflects a strong support for
S&T from our leadership and this challenging fiscal environment
that we find ourselves. It is a balance across the warfighter's
needs, from near-term, rapid-reaction solutions, midterm
technology development, and revolutionary far-term
capabilities.
The Air Force has matured its S&T planning process a great
deal over the past few years, improving our alignments between
the science and technology and the capability gaps that are
outlined in our Air Force core function master plans. The
established S&T planning and governance process ensures that
S&T investments are well understood, structured for success,
and poised for transition when completed.
This process is the backbone of the Air Force S&T
contributions to the larger DOD priorities and strategies and
has provided us an opportunity to be the lead for some of the
Department's research and strategy planning efforts, in
particular in cyber, autonomy, electronic warfare, and in
manufacturing technology. I would like to highlight a few of
those.
The importance of the dominance in cyberspace to me cannot
be overstated as the foundation for the global vigilance,
reach, and power. The Air Force has placed a great deal of
emphasis on cyber S&T to overcome threats and have provided
systems and methods that are affordable and resilient.
The chief scientist at the information directorate at the
Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, New York, has been
charged to chair the collaborative joint cyber S&T roadmapping
effort for DOD based on the laboratory's history of exceptional
cutting-edge research in cyber.
Using the Air Force's Cyber Vision 2025 as a blueprint, we
have developed and are executing our Air Force cyber S&T
strategy. The pivot of emphasis to the Asia-Pacific region
means that missions with the expanded duration, intermittent
communication disruptions, and a large array of asset
capabilities, as the lead for the cross-service autonomy
steering group, and as an active member of the human systems
steering group, the Air Force is conducting state-of-the-art
research in both human systems and human performance to better
enable warfighters to enhance military capabilities, as well as
to enable autonomous systems to extend human research providing
potentially unlimited persistent capability.
The envisioned security environment of the future will also
require military aircraft to operate in highly contested
environments. Manipulation of the electromagnetic spectrum can
help us negate the integrated air defenses of our adversaries.
As the lead for the Department of Defense's Electronic
Warfare Priority Steering Council, the Air Force is
facilitating the roadmapping effort for research and
revolutionary new technologies and techniques to be effective
in the ever-evolving electronic warfare threat, providing the
ability to operate in the anti-access, area denied environment.
The Air Force also leads the Department of Defense
development and demonstration of technology solutions to
decrease manufacturing risks and increase weapons affordability
in the aerospace, propulsion, structures, and ISR
[Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance]. The Nation
can build more capability and lean more fighting force by
developing a much more efficient and responsive manufacturing
and industrial base than we currently have today.
We are exploring strategic issues and opportunities for
moving the manufacturing considerations earlier in the design
cycle to reduce acquisition costs and risks, to enable
streamlined--or seamless life-cycle, value-stream management
and integrated industrial base enterprise to identify and react
to supply-chain issues.
Our S&T portfolio has emphasized areas of great promise,
and we continue to invest in adaptive engine technologies to
provide better fuel efficiency and performance. We have
emphasized research in hypersonic technology to provide
capability to counter adversary anti-access and area denial, to
actively engage time-sensitive targets, and to overcome the
challenges of distance and time as we shift our focus to the
Pacific.
Finally, we have built on our successful flight test of the
counter-electronics high-powered microwave advanced missile
project, or CHAMP, and continue to develop the direct energy
capabilities to defeat our adversaries' electronic systems on
the ground.
While there are still uncertainties with sequestration and
the impacts are yet to be seen, I believe this budget reflects
the promise of the future of warfighting capability and enables
technology that will be with us--worth the investment placed in
it.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee again for the
opportunity to testify today, and thanks for continued support
for the Air Force S&T program.
[The statement of Dr. Walker can be found in the Appendix
on page 103.]
STATEMENT OF DR. ARATI PRABHAKAR, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ADVANCED
RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY
Dr. Prabhakar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Langevin,
members of the committee. It is a great pleasure to be here
with you today.
DARPA's [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency]
objective is a new generation of technology for national
security. Now, actually getting this new set of military
capabilities is going to require a lot of work with a lot of
different organizations, certainly my colleagues in the Service
S&T organizations, but also our universities, companies large
and small. Ultimately, it is going to be our warfighters who
take the technologies that we deliver to them and implement
them and turn them into real military capability.
DARPA's role in all of that is to make the pivotal early
investments that change what is possible for the future, the
investments that really let us take big steps forward in
capability. That is what we have done over our 55-year history,
and that is what we are working on for the next generation.
So what can that next generation of military capability
look like? That is the question that shapes our portfolio of
investments at DARPA, and today it means that we are building a
future where our warfighters can use cyber as a tactical tool,
fully integrated with the kinetic fight. We are building a new
generation of electronic warfare that can leapfrog what others
around the world are doing with globally available technology.
We are investing in a new generation of position, navigation,
and timing technologies so that our people and our platforms
don't have to continue to be dangerously reliant on GPS [Global
Positioning System] as they are today.
We are investing in new approaches for space in robotics,
in advanced platforms, and new weapon systems, and beneath all
of these activities, we are building a new technology
foundation, as we invest in some of the emerging areas within
software and materials and advanced electronics, and now adding
to that some of the new technology areas that are emerging from
the biological sciences, as well.
So if we are successful in that enterprise, our success
really will mean that in the future our future leaders and
commanders will have really powerful options, real options to
deal with whatever threats our Nation faces in the years to
come, and that really is what is going to allow us to advance
our nation's strategic interests in a decisive way. That is
really what we are striving for.
So--and I am very happy to talk--those are my favorite
topics. I would be happy to talk about any of them in greater
detail. But I also want to take a minute and talk about what it
is going to take for DARPA to be able to deliver on this
critical mission. And as you all well know, it takes resources,
both funding and people, and with that, a stable, long-term
commitment to these long-term objectives.
We have been so fortunate to have that kind of strong
support from the leadership in our Department from across
Congress. And I especially want to thank this committee for the
support that you have provided for our budget over many years
and in particular the work that you have been doing to give us
flexible hiring authorities.
Last year, you expanded the number of 1101 flexible hiring
slots that our agency has. I want you to know that that is
absolutely essential to our ability to hire the stellar program
managers that we need. They spend about 3 to 5 years at DARPA.
We draw from some of the best organizations in the technology
community across the country, and we simply couldn't get the
people that we need without the kind of authorities that you
all have supported so vigorously, so I very much have
appreciated that.
Now, the bad news, of course, is that sequestration is
undermining what is otherwise this very strong support
environment that we live in. Like others in fiscal 2013, we are
taking cuts across each of our program elements. It amounts to
about 8 percent per program element at DARPA. Our civilian
Government employees, all of us will be participating in the
Department-wide furlough, as well.
And, you know, just to cut to the chase, for our program
managers, what those impacts mean, these are people who have
come to DARPA for a short time to do something big. And when
they see these program delays, when they are told under
furlough that, you know, you can't work 1 day a week for that
furlough period, those are enormous negatives for these driven
individuals.
So obviously, this one-time hit through sequestration has
real consequences. It does not destroy--you know, it is not a
death blow to our ability to accomplish our long-term mission.
But it is corrosive, and if it continues, it will--this kind of
action does, in fact, erode our fundamental ability to perform
our mission.
Let me just end on a personal note. I returned to DARPA
after 19 years last summer, after spending a number of years in
other positions, primarily working in the commercial sector. I
came because of DARPA's off-scale impact, and I came because I
knew that we needed to invent this new generation of
technologies to reinvent, once again, how we keep our country
secure.
And I came for the privilege of leading this unique
organization, where despite all of the challenges that we have,
our people are still running to work every morning with their
hair on fire, because they know they are part of a mission that
really matters. I really want to thank this committee for your
focus on these issues and for the longstanding support that
allows us to do this work.
Thank you. And I am very happy to answer questions with my
colleagues.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Prabhakar can be found in
the Appendix on page 132.]
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you. I appreciate all the comments
all of you have made.
I apologize, too. I am going to have to leave in a few
minutes. I have been drafted to go help moderate a
cybersecurity classified briefing for all House members, so I
am going to submit my questions in writing to you and yield to
other members.
And I will yield the first 5 minutes to Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Gibson. Well, thanks, Chairman. And I appreciate the
panelists being here today.
My questions have to do with nanotechnology, and I would
like to hear, first, from our director from DARPA about where
you are going, in terms of future for nanotechnology, and then
I would love to hear from Mr. Shaffer, too, in terms of how you
are managing this from the vantage point of the DOD, with all
the disparate and exciting projects that are under way in every
regard.
Dr. Prabhakar. Thank you for the question. You know,
nanotechnology investments over the last decade or two have
given us a set of tools that we find we can now apply in a host
of different areas. So just simple examples. One of the areas
where we now have the ability to make structures that are very
fine, very regular, very controllable, some of those
applications tie back to what I was saying about position,
navigation, and timing.
So we have been able to make very sophisticated IMUs
[inertial measurement units], navigation units, on a small
chip. We have been able to use that nanotechnology--fabrication
technology, in that case--to shrink devices that are vast and
consume a lot of power to a size that allows them to be
embedded in much smaller platforms and really gives us the
ability to maintain position information over a much longer
time, and that is just one of a very wide range of new
capabilities that come as we--you know, as nationally we have
developed our muscle in nanotech.
Mr. Gibson. I appreciate that. And as a former infantryman,
I think there is tremendous possibility here in terms of it
being lighter, more durable, more effective, so I have been
following with keen interest the research that is coming out of
your organization, very encouraged.
Mr. Shaffer. So I am going to try to keep this from being a
bureaucratic answer, because I hate bureaucratic answers. My
job is to try to get the program aligned across all the
Department's components. To that end, we have set up a series
of--I would call them committees, but they are more than that.
You heard some of our folks talk about them. SES members from
each of our components with a major investment in an area like
materials come together and plan out their material program,
which includes nanotechnology.
These are co-led by our folks, my folks in OSD [Office of
the Secretary of Defense] and the Services, typically the
Services. The material sciences is led by Dr. Julie--and I am
going to butcher her name--Christodoulou from the Navy, but she
gets together with the SES-level folks in charge of materials
and nanoscience and plans out and integrates their program, so
we try to drive down duplication, but we are also going after
those things that will matter.
As a former airman who spent 5 years on the ground with the
Army, I absolutely will tell you, I wanted lighter equipment
when I was out there. That is one of the promises of
nanotechnology. Higher energy density is a promise of
nanotechnology. Small lightweight machines--and there are
miracles happening every day at DARPA and in our Services
focused on specific technologies. My job is to try to get the
programs knitted together. And I think we are doing okay with
that.
Services, anything you would like to say?
Admiral Klunder. I can only add, Al, sir, that the
commandant of the Marine Corps, lightening the load is
absolutely one of his priorities from the infantry standpoint,
the Marine standpoint. And my colleagues, DARPA and the
Services, we have seen great collaboration there. An area of
specific interest from our standpoint was on our electronic EW
[Electronic Warfare] sensors. As the nanotechnology has shrunk
considerably, we have now had wide bandgap spectrum apertures
that give us much smaller size. It can be on a Jeep, it can be
on an infantryman, and it can be on a ship. It gives us that
ability not only a communication aspect, but, again, clearly on
a defensive or offensive aspect, so we are right behind you,
sir, on that.
Mr. Gibson. Well, I appreciate the commentary. And the
reason why I am asking about the management of it is, is as
exciting as this field is, you know, it--the challenge is
really sort of harnessing the synergy across the Services. It
is why I was curious--you know, Senator Gillibrand and I, going
back a couple years ago, we raised the possibility of perhaps a
clearinghouse for this, the possibility of an FFRDC [Federally
Funded Research and Development Center], and so--you know, I am
just reengaging again what that possibility, certainly open to
hearing all sides on this. But in the interests of time, looks
like I am about out here, but this is a topic I would like to
continue to dialogue about.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. And I thank the ranking member, as well.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So I had several questions that I would like to get to, but
let me start off with this. Defense Secretary Hagel told the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense this morning that
there is a major reprogramming request on the way. And
obviously, while we have to certainly cover the costs incurred
by operations overseas and maintain our faith with our troops,
I am very concerned that the S&T investments that we are
depending on to enable our future force could pay a
disproportionate cost under such a request.
And while the weapons procurement can run into the hundreds
of millions per system, $100 million in the S&T world could
mean dozens of promising programs that enable future
capabilities. So could you describe to the subcommittee, to the
extent that you are able, at least, what the impacts of the
S&T--what would be the impacts to the S&T enterprise of this
reprogramming, I should say?
Mr. Shaffer. Sir, let me take that one on first from a
Department level. Obviously, we can't talk about the details of
the reprogramming going on. What I can tell you is that we are
at a very fortunate time now. I have worked for both Dr. Carter
directly, the deputy secretary, and Mr. Kendall, and they both
very much understand the value and the long-term commitment to
science and technology.
So as of right now, I don't think that there is a wholesale
rush to trade in science and technology for operations and
maintenance. There will be some pressure. We have a situation
right now where, for a number of reasons, we have underfunded
the troops that we are--that are deployed supporting our
Nation. But right now, we are very fortunate with the
leadership in the Pentagon, between Mr. Kendall, the under
secretary of acquisition, technology, logistics, and Deputy
Secretary Carter, that they understand that science and
technology needs a long-term stable base and were--I will tell
you that I am using that too every chance I can get.
Mr. Langevin. Anybody else?
Ms. Miller. Sir, speaking for the Army, I can echo what Mr.
Shaffer said. The Army leadership understands the value and
importance of the science and technology investments and are
protecting it this year.
Admiral Klunder. I can offer, we are very fortunate OSD is
the lead, that as it came down to the Department of the Navy,
the Secretary of the Navy, the commandant, and the chief of
naval operations, that is exactly, sir, how we were able to put
that LaWS system out on the USS Ponce, because of that kind of
commitment, and we are very fortunate, indeed, that we have got
the leadership that supports innovation in science and
technology.
Dr. Walker. And the Air Force leadership is exactly the
same. They have been trying to protect science and technology
through this process. As we go through the remainder of fiscal
year 2013, we will see, as pressures continue to build, but so
far we have had good support.
Mr. Langevin. Let me turn my--I still have time--so in the
area--one of my favorite topics, cyber, obviously, in the area
of interest for myself and the chairman, where do you see the
research and development in the cyber arena heading in the near
and midterm? And are we adequately postured to address those
challenges in the S&T community?
Dr. Prabhakar. I will be happy to start, and then others I
am sure will have others to add.
Our focus at DARPA in cyber, very similar to other things
that we do. You know, ours is not an operational
responsibility. Our question is, how do we shift the trajectory
we are on to one that is more advantageous to us in the future?
And I would characterize the trajectory that we are on
today in terms of cybersecurity as one in which we patch and
pray, we see an attack, we patch it up, and we hope that is
enough, and then we wait for the next attack to come. That is
pretty much all we really have to go with.
It is very human-intensive. And we are scrambling, as you
see to hire quickly enough the people that can keep up with the
threat as it continues to accelerate.
We are looking for a fundamentally different way to think
first about cybersecurity on the defense side, but then also
how to think about cyber offense in a new way. The core idea in
both cases is to automate and get beyond needing to scale
manually to deal with the challenges that we have.
In the case of cybersecurity, we have a series of programs
that are trying to find more fundamental ways to build
inherently secure systems or to interrogate legacy systems and
understand what level of security they actually have. In terms
of cyber offense, we aim to create a capability that allows
cyber offense to become fully integrated with the way our
warfighters fight in kinetic terms, so that instead of being
something off to the side, it is really part of how an
engagement takes place the way electronic warfare, if you like,
is really fully integrated with the kinetic fight today.
So, you know, that is--those are the visions that we have
about where cyber could be that I think would put our country
in a much more advantageous position, and that is the focus of
our investments today.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you. Well, I have other questions, but
my time is expired. I will yield back.
Mr. Thornberry. Mrs. Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Miller, I--in your testimony, I--you talk a little bit
about continued developments in finding lighter, more capable
armor solutions. So could you describe the Army's effort with
silicon nitride?
Ms. Miller. Yes, ma'am. Currently, at the Tank Automotive
Research Development and Engineering Center, we are
investigating armor solutions for tactical vehicles. We have a
tactical vehicle armor program. We are currently looking at six
different vendors, two of which are Government, four of which
are actually commercial. They are competing their armor
solutions. We are making them comply to the long-term armor
strategy criteria.
We will down-select to two vendors that will then go
forward for maturation--further maturation of the armor design
in the end of fiscal year--this fourth quarter of fiscal year
2013. The silicon nitride is one of those armor solutions that
is being pursued.
Mrs. Hartzler. Great. Is it a potential solution over steel
and some of the other metals used today, are you seeing so far
you think might have potential?
Ms. Miller. Right now, it is not meeting the criteria of
the long-term armor strategy, but they have been--the folks
that are doing the silicon nitride work have been modifying
their formulation of the armor, and then we are retesting. We
expect more samples to come in and to retest against our
criteria.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes, that is, I think, very, very exciting.
The tactical vehicle armor development program, you know, will
not only benefit the warfighter by reducing the armor weight
used in tactical vehicle platforms to increase survivability,
as well as mobility. Do you believe that the current funding
for the TVAD [Tactical Vehicle Armor Development] program is
adequate to meet the needs of the warfighter?
Ms. Miller. Yes, ma'am. I believe the funding is adequate.
We have armor development that exists at the Army Research Lab
for fundamental armor design, modeling and simulation. We do
maturation at the Tank Automotive Research and Development
Engineering Center, TARDEC [Tank Automotive Research,
Development and Engineering Center], and we do believe we are
adequately funded.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. I think it has a lot of exciting
potential there.
Admiral Klunder, in your comments, you talked about the new
laser systems, the 12 for 12 testing. I thought that was very,
very exciting. I haven't read up on it as much as perhaps some
of the others, but can you explain a little bit more about how
that would work?
Admiral Klunder. Yes, I can. Thank you. The significance
that we always look at is in terms of the risk of the
development, and we started out in a very dry desert
environment. But we are in the Navy and the Marine Corps, and
we are out in the ocean. We are out on the high seas. And that
is a very difficult maritime environment.
And why do I bring this up? Our first phase was in the
desert. We then moved out to the Pacific Ocean off of the
California coast. And then our final test was recently done on
USS Dewey, and that is a just regular destroyer down at the
pier in San Diego. And why I bring that up is, if we didn't
functionally change the ship, if we hadn't put this prototype
laser system on the USS Dewey--and, again, off the California
coast, is a very successful, went three for three shooting down
UAVs.
The reason why we are now excited about moving it out to
the Fifth Fleet area of operations in the Arabian Gulf area is,
again, it is a very harsh environment, very dynamic
environment. We are obligated to our Nation to protect our high
seas for the commerce of our country, our national security,
and we think that is a very good place to put this out there
and let some sailors look at it, test it, see if there is any
lessons we learn, and then if we do, we will bring them back
and roll them into our follow-on upgraded systems, if that
helps.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes, it is very exciting. And appreciate all
that you do there for our national defense. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Kline. [Presiding.] Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. And I appreciate all of you being
here with us today.
Dr. Prabhakar, you mentioned the impact of furloughs, and
certainly our civilian workforce, Federal civilian workforce,
which in many ways I think has been maligned of late, but I
wonder if you spoke about the fact that a number of people may
come in from the private sector and they are with us for a
relatively short period of time, and the other issue really is
one of just patience. You need a timeframe when you are working
with research and development.
Are there some areas particularly that you are worried that
that will impact more than others? Is it--does it relate to the
warfighter? What does it relate to that we should, you know,
anticipate and be some concerned about?
Dr. Prabhakar. Specifically, from the furlough impact?
Mrs. Davis. Yes.
Dr. Prabhakar. Right. So the one-time financial hit from
sequestration, because it is across the board, really affects
each of our programs pretty broadly, so across DARPA, about 100
of our programs were affected. The net effect really is, you
know, at the specific contract level, there are universities
and companies large and small that are finding out that a
contract they thought was about to get signed has gotten pushed
off or has now gone away. There are efforts that are under way
where, you know, the funding isn't going to show up as
predicted.
We have worked very, very hard to minimize the impact as
much as we can, but at that--you know, at the level that we are
dealing with in fiscal 2013, we do start to see real
consequences.
One example is Plan X, which is our cyber offense research
program. That is a program that is taking a pretty significant
hit in fiscal 2013. Because it is a relatively new program--we
were just getting it under way--there we chose to take a delay
of about 4 or 5 months, rather than having to stop a bunch of
things that were already fully ramped up and under way in other
programs.
So the consequence on that area will just--it will simply
translate to later, you know--essentially, the schedule for
starting to deliver some of those capabilities to our service
partners who have expressed a lot of interest, simply keeps
pushing to the right.
I want to mention one other thing. You know, the other
place that we are seeing a lot of impact from furloughs and
sequestration is the fact that we work so closely with our
service partners. Our contracting times are pushing out,
because we are relying on contracting capability in the
Services.
Mrs. Davis. Yes, I was going to ask--actually ask, not just
with the Services, but also across the board, and, you know,
the whole-of-government approach, because my guess is that they
also will be impacted. And whether it is working with homeland
security or commerce or ag [Department of Agriculture],
whatever that may be, where you interface are--is that another
area that you anticipate that there is going to be a
considerable impact? Or, you know, is it--probably won't have
as great a concern as perhaps working within the Services, in
terms of the job that you all do?
Mr. Shaffer. So we are still really assessing the impact of
the sequestration. I don't want to let Arati's final--or
comment about contracts go without adding some additional
context. Without getting into specific services, each week, Mr.
Kendall gets a report on what is the impact of sequestration.
So there is a double hit with our contracting officers,
because most of our contracting offices were undermanned to
begin with and people were being paid overtime. So it is not
just going to be a 10 percent or 20 percent reduction. It is
going to be more like a 40 percent reduction, because people
will not get their overtime pay.
So contracting officers were working average 50- to 60-hour
weeks, our junior level contracting officers. That will stop.
That means that we are going to have a tremendous slowdown in
being able to get money on contract. That will have a trickle-
down effect to our subtier suppliers, our small businesses, and
we don't know the impact of how that will play out. But it will
hurt our subcontractors, our big contractors, and will hurt the
people who come in and try to make things happen for the
Nation.
Mrs. Davis. I appreciate that. It is certainly a great
concern. And I see, Ms. Miller, you had a comment.
Just on a slightly different note, I know that we are
trying to consolidate some of the STEM programs, and the DOD
was responsible for doing--I guess it is small grants, having
some programs around, and now we are consolidating that more
under the Department Ed [U.S. Department of Education]. Do you
see that that is going to be impactful in terms of schools and
some of the programs? Is there a way to minimize the effect of
that kind of focus, which probably has a very positive effect,
but may, in fact, have some consequences in terms of the ed
programs? It is now under Department of Ed, but----
Mr. Shaffer. Frankly, ma'am, the Administration believes
that there will be efficiencies in consolidation of some of our
STEM programs. There was a meeting at the White House this week
of the principals, and they are trying to figure out how to
fully implement that. We have until 2014 to figure out
implementation.
I will tell you that STEM writ large is incredibly
important to ourselves, to everybody on this panel. Preserving
the workforce of the future is incredibly important.
Unfortunately, last week, I had the privilege or--whatever you
want to say is spending a week with our under secretary, Mr.
Kendall, and he made sure that I understood that STEM programs
would continue to be one of his highest priorities.
That is our future. And there are a number of disciplines
where the DOD leads the Federal investment. We cannot allow and
we cannot cede things like electrical engineering, mechanical
engineering to other agencies. We are working with the White
House and the Administration to try to get it right.
Mrs. Davis. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kline. I thank the gentlelady. Your time is expired.
I do think it is interesting, when we look at STEM
programs, the Federal Government, as of a report a little more
than 2 years ago, has 209, and that is growing. It does seem to
me we could get just a little bit more efficiency out of those
programs, so I am delighted to hear that somebody in the
Administration is thinking about cutting that down, presumably
to something less than 209.
The President's budget assumes that sequestration
disappears, but it is the law. And so in a hearing today, we
were talking to the CNO and to the commandant and to the
secretary of the Navy, and they were, again, saying that the
President's budget doesn't show sequestration numbers, but all
of you have talked about the dire consequences of
sequestration.
And then, Mr. Shaffer, in the President's request, I am
looking here, I see there is a new defensewide program element
called Applied Research for the Advancement of S&T Priorities,
$45 million in new money. So we don't have any money, and it
looks like we are going to have less money because of
sequestration. And yet you have a brand-new program element for
$45 million. What does it do that is worth more money, when we
have all these other programs, and not to mention individual
projects that may go away? Tell me about that investment.
Mr. Shaffer. Yes, sir. I am happy to. So we actually took
three, six, eight old programs and consolidated them down to
one, because we believe in OSD in the power of competition.
What that program element will do--and you heard us talking
about some of these panels with SES leads in materiels and
human sciences and data to decisions.
Each of those panels now, that pot of money will be up for
bid by these cross-cutting groups who want to do specific
competitive ideas to prove out some concepts to move forward
and move forward more rapidly. So rather than breaking things
down into little stovepipes and telling this community, ``You
are going to have your $5 million,'' another community, ``You
are going to have your $5 million,'' this $45 million bundled
up old programs, and the concept now is we are going to have
our cross-cutting panels compete and fund the very best ideas.
So we want to fund the best ideas, not just tell folks they are
going to have money just because they wake up and breathe.
So there will be small projects, but it will allow us to
consolidate, coordinate, and make much more rapid progress, I
think, in the cross-cutting areas that I mentioned, electronic
warfare, cyber, EW. That is the concept. It is not new money;
it is a consolidation and redirection.
Mr. Kline. So a new program element, but old money that has
been rolled together?
Mr. Shaffer. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kline. That is somewhat reassuring, because every time
I see now a new program, and they are all over the place--the
President has a $75 billion new dollar program in education----
Mr. Shaffer. Sir----
Mr. Kline. So my--thank you for that answer. And, by the
way, thank all of you for your terrific work. Some of you I
have known for some years. Some of you I have known for many
years, particularly people sitting in the back rows back there,
and there has always been a very soft spot in my heart for
research and engineering for the DDR&E [Department of Defense
Research and Engineering], for DARPA going back to the days of
Vic Reis.
So thank you for the great work that you are doing, and I
hope that you are getting at the questions that will come a
couple of ways, of looking at how you are going to set
priorities under a sequestration number, because while I think
virtually everybody on this subcommittee and the larger HASC
[House Armed Services Committee] would like to see
sequestration go away so we can set real priorities, it is the
law, and we need some--a serious look at it from everybody, but
certainly from you.
Mr. Langevin, you had some more questions, I think.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Chairman.
So I know we have talked a lot about directed energy here
today, and I would--you know, I do--I am definitely pleased
that there has been substantial investment across the DOD in
promising areas of directed energy research. But can you speak
to the coordination of these investments across the S&T
enterprise? And how is funding prioritized?
I mean, I am, you know, very much interested in getting the
stuff out of the labs and actually getting it in the field,
and, you know, the scientists tend to, you know, research this
stuff to death, and yet--you know, according to the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, you know, this technology
has progressed a lot further than what many realize and it is
time to start fielding these things. So I want to know how you
are coordinating across the enterprises.
Admiral Klunder. I can certainly take the first crack at
this. And I will offer, the collaboration has been extremely
valuable. I will look to my colleague at the right, the Army.
In terms of their ground-based vehicles, they started some of
the power source development for the laser system. My colleague
to the left, Dave Walker and the Air Force, looked at a lot of
the SWAP, the size, weight and power constraints that we have
developing that power when they looked at their airborne
aspects.
My colleague to the far left, Arati and I, are actually
working on a higher level power source as we speak. The one
that you are going to put--see on the USS Ponce is a certain
level. We know that there is other aspects when we look at
larger multi-mission aspects, I mean, the very, very
sophisticated ones in a more classified venue, that we would
certainly love to come talk to when you are--it is convenient.
We need some additional power requirements that we are looking
at and working together on.
So I think cooperatively there, I think the four of us--and
then working through OSD is hugely supportive. I think that has
been a success story of this one particular aspect, just one.
There are others, obviously. I can pass to my other colleagues
if they----
Ms. Miller. Sir, I would like to add that the Army's laser
is a joint high-power solid-state laser that was collectively
developed with the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office
funding, Army funding, and then some funding in addition from
the Air Force and the Navy, working on getting 100 kilowatt
solid-state laser. That particular laser, while it was a
laboratory design, the Army has put out at White Sands and is
using with some beam apertures out there to actually do real-
time testing of that laser in an environment to see what it can
do.
As the Navy reported, we are also having great success in
bringing down UAVs, but they are relatively easy. Our big
target, we are trying to shoot down mortars and missiles, and
we just this weekend shot down a 60-millimeter mortar with that
laser.
Meanwhile, we understand that is a laboratory laser, and it
certainly is not one that we will put on ground vehicles and go
out and use. We are working on fiber laser development, again,
collaboratively, with the High Energy Laser Joint Technology
Office, the Navy, and the Air Force to create a fiber laser
capability with much more efficiency. Solid-state lasers are
about 10 percent efficient. Fiber lasers, over 25 percent
efficient. And we are pairing it up with a beam--a mobile beam
director so that we can then put it on a ground vehicle.
Dr. Walker. And the Air Force, as you have heard, has been
working closely with the other two Services and with DARPA in
developing our laser technology, both in the devices and the
power sources for them. And the step forward that we are going
to now is taking advantage of the work that has been done by
the other Services and DARPA and taking it up to a mountain
peak and shooting down to do what is of interest to the Air
Force, is how do we mount this on an airplane and make it into
a usable system?
And so we are currently starting--the first step is to take
it and do the downward shot from a mountain peak and then be
moving that to an aircraft, would be the next step.
Mr. Langevin. Well, it is encouraging that this isn't
siloed, and that there is good collaboration across the
Services. So, finally, a question I have, as you know, the
subcommittee has authorized several pieces of legislation over
the past 5 years intended to improve the health of the labs.
Section 219 of the fiscal year 2009 NDAA [National Defense
Authorization Act] authorized the use of funds to support
various local initiatives. We also authorized and raised the
spending limits of the Laboratory Revitalization Demonstration
Project, which is intended to support minor MILCON [Military
Construction] projects.
Admiral Klunder, could you tell the committee how you use
219 and LRDP [Laboratory Revitalization Demonstration Program]
to improve the conditions of your labs? And, more importantly,
please let us know where we might improve upon those
authorities.
Admiral Klunder. Well, first of all, I have to actually--I
must thank you immensely for the help there and your staff, who
we talk to on a regular basis. We truly couldn't have gotten
those advancements in those labs and warfare centers without
your help, and I thank you.
I do want to offer that we know in the fiscal environment
that MILCON will be pressurized for the coming years, and
certainly at the warfare labs and warfare centers, indeed, we
see that pressure all the time.
Why I am so excited about what you were able to provide us
here is that just for small, relatively small numbers, we can
continue to make our warfare centers and our labs relevant
through these modernization efforts. I don't think without your
help we would have gotten there. I truly mean that. I am sure I
can put my bid in for a MILCON proposition, and we do, but the
reality is, it is--there are a lot of pressures. There are
ships that have to go to sail. There are Army vehicles that
have to go out and deploy, Air Force. And it just sometimes is
going to be on the lower level when you fight out from MILCON.
So without your help, I don't think we'd have been able to
make that. And I hope you can continue to give us that support,
and we truly thank you and your staffs, sir.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Nugent.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
the panel for being here, particularly as you support our
warfighters and the technology that you are developing. They
are going to save lives, particularly on our side.
You know, Dr. Walker, one of the things I think you
mentioned in your testimony was about CHAMP [Counter-
electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project],
directed energy program, and I agree with, you know, Mr.
Langevin, reference to, you know, getting it out of the
laboratory and out into the field to our warfighters, you know,
what we can do to move that along, maybe you could give me an
idea--because I know CHAMP. We have spent $40 billion, I
believe, in development. I know it has been tested and actually
has had positive results, so can you explain to me why we
actually haven't put that out into the field?
Dr. Walker. Certainly. CHAMP has been a long-term
development in the laboratory, really turning the promise of
high-powered microwave for ground attack into a reality.
We had a successful demonstration--I wouldn't say that we
have fully tested it, but we have demonstrated that there is
really a feasible capability. We had a successful flight test
last fall, where we went against targets both soft and hardened
and used the high-powered microwave to upset them.
The follow-on from that now is moving this forward into the
acquisition process, where they are looking at capabilities and
trading off concepts to determine whether or not this is
something to go forward with into a follow-on weapons system.
That is ongoing. In the meantime, the laboratory is continuing
to develop better power supplies, better--high-powered
microwave sources, so as to give the warfighter even greater
capability as they go forward into an acquisition program.
And we are waiting to see the outcome of this concept
development to see where we will go forward with this and
whether we move into an AOA [Analysis of Alternatives] here in
the near future.
Mr. Nugent. And I guess the question for me is, what do you
think the timeline is? I mean, obviously, it is always great to
improve a weapon system. And I got three kids all in the Army,
so I want, you know, the best and the greatest. But at the same
time, I also want a capable weapons system to be deployed. You
can always add on and do things to improve its accuracy or
lethality, so----
Dr. Walker. The timeline is a challenge right now,
particularly in this fiscal environment, because we are having
to make trades between other forms of attack, and where this
fits in and when we will be able to afford it, I would have to
take a question for the record here to give you an actual
timeline of where we think we will be coming forward with the
program.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 147.]
Mr. Nugent. I appreciate that. And I certainly want to
continue to--I don't think I have to challenge you all to move
forward, because I know that your hearts and minds are in the
right places in regards to this.
But, Ms. Miller, from the Army, C-RAM [Counter-Rocket,
Artillery, and Mortar], if you give me some additional
information as to where we are and what we see in the future
for C-RAM.
Ms. Miller. Improvements to C-RAM?
Mr. Nugent. Yes.
Ms. Miller. Yes, sir. We certainly, from the Aviation
Missile, Research Development, and Engineering Center, AMRDEC
[Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering
Center ], we have been investing in technologies to do
affordable missiles that can go out and intercept RAMs
[Rockets, Artilleries and Mortars], rockets, artilleries and
mortars, and also UAVs, because, of course, as Admiral Klunder
said in his opening statement, we have a cost paradigm where we
are spending much more to defeat very inexpensive threats, and
that is what we are trying to drive down.
So we have been designing affordable missiles that can go
out and intercept, and also the directed energy solutions that
we have talked to earlier are part of that equation.
Mr. Nugent. And I would think the--your directed energy
laser is much more--I don't know at this point efficient, but
at least more cost-effective versus firing a missile?
Ms. Miller. Certainly cost-effective once it is developed
and when it is in use. The missiles that we are looking at,
however, we are looking at very, very inexpensive missiles that
can take out those threats, and that will be near-term. And the
Army has a problem right now. We are certainly using C-RAM
right now, and it is not the most cost-effective a solution, so
we are looking at what we can do to drive down the cost of that
capability and then bring on directed energy as soon as we are
able.
Mr. Nugent. Obviously, that is the--one of the futures that
we have, is directed energy. And I appreciate my friend down
the aisle there to keep the push.
And so thank you so very much.
Mr. Kline. The gentleman yields back. We have all had an
opportunity to ask questions. The chairman, the real chairman,
said he had questions for the record. I think I am looking at
them right here, so, staff, standby, quite a few.
Again, I want to thank you for being here today. I know it
is not a great joy. I have never known anyone to spring for joy
when they find out they are going down to testify on the Hill.
So thanks for being here. Thanks for your absolute great work.
Keep it up. And please, oh, please, start looking at those
priorities under sequestration. I know somewhere you are, but
we really need to be ready for that and see which projects and
which program elements are going to survive and which ones
aren't. And I know there is a lot of pain out there, but the
sooner we start to step up to it, the better.
So, again, thank you very much. With that, the business is
concluded. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 16, 2013
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 16, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 16, 2013
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. NUGENT
Dr. Walker. The Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave (HPM)
Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) was an Air Force science and
technology (S&T) Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstration (JCTD)
which successfully demonstrated the effects of an HPM weapon on a wide
range of military-relevant electronic equipment in a realistic
environment. S&T develops and demonstrates technology that can be
transitioned to the system development/procurement community.
As this was an S&T demonstration, the JCTD was limited in scope and
did not account for weapon survivability and effects delivered in an
operationally relevant threat environment. A CHAMP JCTD Military
Utility Assessment is currently being drafted by U. S. Pacific Command
(USPACOM). The Air Force will use this assessment and any additional
information/data from the demonstration to feed the Air Force's Non-
Kinetic Counter Electronic (NKCE) weapon concept of using HPM
technology to affect real world electronic equipment in an
operationally relevant threat environment. The Air Force is completing
the NKCE Comprehensive Concept Analysis (CCA) in FY14. The CCA will
define the technological characteristics required to integrate HPM
technology into a weaponized platform and be survivable in an
operationally relevant threat environment long enough to deliver the
intended effects. CHAMP, along with other potential solutions, will be
part of NKCE Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) notionally scheduled to
take place during FY15. If the warfighter (e.g. USPACOM) determines
there is an urgent need that CHAMP could support, there is a separate
process to support that need. As of now there has not been such a
request.
FY13 and FY14 funds supporting these analyses has been requested in
a system development and demonstration program element (PE) 0604429F,
Airborne Electronic Attack. [See page 22.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 16, 2013
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. THORNBERRY
Mr. Thornberry. In your testimony, you mentioned the benefits of
the direct hiring authority provided to the Science and Technology
Reinvention Laboratories. Are there impediments to wider use of this
authority? If so, what can be done to improve the situation?
Mr. Shaffer. Yes, there are impediments/limitations to direct
hiring authorities for our labs. One impediment is that direct hiring
of only scientists and engineers with advanced degrees is allowed. This
impediment prevents us from directly hiring scientists with
undergraduate degrees. Nevertheless, preliminary reports from lab
directors indicate positive results for the hiring of talented and
highly qualified university graduates into our laboratories who may
have taken offers from other organizations if not for the new expedited
processes enabled by STRL authorities. However, the sequester and
associated budget issues are expected to have a negative impact on both
hiring and retention of lab S&Es. Regarding impediments to hiring,
ancillary effects due to the current budget shortfalls may be hurting
our workforce. The prolonged pay freeze, travel restrictions,
limitations on conference attendance, and potential reductions in force
are concerns. Given the fact that our labs are the Department's
technical base, these factors may degrade our technical capability for
the foreseeable future.
Mr. Thornberry. In your testimony, you stated that the Department
is in the process of quantitatively determining perceived shortfalls in
prioritizing Service military construction (MILCON) projects and how
DOD labs compete in the process. But this isn't a new problem, so why
are you just now studying it? Is the current funding limit for minor
military construction sufficient for the needs of the DOD labs? Should
it be increased? If it was, what might the impact be on other MILCON
activities?
Mr. Shaffer. This issue remains a topic of interest to my office,
and we have given attention to this issue for years. Our last report
submitted to Congress in FY2011, ``DOD Laboratory Recapitalization and
Sustainment Issues,'' in response to Senate Report 111-035, documented
status of lab infrastructure including investments from the BRAC 2005
construction projects. Our current efforts are in partnership with the
White House Office of Science & Technology Policy's Committee on
Homeland and National Security Infrastructure Subcommittee, which has
representatives from Departments of Defense, Energy, Homeland Security
and others involved with national security issues. A key goal of this
group is to update federal security laboratory infrastructure physical
status, funding, and funding mechanisms to develop policy
recommendations for maintenance and improvement of labs. In addition,
the Department submitted a FY 14 legislative proposal to increase the
discretionary minor MILCON authorities from $2M to $4M per project.
The Department quantifies the status of physical infrastructure via
determination of the Facility Physical Quality Rating (FPQR), which, on
a scale of 0-100, depicts the capability of existing facilities as
measured by a physical condition index. The Condition Index (CI) is a
general measure of a constructed asset's condition at a specific point
in time. Included in the measure of the CI, is the Functionality Index
(FI) which relates the suitability of the physical asset to perform the
functions for which the building is required. For prioritization of
MILCON needs, the Services then determine an additional metric, the
Mission Dependency Index (MDI) which represents Mission Criticality of
the asset. The DOD goal for the FPQR is 80 for any building. If an
asset is graded below this value, it then becomes a candidate for
refurbishment or replacement. In response to the Office of Management
and Budget, we are examining the FPQR of the Defense Laboratories.
Preliminary results show our labs to have an overall FPQR of 80, which
is an acceptable rating.
While our preliminary data analysis indicates that our laboratory
infrastructure is in acceptable overall condition, we are concerned
that there may be some cases where individual buildings leave some
capabilities at risk, and more detailed analysis is required in those
instances. To address this potential problem, we are initiating an
analysis of several laboratory director identified buildings to
determine whether there is indeed a MILCON problem not identified in a
top level analysis.
Mr. Thornberry. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering is tasked by directive as the principal staff assistant for
biometrics. What are you doing to ensure biometrics remains an enduring
DOD capability? What do you see as needed future capabilities to
support biometrics?
Mr. Shaffer. As the Secretary's Principal Staff Assistant (PSA) for
DOD Biometrics, I see biometrics as an important contributor in support
of the National Defense Strategy. The most important future capability
DOD requires is an authoritative biometric storage and matching system
tailored to support the Department's unique needs and operating
environments. This system must use technologies to exploit poor-quality
biometric images collected in austere locations; be capable of
processing larger numbers of matches as DOD's use of biometrics grows;
and, provide near real-time information to users operating in remote
locations. Our staff is working with the Executive Agent for DOD
Biometrics to develop a formal biometric acquisition program with
enduring funding to achieve the key capabilities required for the
future. We expect to begin fielding these systems by FY 2017. Over the
past year, we have:
Developed an updated policy to expand the use of
biometrics from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to all areas
where DOD operates. The Department is also developing policy to
enable force protection personnel to use biometric data to
grant access to military facilities.
Advanced data sharing between DOD and the Department
of Homeland Security. Maximizing biometric data sharing between
the Departments helps identify malign agents before they can do
harm to the Homeland or to our overseas interests.
Sponsored technology development in key biometric
areas such as thin film fingerprint detectors, latent
fingerprint processing and multispectral facial matching. These
investments advance biometric capabilities and help maintain
the relevancy of biometrics as an enabler across a range of
military
missions.
Established the enduring use of biometrics at
national-level organizations including the White House-
sponsored National Science and Technology Council subcommittee
on Biometrics and Identity Management; the National Security
Staff (NSS) Interagency Policy Committee (IPC) on Information
Sharing to Counter Terrorist Travel; and, the NSS IPC on
Information Sharing and
Access.
Mr. Thornberry. You mentioned in your testimony the importance of
the special hiring authorities DARPA has, but you can also use
authorities for IPAs (Intergovernmental Personnel Act) and HQEs (Highly
Qualified Experts). Why have those not worked as well for DARPA?
Dr. Prabhakar. DARPA continues to use the IPA authority as often as
practicable. However, as of September 2012, the IPA delegation allowing
DARPA to set flexible and competitive salaries was rescinded and
limiting conditions were imposed per Office of the Secretary of Defense
for Administration and Management (DA&M) memorandum dated September 20,
2012. This has made utilization of the IPA authority more challenging
and, at times, a non-option. As an example, we recently lost a highly
talented candidate from a leading university because his salary far
exceeded what DARPA is allowed to reimburse under existing guidance.
The HQE delegation was modeled in its entirety on DARPA's
Experimental Hiring Authority first implemented in Section 1101 of the
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(Public Law 105-261) as ``Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Experimental Personnel Management Program for Technical Personnel.''
The HQE authority is broader than the 1101 authority, applicable not
only to those in the Science and Technology (S&T) community, but also
to fields providing other expertise.
As first established, DARPA could use the HQE and 1101 hiring and
retention authorities interchangeably. However, beginning February
2004, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (USD(P&R)) took steps to restrict and better manage the
allocation of DOD-wide HQE positions, resulting in a process that made
the HQE authority more challenging for DARPA to use. First, as
established by Section 9903 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.),
the DOD-wide cap for HQE appointments shall not exceed 2,500 positions.
These 2,500 positions, in turn, are apportioned and managed by the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy
(DUSD(CPP)). Second, OSD(P&R) reemphasized that HQE basic pay cannot
exceed the maximum limit established by 5 U.S.C. 9903(b)(2), typically
within the range from General Schedule 15 (GS-15) Step 1 (or
equivalent) up to the statutory limit of Executive Schedule Level II,
provided the Department's Pay and Performance Management System is
certified by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) . More recent
OSD(P&R) guidance further clarified the maximum compensation for HQE
positions (to include basic pay and locality-based comparability
payments) at $165,300 . Finally, in the March 14, 2011 Office of the
Secretary of Defense DOD efficiencies memorandum and the September 20,
2012 memorandum (effective at the beginning of FY13) the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Director of Administration and Management (DA&M)
rescinded delegation of the HQE authority to defense agencies and
approval authority for all HQE hires was centralized to the DA&M/Deputy
Secretary of Defense level.
The DA&M centralized process for hiring HQEs includes serial
coordination/approval from the following organizations:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering (ASD (R&E))
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L))
Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) Human
Resources Directorate (HRD)--Executive and Political Personnel
Director of Administration and Management (DA&M)
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (USD (P&R))
Under this process, defense agencies are unable to extend a letter
of offer to an HQE candidate until all five organizations coordinate on
and approve an HQE hiring package. The hiring package must include
candidate qualifications, project details, and compensation
justification to include labor market conditions, work schedule,
organizational needs, personal qualifications, experience, budget
considerations, organizational equity and mission impact of work
assignments. Each organization may take up to 3 weeks to coordinate on
a hiring package.
With the centralization of the HQE hiring authority and the
additional time required to staff, coordinate, and approve HQE
positions, the utility of the HQE hiring authority for DARPA beyond
FY12 has decreased. As a result, DARPA's reliance on alternative, more
flexible hiring and retention authorities (namely IPA and 1101
authorities) has increased and DARPA does not envision hiring any
additional HQE positions at this time.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. SANCHEZ
Ms. Sanchez. Project Pelican, which involved the construction and
testing of an advanced demonstrator airship, has proved that it is
possible to control buoyancy without ballast or other external
assistance, a challenge has been a major hurdle for the development of
airships for heavy lift purposes. I understand that these hangar
demonstrations, which were conducted in Tustin, CA, in January, met all
the objectives that were set for the program in 2008. NASA, which
cooperated with DOD in the development of the advanced demonstrator,
has rated Pelican's Technology Readiness Level at 6-7. As you know,
General Fraser, Commander of TRANSCOM, told the Committee on March 6
that ``Hybrid Airships represent a transformational capability bridging
the long standing gap between high-speed, lower capacity airlift and
low-speed, higher capacity sealift.'' He also said that the hybrid
airship technology has the potential to fulfill ``Factory to Foxhole
cargo delivery.'' What are your plans to continue the effort to develop
hybrid airships for heavy lift?
Do you intend to go forward with the development of a 66-ton
payload version?
What can Congress do to keep this technology and move on to further
operational vehicle development?
Mr. Shaffer. From the outset, Pelican was intended to be a
technology demonstrator rather than an airship prototype. In this
capacity, Pelican demonstrated several subsystems that will add to
DOD's collective knowledge of airship technologies and help inform
future investment. The funded FY13 work will add technical rigor to the
analyses of Pelican's sub-systems and exhaust Pelican's use as a
technology demonstrator. ASD(R&E) does not, however, have plans to move
forward with a 66-ton version. A larger version will have to be
supported by a military department, which is responsible for equipping
and fielding systems, and have to be affordable.
The information gained from Pelican and other recent airship
projects will help the department determine whether continued larger
scale, hybrid airship development is warranted. At this point there are
no plans to build a large scale vehicle; however, the Department has
set aside annual funding to study technologies required should a large
scale airship project be initiated in the future.
Advances in hybrid airship technology have justified investigation
of potential airship solutions to logistics and ISR missions; however,
much of this technology is in its infancy and must be matured in a
methodical and rational manner. Equities in potential heavy lift
capabilities go far beyond military applications. After the testimony
cited above, Commander TRANSCOM also stated, ``We encourage development
of commercial technologies that may lead to enhanced mobility
capabilities in the future.'' General Fraser's comments reflect OSD's
intention to follow commercial airship development and collaborate with
industry when appropriate.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. What concrete steps are each of your organizations
doing to reinvigorate the DOD relationship with the historically black
colleges and universities and minority serving institutions (HBCU/
MSIs)? Is there more that Congress can do to help expand efforts with
the HBCU/MSIs?
Mr. Shaffer. We have taken several concrete steps to reinvigorate
the DOD relationship with the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and minority-serving institutions (HBCU/MI) and appreciate
the continuing strong Congressional support for this program. We point
to four concrete steps:
1. The FY 2014 budget request added $15M to the program to
create three Centers of Excellence (COE) at HBCU/MI's. These
COEs will be competitively awarded in the area of cyber,
autonomy and data to decisions.
2. We held a successful workshop where we brought together
HBCU researchers from over 30 universities and their technical
counterparts in the DOD research offices in a forum that
allowed the researchers to talk about their research and
understand DOD research priorities. Communication both within
the Department and between the DOD management and staff and
HBCU/MI is central to the success of our efforts.
3. The ASD(R&E) communicated his expectations for the HBCU/MI
relationship in a December 2, 2011, memorandum to DOD
Components, ``Reinvigorating Our Relationship with the
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and
Minority-Serving Institutions (MIs).'' For example, senior DOD
managers have visited the Presidents of several HBCU/MI.
4. We recently developed, and sent to Congress, a plan that
outlines actions to strengthen and expand the HBCU/MI program
in the next 2 years. The plan builds on the activities already
under way and furthers our efforts to enhance the HBCU/MI
program.
Mr. Johnson. What concrete steps are each of your organizations
doing to reinvigorate the DOD relationship with the historically black
colleges and universities and minority serving institutions (HBCU/
MSIs)? Is there more that Congress can do to help expand efforts with
the HBCU/MSIs?
Ms. Miller. The Army has a concerted effort in support of
historically black colleges and universities and minority serving
institutions HBCU/MSIs and they remain an important part of the Army's
research base. The Army conducts targeted outreach to HBCU/MSIs to
provide awareness of all funding opportunities and strongly encourages
direct dialogue with technical points of contact to identify areas of
common research interest. Additionally, the Army funds five centers of
excellence at HBCUs through the Partnership in Research Transition
Program, pursuing basic research with high potential for moving into
applied research in areas with very high relevance to the Army, such as
the development and optimization of structures leading to better force
protection, the development of algorithms for standoff radar for
landmine and improvised explosive device Detection, and research to
better understand the socio-cultural content of African languages.
Additional HBCU/MSI outreach efforts include using Intergovernmental
Personnel Act agreements and faculty and student fellowships/
internships to bring HBCU/MSI researchers into Army laboratories to
conduct collaborative research, as well as Educational Partnership
Agreements that provide student employment, curriculum development for
all levels of education, and other support to the universities and
students. Finally, the Army actively supports DOD-sponsored and other
technical conferences and outreach events (to the extent permitted by
current fiscal constraints) targeting HBCU/MSIs to ensure the widest
possible awareness of Army/Department of Defense (DOD) research
opportunities.
While we do not need any additional authorities in this area, it is
important for Congress to continue to provide support for research and
outreach activities with HBCU/MSIs in order to build institutional
research capacity, encourage greater participation in DOD programs,
strengthen their ability to provide excellence in education, conduct
research critical to DOD national security needs, increase the number
of graduates in the fields of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics, and encourage research and educational collaboration with
other institutions of higher education directed toward advancing the
state of the art and increasing knowledge.
Mr. Johnson. What concrete steps are each of your organizations
doing to reinvigorate the DOD relationship with the historically black
colleges and universities and minority serving institutions (HBCU/
MSIs)? Is there more that Congress can do to help expand efforts with
the HBCU/MSIs?
Admiral Klunder. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) has several
initiatives under way to strengthen our relationships with Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions
(HBCU/MSIs). Highlights include:
Conducted the 2013 ONR Summer Faculty Fellowship
program competition with increased outreach to HBCU/MI.
Received 230 applications. Eighty-four applications were
selected nationwide. Of the 84 applicants selected, 38 were
from HBCU/MI's (45%).
Convened a high-level review panel of seven reviewers
for the Summer Faculty review process; four panelists were from
the government scientific community, and three from academia.
All were experts in their fields; two panel members were from
HBCU/MIs.
Created the Future Scientist Summer Intern Program
that will provide an opportunity for 40 HBCU/MI undergraduate
students to conduct naval relevant research at a Navy
laboratory or warfare center in 2014.
Developed the initial steps to form a new partnership
with the following HBCUs: Bowie State University, Howard
University, Morgan State University, and the District of
Columbia University. The purpose of the partnership is to
investigate research areas of importance to the Department of
the Navy (DON).
Increased by 15% the number of HBCU/MI undergraduate
and graduate interns who will be conducting naval relevant
research at Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in FY14.
Developed strategies to identify and engage second
tier emerging HBCU/MI research programs, providing them the
opportunity to compete for naval relevant research
opportunities.
Drafted the preliminary language for a HBCU/MI Broad
Agency Announcement (BAA). This BAA will provide a specific
vehicle for HBCU/MI institutions to submit proposals and white
papers for future research opportunities relevant to the DON.
Establishing at the University of Texas--El Paso
(UTEP)--a minority serving institution--a Master's of Science
Degree in Cyber Security. This UTEP program is modeled after
the highly successful Systems Engineering Master's degree
program that was developed for the Naval Sea Systems Command at
Tuskegee University, an HBCU.
We appreciate the funding that Congress has provided the DON to
reach out to the HBCU/MI community. We believe that the steps we have
taken over the last year (see above) have dramatically improved the
effectiveness of that outreach.
Mr. Johnson. What concrete steps are each of your organizations
doing to reinvigorate the DOD relationship with the historically black
colleges and universities and minority serving institutions (HBCU/
MSIs)? Is there more that Congress can do to help expand efforts with
the HBCU/MSIs?
Dr. Walker. The Air Force remains committed to strengthening HBCU/
MSIs. Each technical directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL) is tasked to identify at least one HBCU/MSI as a targeted
recruiting opportunity based on needed technical competencies, and
identify a relationship manager for each school/department identified.
The relationship managers ensure regular contact with potential
recruits, create opportunities for exchanges and student exposure to
AFRL, and develop contacts with the targeted university (that includes
faculty, students, and alumni) within the directorate or across AFRL.
AFRL ensures that HBCU/MSIs are aware of various funding
opportunities available throughout the year. In FY12, the Air Force
Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), a component of AFRL, funded 22
research and instrumentation grants at 18 HBCU/MSIs. AFOSR funding is
above and beyond OSD's HBCU/MSI program. The principal investigators
(PIs) at institutions that receive grants are steadily building
research expertise and many are seen as leaders in their research
areas.
The Air Force continues to place strong emphasis on PI development
by selecting HBCU/MSI faculty to serve on scholarship, fellowship, and
research review panels, and encouraging HBCU/MSI students to apply for
STEM scholarship, fellowship, and internship programs offered by DOD.
Additionally, AFOSR has a full-time HBCU/MSI program coordinator
focused on growing relationships with HBCU/MSIs and the AFOSR STEM
program manager is a member of advisory councils for HBCU/MSIs that
help to foster relationships with institutions.
Mr. Johnson. What concrete steps are each of your organizations
doing to reinvigorate the DOD relationship with the historically black
colleges and universities and minority serving institutions (HBCU/
MSIs)? Is there more that Congress can do to help expand efforts with
the HBCU/MSIs?
Dr. Prabhakar. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) has implemented the following steps to reinvigorate the DOD
relationship with the historically black colleges and universities and
minority serving institutions (HBCU/MSIs):
DARPA is able to monitor HBCU/MSI success rates in
response to its Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) and other
solicitations through information readily available from the
Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation.
DARPA includes HBCU/MSI opportunities in our BAAs.
DARPA is speaking honestly and directly with
potential university partners to encourage researchers to renew
their commitment to working on critical Defense solutions. To
achieve this goal, DARPA is making it easier for university
leaders to engage by clearing obstacles and encouraging our
nation's best and brightest to serve in Government. Individuals
possessing the required skill and talent to serve as program
managers could serve via the Intergovernmental Personnel Act or
through other hiring mechanisms available to DARPA.
A DARPA Program Manager is on the Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)-focused panel
for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,
and works closely with the U.S. Department of Education. Both
organizations support initiatives that solicit representation
from under-represented groups, including faculty and students
of HBCUs/MSIs.
DARPA removed barriers to HBCU/MSI participation in
its Young Faculty Award program. Previously, participation was
limited to untenured Assistant or Associate Professors within
five years of appointment to a tenure-track position at a U.S.
institution of higher education. The solicitation language was
revised and the portion in quotes was added to give HBCU/MSIs
the opportunity to participate: Participation is limited to
untenured Assistant or Associate Professors within five years
of appointment to a tenure-track position at a U.S. institution
of higher education `` . . . or equivalent at a non-profit
science and technology research institution.'' The solicitation
also specifically stated: ``Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU's) and Minority Institutions (MI's) are
encouraged to submit proposals.'' DARPA determined allowing
this participation is in line with the well-established
National Science Foundation and other federal guidelines listed
below.
1) The employing organization does not offer tenure
track appointments.
2) The appointment is a continuing appointment (soft-
money appointments and/or visiting appointments do not
apply).
In these cases, the organization must make the determination that
the appointee meets these guidelines prior to proposal submission, and
must provide verification in lieu of a tenure track appointment date.
DARPA is not currently providing funding to any HBCUs for other
than acquisition and grant and agreement activities, but will fund
HBCUs consistent with 10 U.S.C. 2362. DARPA is not currently
participating in any HBCU/MSI focused outreach events this time, but
will continue to seek out opportunities to do so.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CARSON
Mr. Carson. I have heard from many businesses in my district--both
large and small--that have developed innovative technologies under DOD
contracts but have not reached the procurement stage. Some of have been
fortunate enough to find private sector applications for these
technologies. But others have seen their R&D programs come to an end
and their technologies sit unused. I am interested in knowing what
steps each of you take to ensure that these technologies--which are
paid for by American taxpayers--are put to good use? Are there efforts
to catalog this research and communicate it to other services, agencies
and contractors to ensure that the same research is not repeated
unnecessarily on future programs?
Mr. Shaffer. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Carson. I have heard from many businesses in my district--both
large and small--that have developed innovative technologies under DOD
contracts but have not reached the procurement stage. Some of have been
fortunate enough to find private sector applications for these
technologies. But others have seen their R&D programs come to an end
and their technologies sit unused. I am interested in knowing what
steps each of you take to ensure that these technologies--which are
paid for by American taxpayers--are put to good use? Are there efforts
to catalog this research and communicate it to other services,
agencies, and contractors to ensure that the same research is not
repeated unnecessarily on future programs?
Ms. Miller. The Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) is the
hub of Department of Defense (DOD) Scientific and Technical information
and provides the venue for information exchange between the Services to
insure that the same research is not repeated. The Army participates in
DTIC's Scientific and Technical Information Program (STIP), an online
database of DOD research efforts. STIP recognizes the impact and
efficient sharing of releasable information within agencies and
activities of the DOD and outside the Army; these agencies and
activities include other Federal, State, university, not-for-profit,
and commercial institutes. Additionally, since 2012, the Army has
joined with the other services to support the Defense Innovation
Marketplace (http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil) by providing
key research, development and acquisition information in one easy to
find location. The Marketplace is a portal for companies, large and
small, to securely share their Independent Research & Development (R&D)
projects to increase government visibility of their technology. The
project database is growing and holds more than 6,000 industry R&D
projects, allowing department Science and Technology (S&T) program
managers and acquisition executives to learn about industry technology
and then fully leverage it for current or future programs.
The Department has several mechanisms to ensure S&T investments are
coordinated with other Services and agencies, to ensure that the same
research is not repeated unnecessarily on future programs, including
monthly meetings of the Science and Technology Executive Committee,
comprised of the Service S&T Executives and the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Research), and weekly meetings of the Deputies to
the Service S&T executives. There are 17 Communities of Interest which
are informal organizations to provide a forum for intra-Service and
Component coordination and information exchanges in specific S&T topic
areas primarily at the laboratory and research center level. Finally,
there are seven Priority Steering Committees which develop integrated
S&T investment strategies and roadmaps in capability areas of cross
Service importance.
Mr. Carson. I have heard from many businesses in my district--both
large and small--that have developed innovative technologies under DOD
contracts but have not reached the procurement stage. Some of have been
fortunate enough to find private sector applications for these
technologies. But others have seen their R&D programs come to an end
and their technologies sit unused. I am interested in knowing what
steps each of you take to ensure that these technologies--which are
paid for by American taxpayers--are put to good use? Are there efforts
to catalog this research and communicate it to other services,
agencies, and contractors to ensure that the same research is not
repeated unnecessarily on future programs?
Admiral Klunder. There are several aspects to answering this
question. First, the Office of Naval Research is very proactive in
working to facilitate transition of technology into further development
and commercialization. For small businesses, we have established a
Transition Assistance Program that works with them to develop
relationships with potential customers, including Program Managers and
prime contractors. Experience with the TAP has shown nearly a doubling
in the likelihood of obtaining a Phase III (commercialization) contract
for the Phase II products of the Small Business Innovation Research
program. And, for the full range of businesses that participate in our
Future Naval Capabilities program as an example, we engage directly
with resource sponsors and transition partners (primarily Program
Executive Officers/Program Managers) to document and sustain their
commitment to transition the products. This has led to a healthy
success rate in transitioning the products into acquisition programs
and to the Fleet/Marine Forces.
Second, even when the products do not directly translate into
procurements, they benefit the S&T and acquisition communities in a
number of ways. Often, they lead to follow on research efforts, which
build upon what was achieved and any lessons learned. They also aid in
``setting the bar'' for what capabilities can be achieved, reducing
acquisition program risk, and establishing expectations for performance
and price.
Finally, documentation of the results of the effort (published
findings, interim and final reports, etc.) are indeed catalogued by the
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), which serves as a
repository for that information. The DTIC database is accessible by
Government and industry researchers, who can use that information in
developing new research thrusts by building upon what has already been
done and avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort.
Mr. Carson. As you may know, Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center is
located just south of my district in Southern Indiana. This facility is
absolutely critical to our State and contributes to a strong research
and development and supplier industrial base in my district. Can you
discuss the importance of Crane to the overall mission of the Navy and
the role you anticipate that it and other surface warfare centers will
play as we retool for future missions?
Admiral Klunder. The Naval Sea Systems Command Warfare Center
Enterprise is comprised of the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) and
the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC). With eight Surface Warfare
and two Undersea Warfare sites across the United States, the Warfare
Centers supply the technical operations, people, technology,
engineering services and products needed to equip and support the fleet
and meet the warfighters' needs. The Warfare Centers are the Navy's
principal research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) assessment
activity for surface ship and submarine systems and subsystems. In
addition, the Warfare Centers provide depot maintenance and in-service
engineering support to ensure the systems fielded today perform
consistently and reliably in the future.
The Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Crane Division is one of
eight commands within NSWC. The mission of NSWC Crane is to provide
acquisition engineering, in-service engineering and technical support
for sensors, electronics, electronic warfare and special warfare
weapons. NSWC Crane also works to apply component and system-level
product and industrial engineering to surface sensors, strategic
systems, special warfare devices, and electronic warfare and
information operations systems. Crane has focused particularly on three
mission areas where they can best support the Warfighter.
The Special Missions Center provides elite Warfighters with a
distinct advantage in the rapidly changing combat environment. Areas of
support include Special Operations, Irregular Warfare and Riverine
Operations, among others. With more than one million square feet of
offices and laboratories, the Special Missions Center's focus is on
sensors and communications, mobility and maneuverability, special
munitions and weapons and technical training. The Center is a go-to
source for the Warfighter who requires expertly delivered solutions
that ensure safe and effective missions. The Strategic Missions Center
is a trusted source for the critical electronics and sensors required
for global deterrence and ballistic missile defense. Through its
recognized leadership, preeminent facilities and experienced personnel,
the Center is dedicated to developing, deploying and sustaining the
technologies that ensure weapons systems are fully reliable and always
available to defend the homeland. Strategic Missions resources deliver
innovative technical solutions encompassing the full range of military
activities to alter an adversary's will and ability to attack the U.S.
and its interests. Offering 50 years of naval strategic mission
success, the Center is dedicated to delivering the best technical
solutions in Threat Detection, Integrated Missile Defense and Global
Strike. The Electronic Warfare/Information Operations (EW/IO) Center
provides a critical mass of co-located leadership to offer applied
science solutions across Air, Ground and Maritime Domains. Its experts
afford Electronic Attack, Electronic Protection and Electronic Support
capabilities to the Warfighter to ensure safe and effective missions.
An EW Center of Excellence, the EW/IO Center is the largest multi-
service facility within the Department of Defense for EW, EW Sensors
and electronics.
Mr. Carson. I have heard from many businesses in my district--both
large and small--that have developed innovative technologies under DOD
contracts but have not reached the procurement stage. Some of have been
fortunate enough to find private sector applications for these
technologies. But others have seen their R&D programs come to an end
and their technologies sit unused. I am interested in knowing what
steps each of you take to ensure that these technologies--which are
paid for by American taxpayers--are put to good use? Are there efforts
to catalog this research and communicate it to other services, agencies
and contractors to ensure that the same research is not repeated
unnecessarily on future programs?
Dr. Walker. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) makes every
effort to ensure developed technologies are put to good use. Competing
technology approaches are often funded to reduce high technical risk.
Though two or more technologies may prove successful, it is generally
most cost effective to select only the one best suited for the system
to be developed. Occasionally, user requirements are changed during
science and technology development due to changing threat environment
or defense strategy. In other cases, another competing technology may
prove more successful when demonstrated. In a few cases, there may be
legal or data rights issues that prevent a planned transition.
The Air Force requires that AFRL research summaries be developed
and submitted for every unit of research work done at the laboratory.
The data is collected by the Defense Technical Information Center
(DTIC) and is used to populate an extensive database. All researchers
are required to query this database before starting any new efforts.
Researchers are also required to submit a final report to DTIC at the
conclusion of their efforts.
Additionally, the DOD has opened a new DTIC website called the
Defense Innovation Marketplace. This site is being used to drive
additional collaboration and information sharing between all research
arms of the DOD and defense industry--large and small.
For Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts, the Air
Force uses multiple approaches to advertise the products of those
efforts to system developers and, in many cases, facilitate bringing
the prospective partners together. The Air Force is also making full
use of the Air Force Commercialization Readiness Program to assist with
the transition of Phase II SBIR products to using Major Commands.
Mr. Carson. I have heard from many businesses in my district--both
large and small--that have developed innovative technologies under DOD
contracts but have not reached the procurement stage. Some of have been
fortunate enough to find private sector applications for these
technologies. But others have seen their R&D programs come to an end
and their technologies sit unused. I am interested in knowing what
steps each of you take to ensure that these technologies--which are
paid for by American taxpayers--are put to good use? Are there efforts
to catalog this research and communicate it to other services, agencies
and contractors to ensure that the same research is not repeated
unnecessarily on future programs?
Dr. Prabhakar. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MAFFEI
Mr. Maffei. Considering and expanded strategic Department of
Defense vision for Asia and Africa, we note with great interest and
appreciation the emerging military medical research in the areas of
global health, bio-defense, bacterial health, combating bacterial
infections in fixed and mobile military medical facilities and
bacterial translational science. Please share in detail with the
Committee, what research and development is military medicine exploring
regarding molecular roadblocks and protein switches to regulate gene
expression in non-Staphylococcus bacterial infections in order to
develop treatments and therapies independent of antibiotics?
Mr. Shaffer. The following research and development efforts
regarding molecular roadblocks and protein switches to regulate gene
expression in non-Staphylococcus bacterial infections are being
supported by the DOD.
Funding Agent: Military Infectious Disease Research Program (US
Army)
Performer: University of Idaho
This research effort investigates how bacterial metabolism controls
persister formation in biofilms. Bacterial persistence is a phenomenon
in which a small fraction of a bacterial population (.0001 to 1%)
enters dormancy in otherwise growth-promoting conditions to survive
future stress (e.g., antibiotic treatment). These survivors are
responsible for the relapse of biofilm infections, and thus a greater
understanding of their formation will lead to more effective therapies
against biofilm-utilizing pathogens, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
Escherichia coli, and Acinetobacter baumannii. Researchers have
discovered that diauxic carbon shifts stimulate the generation of
persisters in planktonic cultures, and believe this to be a general
phenomenon in response to metabolite fluctuations. Biofilms are highly
heterogeneous communities in which the microenvironment of encased
bacteria changes considerably as the film matures. The hypothesis is
that metabolic control of persister formation is a dominant mode of
persister generation in biofilms, and that a mechanistic understanding
of this phenomenon will lead to novel treatment strategies. This effort
will elucidate how metabolism controls persister formation in biofilms,
and identify targets of therapeutic interest for the reduction of
relapse infections from biofilms in combat-wounded personnel. This
project aligns with the focus area on identification and
characterization of microbial virulence factors and other potential
therapeutic targets of metabolic or signaling pathways associated with
wound infection and/or biofilm formation, maintenance, and propagation
processes.
Funding Agent: Military Infectious Disease Research Program (US
Army)
Performer: University of New York, Binghamton
The research project evaluates the role of bacterial super-antigen
(Sag) proteins in activating systems contributing to biofilm formation
and resistance. Biofilms are extremely difficult to eradicate by
conventional antimicrobial treatments and are considered the root of
many persistent and chronic bacterial infections. For a long time, the
nature of biofilm resistance was deemed to be multifactorial. However,
recent evidence suggests that in P. aeruginosa, biofilm resistance is
regulated by SAg proteins. SAg protein is a novel P. aeruginosa
regulator that not only plays a role in initial colonization of
surfaces, but also in the maintenance of established biofilms and the
development of biofilm resistance. SAg protein was found to control the
phosphorylation status of biofilm signaling protein (BfiS), a
regulatory protein previously found to be essential for biofilm
formation. While a BfiS mutant only demonstrated a defect in biofilm
formation but not resistance, inactivation of the upstream SAg protein
impaired biofilm formation and made P. aeruginosa cells more
susceptible to antimicrobial treatments. Based on these preliminary
findings, the hypothesis is that SAg protein transduces growth mode-
specific signals to other regulators via phospho-relay events to
activate multiple systems involved in the architectural formation of
biofilms and the development of biofilm resistance. The goal of this
project is to characterize the SAg protein-dependent signaling
mechanism controlling the transition of P. aeruginosa to the surface-
associated lifestyle, and the formation of highly resistant biofilms.
Funding Agent: Office of Naval Research (ONR)
Performer: The Scripps Research Institute
Lateral gene transfer is one of the major routes by which bacteria
evolve resistance to antibiotics. The primary aim of this research is
to identify lead compounds that inhibit lateral gene transfer and
virulence, while also killing the bacteria by inhibiting antibiotic
resistance mechanisms. This work targeted the Bacterial Type I Signal
Peptidase (SPase I) since it is required to cleave mature proteins from
the signal peptide that targets them for translocation across the
cytoplasmic membrane. This process is required for bacterial cell
viability and occurs on the outer leaflet of the cytoplasmic membrane,
making it an attractive target for an antibiotic. However, because
secreted proteins are required for lateral gene transfer and virulence,
SPase I inhibitors should also inhibit gene transfer and virulence. To
date, this work has identified the arylomycin class of natural product
antibiotics as inhibitors of SPase I and has demonstrated that
arylomycin inhibits lateral gene transfer.
Funding Agent: Office of Naval Research (ONR)
Performer: University of Wisconsin
Many species of bacteria use a chemical signaling process (i.e.,
quorum sensing) to sense a quorum and coordinate secretion of virulence
factors as a response. Quorum sensing also controls biofilm formation
as well as other processes. The primary goal of this work is to probe
quorum sensing as a new target for the treatment of bacterial infection
and the eradication of biofilms. Since dihydrofolate reductase and
dihydropteroate synthetase play a central role in the synthesis of
nucleic acid precursors, the essential building blocks of DNA and RNA,
inhibition of these enzymes should limit the growth and proliferation
of bacterial cells. This work seeks to identify inhibitors of
dihydrofolate reductase. A second objective of this work is to develop
polymeric materials for the surface-mediated release of quorum-sensing
modulators. Two approaches are being taken for the surface mediated
release of quorum sensing inhibitors: (1) Encapsulation / release from
thin films of a bulk biocompatible, biodegradable polymer incorporating
inhibitors of Gram-negative quorum sensing (degradation of the polymer
releases the material), and (2) Loading/release from nanostructured
`polymer multilayers.' To date, biocompatible, biodegradable, bulk
polymeric films incorporating inhibitors of Gram-negative quorum
sensing on planar surfaces have been shown to (1) permit controlled
release of quorum sensing inhibitors in biologically relevant media
from hours to days to months, and (2) inhibit (90%) Pseudomonas
aeruginosa film formation over 24-48 hours. ONR has funded highly
successful research in the recent past that identified several
promising inhibitors of a pro-mutagenic protein involved in induced
mutagenesis, which was shown to play a key role in the evolution of
resistance to the synthetic antibiotic ciprofloxacin. Those pro-
mutagenic protein inhibitors were transferred to a commercial
biopharmaceutical company in 2005 based entirely on results generated
under Office of Naval Research funding.
Mr. Maffei. Considering and expanded strategic Department of
Defense vision for Asia and Africa, we note with great interest and
appreciation the emerging military medical research in the areas of
global health, bio-defense, bacterial health, combating bacterial
infections in fixed and mobile military medical facilities and
bacterial translational science. Please share in detail with the
Committee, what research and development is military medicine exploring
regarding molecular roadblocks and protein switches to regulate gene
expression in non-Staphylococcus bacterial infections in order to
develop treatments and therapies independent of antibiotics?
Ms. Miller. The Wound Infection Department of the Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research (WRAIR) has a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA) with the State University of New York,
College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF), Dr.
Christopher Nomura, to explore the development of molecular roadblocks
for an enzyme partially responsible for replicating a bacterial
ribonucleic acid known as rpoN. This collaborative research seeks to
investigate how rpoN regulates protein production in Acinetobacter
baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, two life threatening wound
pathogens frequently associated with multidrug resistant infections in
wounded military personnel. The ultimate goal of the work is to
determine whether rpoN could be blocked by drugs and if so, foster
development of new anti-bacterial drugs that inhibit this enzyme. This
effort was established this year as a small initial effort geared at
obtaining preliminary data to support larger collaborative efforts in
subsequent years.
Mr. Maffei. Considering and expanded strategic Department of
Defense vision for Asia and Africa, we note with great interest and
appreciation the emerging military medical research in the areas of
global health, bio-defense, bacterial health, combating bacterial
infections in fixed and mobile military medical facilities and
bacterial translational science. Please share in detail with the
Committee, what research and development is military medicine exploring
regarding molecular roadblocks and protein switches to regulate gene
expression in non-Staphylococcus bacterial infections in order to
develop treatments and therapies independent of antibiotics?
Admiral Klunder. The Navy Medicine Medical Research and Development
laboratories and clinical centers, including the Naval Medical Research
Center and its seven subordinate labs, are not engaged in any research
or development activities exploring molecular roadblocks and protein
switches to regulate gene expression in non-Staphylococcus bacterial
infections. Specifically, there is no such research being conducted
with a goal to develop treatments and therapies for infections with
such organisms, independent of antibiotics.
Mr. Maffei. Considering and expanded strategic Department of
Defense vision for Asia and Africa, we note with great interest and
appreciation the emerging military medical research in the areas of
global health, bio-defense, bacterial health, combating bacterial
infections in fixed and mobile military medical facilities and
bacterial translational science. Please share in detail with the
Committee, what research and development is military medicine exploring
regarding molecular roadblocks and protein switches to regulate gene
expression in non-Staphylococcus bacterial infections in order to
develop treatments and therapies independent of antibiotics?
Dr. Walker. The Air Force respectfully defers this question to the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs (Defense Health
Program).
Mr. Maffei. Considering and expanded strategic Department of
Defense vision for Asia and Africa, we note with great interest and
appreciation the emerging military medical research in the areas of
global health, bio-defense, bacterial health, combating bacterial
infections in fixed and mobile military medical facilities and
bacterial translational science. Please share in detail with the
Committee, what research and development is military medicine exploring
regarding molecular roadblocks and protein switches to regulate gene
expression in non-Staphylococcus bacterial infections in order to
develop treatments and therapies independent of antibiotics?
Dr. Prabhakar. The DARPA Defense Sciences Office currently supports
significant research efforts to develop treatments and therapies
independent of antibiotics. The Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable
Prevention and Therapeutics (ADEPT) Program is exploring several
approaches that target genetic constructs in order to tune the immune
system response to infections and toxins. The following academic
institutions are pursuing a variety of genetic engineering strategies:
Cornell University: Using synthetic biology to
develop combinatorial genetic switches for high resolution
monitoring of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection and drug
screening in order to develop targeted combination therapies.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Engineering
ribonucleic acid (RNA)-based circuits for controlling timing
and level of expression of antibodies and vaccines produced
from RNA vectors.
Stanford University: Developing RNA-based switches
that can turn expression of antibodies or vaccines from RNA
vectors `on' or `off' in response to delivery of a small
molecule drug.
Harvard University: Using directed evolution to
rapidly generate proteases and antibody-like proteins with the
ability to therapeutically cleave or target any protein of
interest with a high degree of specificity.
California Institute of Technology: Preventing spread
of vector-borne diseases by engineering reversible genetic
methods to introduce genes that mediate disease refractoriness
to high frequency in wild populations.
Additionally, a newer effort will use genetic constructs to express
protective antibodies in the body. This platform technology can be used
as a prophylactic against multiple types of infections or toxins.
Companies and academic institutions are being supported to target
different approaches to antibody expression:
Pfizer, Novartis, CureVac, Moderna, Ragon Institute:
Developing RNA constructs that will express protective
antibodies in the body. Pfizer is developing constructs that
will protect against Burkholderia infection. CureVac is
developing RNA constructs that will express antibodies to
protect against botulinum toxin.
University of Pennsylvania and Ichor: Developing DNA
constructs that will express protective antibodies in the body.
University of Pennsylvania: Developing adenoviral
constructs that will express protective antibodies in the body.
University of Massachusetts: Identifying antibodies
that are protective against enterotoxigenic escherichia coli
(ETEC).
Finally, three companies are supported by Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program funding to discover new methods to treat
resistant or virulent bacteria. These efforts directly target drug-
resistant or toxin-encoding plasmids, while protecting the general
microbiome from harm:
Agave BioSystems: Developing antisense therapeutics
to inhibit drug resistance gene transfer in both gram-positive
and gram-negative bacteria.
UES, Inc.: Exploiting group II introns (novel class
of catalytic RNA) to selectively inactivate genes critical for
plasmid replication and maintenance and/or activate a toxic
payload on inserting into plasmid specific sequences. The
ability to prevent plasmid replication will offer a method to
control the spread of multi-drug resistance.
Ginkgo BioWorks: Controlling antibiotic resistance by
vaccinating bacterial populations using the Clustered Regularly
Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-
associated (Cas) bacterial immune system (stored
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragments that target specific
foreign DNA sequences; Cas genes process the CRISPR RNA to
identify and degrade target DNA).
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN
Mr. Langevin. Certainly we are not the only nation that is
concerned about the advanced A2/AD threats. In your views, are we doing
enough coordination with our allies on research and development of
directed energy systems?
Mr. Shaffer. Yes, I am confident that the Department is engaged
with our allies in research on directed energy systems. The Department
has been coordinating with our allies on directed energy (at both
unclassified and classified levels) for well over two decades.
Recently, coordination has been expanded, primarily because of
advancements in High Energy (Electric) Lasers and Radio-Frequency
Weapons science and technology. In addition, the increasingly
constrained fiscal environment provides strong impetus to coordinate
with allies who are able to advance directed energy technology. The
mechanisms used for this coordination are: (1) bilateral agreements;
(2) NATO-Research and Technology (RTO) System Concept & Integration
(SCI) Panel work; and (3) an Action Group under The Technology
Cooperation Program (TTCP). In fact, the Science and Technology
Executives of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand, established this last group in the fall of 2012. The
nature of the coordination may change in scope, as technology matures
and/or budgets change, but the personnel contacts are in place, and
they are actively engaged in exploring avenues for further cooperation.
Mr. Langevin. How concerned are you about the DOD's STEM education
pipeline? In your views, is DOD doing enough to nurture the next
generation of STEM professionals?
Mr. Shaffer. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Langevin. Relating to the health of the DOD Labs and R&D
Workforce, how would you characterize the health of these areas,
particularly as we factor in the effects of sequestration?
Mr. Shaffer and Dr. Prabhakar. While the Department currently has
both good laboratories and a strong R&D workforce, I do have some
concerns about the future health of the labs and most importantly, the
health of the lab R&D workforce. As will be seen in the DOD Human
Capital Workforce Strategic Plan, the overall workforce continues to
age and impending retirements of key personnel remains a concern. We
surveyed each of our labs and found lab directors are concerned about
the potential loss of leading scientists and engineers in areas of
critical need to their labs. Normally loss of senior or essential S&Es
is troublesome but given the authorities granted to the Science and
Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRLs), directors can plan for the
replacement of retirees or quickly hire to replace an unexpected loss.
However, these are not normal times. With the prolonged pay freeze,
travel restrictions, limitations on conference attendance, and
potential reductions in force, the retention and hiring of S&Es is
growing more difficult. As the national economy improves, defense labs
may not be able to compete for top talent nor will they be able to
retain their best S&Es.
Our laboratories represent a unique personnel element of the
Department. To ensure they can stay on the leading edge of science,
technology and engineering developments, they depend on the ability to
travel to professional meetings, maintain their labs with essential
equipment, have access to technical journals and other items considered
essential in the routine performance of technical work. Many of these
activities have simply been lost or are no longer available because of
the restricted budgets. These facts along with those stated above could
result in an overall decline in the technical health of our labs.
Mr. Langevin. Relating to the health of the DOD Labs and R&D
Workforce, how would you characterize the health of these areas,
particularly as we factor in the effects of sequestration?
Ms. Miller. The Army laboratories are, on average, 50 years old
with minor facility functional/configuration deficiencies that have
minimal impact on the capability to support the organizations' required
missions. Sequestration will have a direct impact on the laboratories
as the amount of sustainment, restoration, and modernization funding
available to the laboratories is reduced.
The average age of the Research and Development workforce is 45
years old. Periods of budget uncertainty to include sequestration are
having a negative impact on our ability to recruit and retain the best
scientists and engineers. Compounding this uncertainty with a reduction
in the ability to travel and restrictions on conference attendance has
been especially harmful to the professional development of younger
scientists and engineers and is already resulting in their departure
from our Government labs.
Mr. Langevin. Certainly we are not the only nation that is
concerned about the advanced A2/AD threats. In your views, are we doing
enough coordination with our allies on research and development of
directed energy systems?
Ms. Miller. Yes, the Army is working with many of our allies on
research and technology development of directed energy systems. The
Army has periodic technical discussions and interactions on directed
energy topics of mutual interest with the United Kingdom, Canada and
Australia in coordination with the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering High Energy
Laser Joint Technology Office (HEL JTO). The Army is working with the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization to define current, near term, and
far term directed energy capabilities for High Power Microwaves (HPM)
and Lasers as well as non-lethal capabilities for the dismounted
soldier.
The Army has been working with Japan, Germany, and Israel in the
High Energy Laser area and recently contributed to a HEL JTO-led
assessment of Germany's thin disc laser technology. The Army is working
with Japan and South Korea on non-nuclear electro-magnetic pulse
technologies and components in support of explosive pulsed power HPM.
The Army also is working with Sweden to investigate the susceptibility
of counter-mine/counter-improvised explosive device systems to radio
frequency and HPM waveforms.
Mr. Langevin. As you know, this subcommittee has authorized several
pieces legislation over the past 5 years intended to improve the health
of the laboratories. Section 219 in the FY09 NDAA authorized the use of
funds to support various local initiatives. We also reauthorized and
raised the spending limits in the Laboratory Revitalization
Demonstration Project (LRDP) which is intended to support minor milcon
projects. Could you tell the committee how you use 219 and LRDP to
improve the conditions of your labs. More importantly, please let us
know where we might improve on those authorities.
Ms. Miller. The expansion of the Section 219 authority that
included minor military construction as one of the acceptable
categories of use has allowed the laboratories to fund 27 projects
related to their core competencies across six laboratories. These
projects, using the LDRP authority, range from the construction of
additional research space to building modifications made to address
safety concerns. Full details on the Army's use of Section 219 funds
are available in the annual Report to Congress, which was delivered to
the Congressional Defense Committees by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense on April 10, 2013.
At this time, no additional authorities are sought as the
organizations continue to exercise the existing flexibilities
authorized via Section 219. The Army looks forward to working with
Congress to review any proposed changes to the Section 219
authorization.
Mr. Langevin. How concerned are you about the DOD's STEM education
pipeline? In your views, is DOD doing enough to nurture the next
generation of STEM professionals?
Ms. Miller. The Army is concerned with the growing demand on
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) competencies,
the global competitiveness for STEM talent, and the unbalanced
representation of our nation's demographics in STEM fields. The Army is
not only concerned with the percent of Army Science and Technology
occupations requiring STEM skilled talent, but also with the workforce
as a whole, which is dependent on STEM competencies that are in demand
both within and outside traditional STEM occupations. The Army, through
the Army Educational Outreach Program (AEOP), continues to address
building the pipeline of STEM professionals by providing our future
generation access to Army unique capabilities, which include our
technical STEM professionals and research facilities. To effectively
nurture the next generation of STEM professionals, the objective of
AEOP is to develop a diverse, agile and highly competent STEM talent
pool, representative of our nation's demographics, that supplies the
Army and the broader Defense Industrial Base workforce initiatives.
Mr. Langevin. Relating to the health of the DOD Labs and R&D
Workforce, how would you characterize the health of these areas,
particularly as we factor in the effects of sequestration?
Admiral Klunder. The DON has historically made deliberate and
measured investments to ensure stability within the organic workforce
to ensure continuity of technical capabilities. The DON has emphasized
having our Laboratories and Warfare Centers actively engaged during the
early development stage. Over the last year the DON has performed an
extensive strategic review of our research, development, test, and
evaluation (RDT&E) resources, including Laboratory and Warfare Center
technical workforce and their critical infrastructure. This baseline of
the `as is' technical capabilities and capacities of our Laboratory and
Warfare Center infrastructure will enable an integrated assessment of
the RDT&E capabilities. We will use this assessment to prioritize our
investments in this period of tightening
budgets.
Mr. Langevin. Certainly we are not the only nation that is
concerned about the advanced A2/AD threats. In your views, are we doing
enough coordination with our allies on research and development of
directed energy systems?
Admiral Klunder. Yes, we are working with our allies on research
and development of directed energy systems. The U.S. Navy coordinates
their directed energy weapons science and technology research, as with
many extracurricular initiatives, through the Navy International
Programs Office (NIPO), as a part of the Office of Naval Research (ONR)
Global outreach program. Separate meetings have been held in 2013 with
representatives from the Ministry of Defense (MoD) offices from the
United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan. While additional coordination is
potentially possible, the limited requirements for other countries to
address advanced A2/AD threats seen by U.S. Forces, and their relative
immaturity of DE Technologies, suggests sufficient coordination is and
shall occur within the ONR Global program in both the near term, and
longer terms.
Mr. Langevin. As you know, this subcommittee has authorized several
pieces legislation over the past 5 years intended to improve the health
of the laboratories. Section 219 in the FY09 NDAA authorized the use of
funds to support various local initiatives. We also reauthorized and
raised the spending limits in the Laboratory Revitalization
Demonstration Project (LRDP) which is intended to support minor milcon
projects. Could you tell the committee how you use 219 and LRDP to
improve the conditions of your labs. More importantly, please let us
know where we might improve on those authorities.
Admiral Klunder. Section 219 has allowed the Naval Laboratory and
Warfare Centers to revitalize and refresh technical capabilities
through hands-on basic and applied research initiatives, pre-milestone
``A'' technology transition and workforce development. Under workforce
development it has allowed scientists and engineers to pursue advanced
degrees, certifications, mission critical training, and has allowed the
Navy to recruit and retain top technical talent.
It has enabled our laboratory directors to focus technical
resources on technology transition opportunities where a warfighter
need has been identified. The DON is continuing to investigate the most
effective way to use the minor military construction (MILCON)
authority. Under workforce development many warfare centers pursue
projects which group under an area entitled ``strategic growth'' which
is adding new laboratory capabilities. In this area, projects are often
reviewed with the Capital Improvement Proposals (CIP) to see how SEC
219 might complement the effort. For instance, SEC 219 funds the major
equipment purchase and associated training while CIP funds the
infrastructure and construction of the required spaces. Examples of
growth areas and new labs funded in this manner include: labs devoted
to scanning electron microscope, biaxial testing of composites, and
noise measurements and Naval Power Avionics and Thermal (NPATH)
Laboratory Development, Integration, Analysis and Testing. As the
program continues to mature, we anticipate more opportunities to use
this authority.
Over the last several years, the DON has been able to grow and
mature the Section 219 program so that it has become a critical,
reliable and discretionary source of investment in areas most critical
to understand the technical dimensions of near, mid and far term
military challenges. We want to thank you for extending the sunset
clause until 2016 and encourage you to make this a permanent
authorization.
Mr. Langevin. How concerned are you about the DOD's STEM education
pipeline? In your views, is DOD doing enough to nurture the next
generation of STEM professionals?
Admiral Klunder. We are concerned about the DOD STEM education
pipeline. The Department of the Navy (DON) is working in coordination
with DOD and national initiatives in STEM. Our plan is to engage early
and often, especially in areas where we project shortfalls and in
communities that are underrepresented. The DON plans to continue its
investment in a broad range of STEM education programs aimed at
strengthening the DON's future S&T workforce. Engaging students across
the education spectrum is critical to ensure that we have ample
pipelines of future STEM talent. The majority of DON STEM investments
are at the college through post-doctoral levels. Programs provide
naval-relevant research and employment opportunities to students likely
to pursue a career within the DON or DOD industry. Efforts include
internships, scholarships and research fellowships often located at
naval labs and warfare centers.
Mr. Langevin. Relating to the health of the DOD Labs and R&D
Workforce, how would you characterize the health of these areas,
particularly as we factor in the effects of sequestration?
Dr. Walker. The Air Force recognizes the importance of innovation
and has therefore continued to invest in science and technology even
during these times of budgetary constraints to ensure that the future
balance of power remains in our favor. The health of the Air Force
Research Laboratory (AFRL) infrastructure and scientist and engineer
(S&E) workforce is good.
The laboratory infrastructure is a cornerstone for enabling the
required research and development necessary to maintain U.S.
technological superiority. The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
effort successfully completed in September 2011 and provided several
new, state-of-the-art facilities within AFRL. The Air Force has also
used the authorities granted by Section 219 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, as
amended by Section 2801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY 2010, to fund upgrades to internal AFRL facilities. A recent
analysis of AFRL infrastructure as directed by Senate Report 112-173 to
accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
concluded that 90 percent of AFRL-occupied assets are classified as at
least ``Good'' or ``Fair'' according to DOD criteria. The Air Force
continues to be vigilant and upgrades S&T infrastructure in a timely
manner so that major research and programs are not put at risk due to
aging facilities. Maintaining high-quality laboratory facilities is
critical to remaining on the cutting edge of S&T and supporting the
innovation necessary for the future. Having the most state-of-the-art
laboratory facilities is futile without the right people to conduct the
research inside the walls. The success of the Air Force S&T Program
depends on an agile, capable workforce that leads cutting-edge
research, explores emerging technology areas, and promotes innovation
across government, industry and academia.The Air Force must attract,
access and retain our nation's best and brightest, and equip them
through education, training and experience. The Air Force continues to
execute the Bright Horizons STEM workforce strategic roadmap published
in 2011. This roadmap addresses the ``people'' dimension of delivering
and operating required technology by having the right STEM qualified
people in the right place, at the right time, and with the right
skills.
The total impact of sequestration in FY13 and beyond remains
unclear for the Air Force S&T enterprise at this time; however, there
are currently research efforts which are being delayed, re-scoped or
terminated. The Air Force will continue to diligently monitor the
health and status of the laboratory infrastructure and workforce and
ensure the Air Force is poised to retain superiority in air, space and
cyberspace.
Mr. Langevin. Certainly we are not the only nation that is
concerned about the advanced A2/AD threats. In your views, are we doing
enough coordination with our allies on research and development of
directed energy systems?
Dr. Walker. Yes. The Air Force coordinates research with U.S.
Allies in several areas of directed energy components such as fiber
lasers and other types of solid state lasers. In fact, the Air Force
relies on Allies for some of these unique components and materials. Due
to classification restrictions, further detail on directed energy
coordination cannot be provided in this response.
Mr. Langevin. How concerned are you about the DOD's STEM education
pipeline? In your views, is DOD doing enough to nurture the next
generation of STEM professionals?
Dr. Walker. Nurturing the next generation of STEM professionals is
an Air Force, DOD and National concern. There is a worldwide
competition for STEM talent. The Air Force recognizes it is critical
for us get out into the local communities and encourage students to
study math and science. The U.S. Air Force is the most technologically
advanced air force in the world; therefore recruiting, retaining and
developing a STEM workforce is a top priority. Innovative and
technically-savvy Airmen are our most important asset.
To this end, the Air Force has successfully used tools such as the
Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART)
Scholarship Program. Over the past eight years, the Air Force has
averaged providing 60 scholarships per year to scientists and
engineers. After payback of the recipient's commitment, the Air Force
has retained 88 percent of scholars in Air Force jobs. In addition, the
Information Assurance Internship provided through authorities granted
in Section 219 of the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, annually
funds 10 to 20 college juniors and seniors in STEM disciplines to study
the science of information assurance and information warfare on Air
Force problems.
The Air Force also continues to execute the Bright Horizons STEM
workforce strategic roadmap published in 2011. This roadmap addresses
the ``people'' dimension of delivering and operating required
technology by having the right STEM qualified people in the right
place, at the right time, and with the right skills.
Mr. Langevin. Certainly we are not the only nation that is
concerned about the advanced A2/AD threats. In your views, are we doing
enough coordination with our allies on research and development of
directed energy systems?
Dr. Prabhakar. Yes. DARPA, in concert with the Department of
Defense, has been coordinating with our allies on Directed Energy (at
both unclassified and classified levels) for well over two decades.
Recently, coordination has been expanded primarily because of
advancements in High Energy (Electric) Lasers and Radio-Frequency
Weapons Science and Technology (S&T), and because of the constrained
fiscal environment. The mechanisms used for this coordination are: (1)
bilateral agreement; (2) NATO-Research and Technology (RTO) System
Concept & Integration (SCI) Panel work; and (3) Action Group under The
Technology Cooperation Program (TTCP). The nature of the coordination
may change in scope, as technology matures and/or budgets and
priorities change, but the personnel contacts are in place and actively
engaged to accommodate change.
Mr. Langevin. How concerned are you about the DOD's STEM education
pipeline? In your views, is DOD doing enough to nurture the next
generation of STEM professionals?
Dr. Prabhakar. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]