[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-145]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAMS
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 23, 2010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-701 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, Chairwoman
ADAM SMITH, Washington JEFF MILLER, Florida
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JIM COOPER, Tennessee K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
Tim McClees, Professional Staff Member
Alex Kugajevsky, Professional Staff Member
Andrew Tabler, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2010
Page
Hearing:
Tuesday, March 23, 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense
Authorization Act--Budget Request for Department of Defense's
Science and Technology Programs................................ 1
Appendix:
Tuesday, March 23, 2010.......................................... 25
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010
FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST FOR
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Miller, Hon. Jeff, a Representative from Florida, Ranking Member,
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee 3
Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California,
Chairwoman, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee................................................... 1
WITNESSES
Carr, Rear Adm. Nevin P., Jr., Chief of Naval Research, Director,
Test and Evaluation and Technology Requirements, U.S. Navy..... 7
Dugan, Dr. Regina E., Director, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, Department of Defense......................... 10
Killion, Dr. Thomas H., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Research and Technology, U.S. Army......................... 5
Lemnios, Hon. Zachary J., Director, Defense Research and
Engineering, Department of Defense............................. 3
Walker, Dr. Stephen H., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Science, Technology and Engineering, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, U.S. Air Force............ 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Carr, Rear Adm. Nevin P., Jr................................. 62
Dugan, Dr. Regina E.......................................... 96
Killion, Dr. Thomas H........................................ 53
Lemnios, Hon. Zachary J...................................... 34
Miller, Hon. Jeff............................................ 32
Sanchez, Hon. Loretta........................................ 29
Walker, Dr. Stephen H........................................ 79
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST FOR
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 23, 2010.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:44 p.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Mike McIntyre
presiding.
Mr. McIntyre. [Presiding.] Good afternoon. I am Mike
McIntyre from North Carolina, vice chairman of the Subcommittee
on Terrorism. In the interests of honoring your time, I have
been asked to go ahead and convene the meeting. I think the
Chairwoman, Ms. Sanchez, will be here shortly. But we welcome
the witnesses today. Because of the voting schedule, in the
interests of time, we would like to go ahead and proceed with
your testimony. She may have an opening statement, which we
will certainly honor when she comes, but in the meantime, we
welcome our distinguished panel.
And here comes Madam Chairman as we convene.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS
AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
Ms. Sanchez. [Presiding.] First of all, let me thank Mr.
McIntyre for so ably opening this session, and also to my
colleague to the left of me right now, but typically to the
right, for representing the Republicans in this hearing today.
I would like to welcome you all and thank you for joining
us today to receive testimony on the Department of Defense's
[DOD] science and technology [S&T] policies and for the fiscal
year 2011 budget request for the S&T programs within the Office
of the Secretary of Defense.
The Department's S&T program supports Defense requirements
for superior future warfighting capabilities by developing
needed technology enhancements as well as rapidly transitioning
critical technologies to our warfighter, interagency, and
international partners, and the industrial base. I hope you
gentlemen and ladies can tell us in real English everything
that you have got planned.
Over the last couple of years, Secretary Gates has
challenged the old business and operational paradigm of the
Department of Defense that was developed during the Cold War.
And in a strategic environment in which the United States will
continue to prosecute persistent hybrid threats while
simultaneously dealing with larger near-peer competitors, as
well as the myriad of unconventional and irregular threats,
this S&T Department enterprise must be responsive and robust
enough to hedge against uncertainty. The S&T investment should
be flexible and balanced to address emerging challenges such as
cyber warfare, force protection and energy, as well as
breakthroughs in long-established areas like medical
technology, platform survivability and sustainability, ISR
[Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance], and
environmental remediation.
Not only must these investments maintain our technological
superiority, but it must also fund innovative ways to rapidly
field these technologies at affordable prices.
So the DOD laboratory system and the scientific workforce
has traditionally kept the United States at the forefront of
technological advances. But as we have seen in the last few
years, some would say that we have fallen behind. DOD senior
officials have testified that the Department's science and
engineering workforce has experienced an attrition of more than
13,000 personnel over the last 10 years, while the demands for
that same workforce are projected to increase by over 10
percent in the next 5 years.
And I know that we are doing a lot with STEM [science,
technology, engineering and math] and other issues to try to
get the next generation up, but we are really at that place
where we need to think about who do we have, what can we have,
and where do we go from here. And let's fund it correctly. So a
solid S&T base is not only a prerequisite for remaining a
strong military, but I think it is an absolute necessity for
our Nation's security.
So today we have five witnesses before us who represent key
leaders in the Department of Defense, who are responsible for
discovering, developing, engineering, and fielding innovative
technologies that give our warfighters that capability edge.
First, we have the Honorable Zachary Lemnios, who is the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering [DDR&E] for the
Department of Defense; along with Dr. Thomas Killion, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology.
We have Rear Admiral Nevin Carr, Jr., Chief of Naval
Research and Director of Test and Evaluation and Technology
Requirements; Dr. Steven Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering; and Dr.
Regina Dugan, Director of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, or DARPA.
Once again, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for
being here today, and I look forward to hearing your
testimonies. And of course our very able members, my
colleagues, will have many questions for you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
Ms. Sanchez. And I would like to now yield to my Ranking
Member from Florida, Mr. Miller, for his opening statement.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA,
RANKING MEMBER, TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND
CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Miller. I thank you for yielding and thank you,
gentlemen, and Dr. Dugan, for being here today. I do want to
say that this subcommittee did hold a hearing in May of last
year on science and technology investments. And I was
concerned, expressed concern at that time because of the
Secretary's decision to reshape the investment priorities of
the Department, because we had the 2010 budget, but we didn't
have a QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review]. Now we have them both,
but I still remain concerned as to where we are going, as the
Chairwoman has also said, in regards to the expenditure.
And Secretary Gates is maintaining, as I understand, a
focus on 6.1 and 6.2 investments. These basic and applied
research areas are, as I feel, the building blocks of leap-
ahead technologies and capabilities that our military is going
to be using more and more as we proceed down this road over the
next decade. So they certainly do need to be a part of our
military strategy.
I have a full statement that I would like entered into the
record. But in view of time, I would like to just ask unanimous
consent that it be entered into the record.
Ms. Sanchez. So ordered. Again, thank you to my ranking
member.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller can be found in the
Appendix on page 32.]
Ms. Sanchez. And I think we will start with the testimony.
I will remind our witnesses that we would like to have you
summarize your written testimony. All of it is in front of us.
And I am sure that some of us got to read this, at least part
of it, if it was turned in on time.
And I will start with Secretary Zach Lemnios for your five
minutes or less.
STATEMENT OF HON. ZACHARY J. LEMNIOS, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Secretary Lemnios. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Sanchez,
Ranking Member Miller, and subcommittee members. I would ask
that my written testimony be entered into the record. Thank you
for the opportunity to tell you about the important work the
dedicated men and women in the Department Research and
Engineering enterprise perform every day to ensure our Nation's
security. The enterprise is strong. It includes 67 DOD
laboratories disbursed across 22 States, with a total workforce
of 61,400 employees, 35,000 of which are degreed scientists and
engineers who publish thousands of reports in peer-reviewed
technical papers, keeping the Department at the forefront.
We operate 10 federally funded research and development
centers, 13 university-affiliated research centers, and 10
information analysis centers across critical disciplines for
the Department. Their success would not have been possible
without Congress' help. And you have our heartfelt thanks for
your steadfast support of our program.
From my vantage point as the Department's chief technology
officer, I see us in a period of significant change brought
about by a global world that is fast paced, technically
connected, and remarkably innovative. The research and
engineering enterprise is transforming itself to meet the
challenges of this new era.
Innovation, speed, and agility--these are more important
today than at any time in history. And nowhere is this more
true than in how we deliver capabilities to our warfighters.
For decades, the Department could rely on a long-term
development model that produced the underpinning technologies
that led to impressive capabilities such as stealth aircraft,
precision weapons, and reconnaissance and positioning
satellites.
However, today this linear development approach must be
augmented by a parallel and equally robust development process
that will deliver capabilities along commercial timelines of
weeks and months. This is particularly true for cybersecurity,
where innovation occurs rapidly and we need to stay well ahead
of the threat.
The fast-paced world creates new challenges, but also new
opportunities. It has led to a renewed role of the Department's
science and technology programs. We are energized to quickly
provide innovative new technical ideas across the spectrum of
operations to fulfill the Secretary of Defense's goal to take
care of our people, rebalance the Department's programs to
fight the wars that we are in, while preparing for the future
and reform how and what we buy. Detailed examples of this work
are in my written testimony and in the testimony of my
colleagues that you will hear today.
The Department's research and engineering efforts are well
coordinated, they are connected with our forces on the front
lines. I visited the combatant commanders and am pleased to
report that we are working together, soldiers and
technologists, in new ways to out-innovate those that challenge
our Nation's security.
To focus our efforts, I have set four imperatives for the
enterprise:
They are, first, to accelerate the delivery of technical
capabilities to win the current fight. Innovation such as what
we are doing with Congress' support to deploy within months new
survivability capabilities for our helicopters in Afghanistan
is the new norm. We have also reduced the time it takes to move
an innovative idea from first principle to concept from up to
60 months to 12 months or less in our Joint Concept Technology
Demonstration program.
Second, prepare for the uncertain future. Again, with your
help we are increasing our basic research accounts by nearly
ten percent to increase the feedstock of future capabilities.
We have also proposed a new Cybersecurity Research Initiative
of $200 million over 5 years to ensure our forces have the
capabilities to survive and operate successfully in the
increasingly important information domain.
Third, reduce the cost, acquisition time, and risk of our
major Defense acquisition programs. This was the underpinning
of the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act that was passed
about a year ago and we are actively engaged upon.
And fourth, we strive to develop a world-class science,
technology, engineering and math capability for the Department
and for the Nation, to assure that we have scientists and
engineers that can support national security initiatives 5, 10,
15, and 20 years from now. With these initiatives and with your
support, I intend to further strengthen the contributions
research and engineering can make for the Department's success
in the years ahead.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for my opportunity to present
these ideas today in these brief remarks, and I look forward to
your questions.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank the Director.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Lemnios can be found
in the Appendix on page 34.]
Ms. Sanchez. I will just let my colleagues know that in
about an hour's time it looks like we will have votes, and they
will go on for a full hour. So we are going to try to get
everything in. Again, if the witnesses will adhere to the five-
minute rule.
And I will also let Mr. Murphy of New York know that I will
give him my time, so he will be the first one to ask questions
if he sticks around. Dr. Killion, please.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS H. KILLION, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. ARMY
Dr. Killion. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Miller and
other distinguished members of the subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Army's fiscal
year 2011 science and technology program and budget and the
significant role that S&T plays in supporting the Army's most
precious asset: That is our soldiers.
I have submitted a written statement for the record and ask
that it be accepted for the record.
I want to thank the members of this committee for your
important role in supporting our soldiers who are at war today,
and for your advocacy of the Army's S&T investments that will
sustain technological preeminence for our future soldiers. Your
continued support is vital to our success.
The Army's S&T investment strategy is shaped to foster
innovation while we accelerate and mature technologies that
enable future force capabilities and exploit opportunities to
rapidly transition technology to the current force. The S&T
program retains flexibility to be responsive to unforeseen
needs identified through current operations, and we have
rapidly responded to a broad range of needs by leveraging our
technology investments in future capabilities and our workforce
expertise to address emerging issues.
Our major investments in the core S&T program are best
understood in terms of technology areas. In my written
testimony I detail five of those areas.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk specifically
about two major new investments we are making in fiscal year
2011, as well as some of the important work that we are doing
in medical research and in ongoing basic research. As you know,
the United States military's deployment in Afghanistan is
increasingly reliant on smaller, remote bases, often integrated
within or nearby local communities. Providing force protection
for these types of bases poses unique challenges.
The Army S&T community is leading a Deployable Force
Protection Initiative on behalf of the Department of Defense to
address these challenges, with an additional investment of
nearly $170 million over fiscal years 2011 through 2015. This
effort is focused on providing integrated, interoperable and
scalable base protection capabilities, including stand-off
detection, ballistic protection, and fire and defensive
solutions. With this additional investment, Army S&T is
spending approximately $250 million over that same period on
technologies to protect our troops as they deploy around the
world.
Our investments in C4ISR [command, control, communications,
computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance]
technologies are essential for maintaining comprehensive
situational awareness, effective allocation of resources, and
supporting rapid decision-making in the challenging
environments we face in irregular warfare.
For fiscal year 2011, the Army is making significant new
investments in Infrared Focal Plane Array technology. Again,
the Army's S&T community has been asked to lead this Focal
Plane Array Initiative on behalf of the Department of Defense.
In fiscal years 2011 to 2015 the Army's Focal Plane Array
Investment is increased by $94 million, to result in an overall
investment of over $160 million in the next 5 years to develop
critical applications for targeting, persistent surveillance,
360-degree day/night situational awareness, and high-definition
night vision. This focused investment ensures the United
States' preeminence in this technology area and continued
dominance on the battlefield.
Our investment in medical S&T provides the basis for
maintaining the physical and mental health of soldiers, as well
as enhancing their performance. Investments in this area
improve health protection, treatment, and life-saving
interventions for our soldiers. Of particular note is the
Army's investment in regenerative medicine. This research seeks
to discover better ways to prevent and treat damage due to
burns and to develop methods that will allow the regeneration
of nerve, bone, and muscle tissue in those soldiers who have
suffered serious tissue loss. This capability has great
potential for treating military personnel with disfiguring and
disabling injuries.
While much of our focus on S&T is necessarily on the near-
and mid-term future, we have also sustained our commitment to
basic research with paradigm-shifting capabilities that will
change the battlefield for the future.
In closing, I would like to thank you, Madam Chairwoman,
and the rest of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
regarding the Army's S&T program and for your continued support
for the technologies that will enable our soldiers both today
and tomorrow. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Doctor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Killion can be found in the
Appendix on page 53.]
Ms. Sanchez. Now we will hear from Rear Admiral Carr, Jr.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. NEVIN P. CARR, JR., CHIEF OF NAVAL
RESEARCH, DIRECTOR, TEST AND EVALUATION AND TECHNOLOGY
REQUIREMENTS, U.S. NAVY
Admiral Carr. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, Mr.
Miller, members of the committee. It is an honor to report on
the Department of the Navy's science and technology and how the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget supports the Navy and
Marine Corps.
The fiscal year 2011 budget requests $1.96 billion for
Naval S&T: naval, for both Navy and Marine Corps. To support a
Navy and Marine Corps capable of prevailing against any threat,
ONR [the Office of Naval Research] must focus on S&T that
provides the biggest future payoff, be innovative in our
business practices, and improve constantly our ability to
transition S&T to programs and to the fleet.
S&T highlights include development of novel man-machine
interfaces, autonomous systems that separate warfighters from
hazards, and increased mission effectiveness. This emphasis on
autonomy and unmanned systems is embedded throughout the S&T
portfolio. Technologies to reduce total ownership costs and
improve system performance are also embedded across our S&T
portfolio. By reducing costs while improving training and skill
maintenance, S&T contributes to affordability in acquisition
throughout the life-cycle of systems and platforms.
ONR continues to invest in technologies to increase energy
efficiency, enhance platform endurance, and reduce dependence
on fossil fuels. These efforts directly support the Navy's
energy strategy and the Secretary of the Navy's energy goals.
We tend to focus on programs, but we face another S&T
challenge. When Congress established the Naval Research
Laboratory after World War I and ONR after World War II, the
U.S. was the undisputed leader in world S&T. But that landscape
continues to change, and we must keep a close watch on S&T in
the international environment.
This isn't new. Our London office was created to keep an
eye on European S&T in 1946. We have also established offices
in Tokyo, Santiago, Singapore, and recently in Prague. We
search the globe for emerging research and technologies that
enable ONR to more effectively address current U.S. naval needs
and future requirements, and, importantly, to avoid
technological surprise.
Our efforts are coordinated with the other services and
with DDR&E. Our partnership with DDR&E and the other services
is critical. We are all challenged to accelerate the fielding
of new capabilities, prepare for an uncertain future, in part
through fusing an avalanche of data into an advantage in
decision-making, do a better job of moving S&T into acquisition
programs with less cost, time, and risk, and continue to
develop the world-class science, technology, engineering, and
math education required by our country and the Department of
Defense.
I have discussed ONR's contribution to these efforts in my
prepared testimony. In short, we continue moving toward greater
integration of capabilities, more effective partnership between
research and acquisition, and a clearer vision of how to
achieve shared goals among the services and government
organizations, including the Departments of Agriculture,
Energy, and the National Science Foundation.
We have S&T partnerships in 70 countries, all 50 States,
900 academic institutions, 1,000 points in industry hiring
about 3,000 principal investigators, and under them, about
another 3,300 Ph.D. students.
While the majority of our investments are with performers
outside the Navy's R&D [Research and Development] system, we
continue to nurture world-class skills and innovation in our
own labs, and especially at the Naval Research Laboratory
[NRL]. The talent resident at NRL is especially precious. We
recently retired Dr. and Mrs. Jerome Karle, who came to NRL
from the Manhattan Project back in the 1950s and, together,
represented over 120 years of combined government service.
While at NRL, Dr. Karle was awarded the Nobel Prize in
chemistry. Talent like that is hard to replace.
The support of this committee has been especially critical
in providing us the tools we need to build and nourish S&T in
the workforce. Thank you very much for that.
My deputy behind me, Marine Corps Brigadier General Bob
Hedlund and I believe our S&T investments are sound, they
represent careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and will
significantly enhance the safety and performance of our
warfighters today and in the future. Thanks very much for your
support, and we look forward to answering your questions.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Admiral.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Carr can be found in the
Appendix on page 62.]
Ms. Sanchez. And now we will hear from Dr. Walker.
STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN H. WALKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ACQUISITION, U.S. AIR
FORCE
Dr. Walker. Thank you, Chairwoman Sanchez, members of the
subcommittee, and staff. I am pleased to have the opportunity
to provide testimony to you today on the fiscal year 2011 Air
Force science and technology program. The Air Force S&T program
provides the critical capabilities, global vigilance, global
reach, and global power necessary to prevail in today's complex
and uncertain security environment.
At approximately $2.2 billion, the fiscal year 2011
President's budget request for S&T includes an increase of $12
million from last year. This investment sustains a strong
foundation of basic research, applied research, and advanced
technology development, to obtain a balance between the near-
term capability support and revolutionary technologies that
address far-term warfighting needs.
The Air Force continuously strives to effectively and
efficiently allocate its S&T resources to provide the
warfighter with superior air, space, and cyberspace
capabilities, and ensure the technological superiority that is
the centerpiece of our Air Force heritage.
I would like to take a minute to introduce myself to the
committee, since this is the first time testifying before you.
I became the Air Force S&T exec just last month, but I am not
new to the Defense S&T world. I began my career at the Air
Force Research Lab in Dayton, Ohio, where I spent ten years
working on hypersonics and airframe propulsion integration
technologies. After receiving a Ph.D., I transferred to AFOSR
[the Air Force Office of Scientific Research], where I ran a
6.1 basic research program, and then went on to serve as
special assistant to DDR&E in the Pentagon. Former DARPA
Director Tony Tether asked me to come over. And I have spent
the last seven months working for Dr. Regina Dugan. And it has
been a pleasure.
In my short time as the Air Force S&T exec, I have worked
closely with the new commander of Air Force Research Lab, Major
General Ellen Pawlikowski, to ensure the Air Force S&T program
is postured to support the Air Force strategic priorities. We
stood up an Air Force S&T tiger team with members from across
the Air Force S&T products center and MAJCOM [Major Command]
communities to develop a new strategy and a new S&T planning
process that better aligns our S&T capability concepts with our
service corps function, warfighter needs for the future.
The Air Force S&T program does a very good job at creating
knowledge, applying that knowledge to develop advanced
technologies, and then transitioning those technologies to
industry and our acquisition product centers. I believe we need
to do a better job in the future of integrating those advanced
technologies and develop and demonstrate desired warfighting
capabilities. And we will certainly work with others like
DARPA, the services, and NASA [the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration] to help realize that vision.
The current Air Force S&T fiscal year 2011 President's
budget already supports several of our service corps function
areas. And I would just like to talk about one or two.
The Air Force is working with DARPA to develop technologies
that will culminate in the demonstration of an electric laser
on a large aircraft. It is really built around DARPA's HELLADS
[High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System] laser device.
After HELLADS is complete, the Air Force will couple it to a
beam control system for a series of ground demos, followed by
the integration of a system module into a B-1 aircraft. ELLA
[Electric Laser on Large Aircraft], the program name, will be
used to demonstrate aircraft self-defense capabilities of a
high-energy electric laser in a practical platform.
To achieve S&T objectives like this and others requires a
vibrant science and engineering workforce and a healthy lab
environment in which to work. The Air Force S&T program is
committed to developing and caring for over 3,000 scientists
and engineers. This commitment is reflected in the utilization
of various flexibilities afforded the Air Force under the
Laboratory Personnel Demonstration Project and other workforce
development initiatives.
Our fiscal year 2011 budget proposal enables us to recruit,
develop, mentor, and retain the best and brightest scientists
and engineers. And our budget request allows us to develop the
workforce of the future through a myriad of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics outreach programs and
initiatives.
One I am particularly excited about is Air Camp in Dayton,
Ohio, which maybe I will have a chance to talk to you about. In
addition, the Air Force is using the authority provided by
section 219 that enables laboratory directors to use up to
three percent of the funds available to them for discretionary
efforts in support of military missions. And we are
particularly happy with the lab revitalization and
recapitalization part of that authority that was passed in
2010. It allowed us to improve our facilities.
In conclusion, the mission of the United States Air Force
is to fly, fight, and win in airspace and cyberspace. As an
integral member of the joint team to ensure our Nation's
freedom and security, guided by our strategic priorities and
our emerging service core functions, our S&T program provides
the balance necessary to ensure support for today's warfighter,
while posturing for success against tomorrow's complex and
uncertain future.
Chairwoman Sanchez, thank you again for the opportunity to
present testimony. Thank you for your support of the Air Force
S&T program.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Dr. Walker.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Walker can be found in the
Appendix on page 79.]
Ms. Sanchez. And now we will have Dr. Dugan.
Is that Regina? OK.
STATEMENT OF DR. REGINA E. DUGAN, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ADVANCED
RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dr. Dugan. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Miller,
and members of the subcommittee, Mr. Lemnios, distinguished
colleagues. My name is Regina Dugan, and I am the Director of
DARPA. I am proud to be here, and I am clear about the weight
of my responsibility.
Over the 50 years of its existence, DARPA has achievements
ranging from the Internet to stealth, from GPS [Global
Positioning System] satellites to MEMS [Micro Electro-
mechanical Systems] technology, from rockets to the M-16 rifle.
We challenge existing perspectives, break glass, and make
people excited and uncomfortable, sometimes with the same
sentence. You might say that DARPA is the Nation's elite army
of futuristic technogeeks, and this is our service to country.
The Agency's full testimony submitted in support of our
budget request, details DARPA's contributions to the current
fight, our ongoing programs, and novel initiatives that address
some of the most complex problems of our time. When the country
is at war and we can contribute, it is our duty to do so.
Indeed, the Agency has been involved in support to active
conflicts since the Vietnam War.
At any point in time, DARPA has technologies in all stages
of development, from nascent idea to system ready for fielding.
Recently, we accelerated fielding of systems to protect
helicopters and ground vehicles in theater. Both capabilities
promise to make it very dangerous to shoot at U.S. forces.
I believe that the breadth, urgency, and technical demand
of these activities focus our work. The authenticity of such
engagement inspires greater genius, and it cannot be created in
the abstract. My recent trip to Afghanistan illustrated this
principle and reinforced our commitment. We must balance this
investment with our responsibilities to the next generation of
warfighters.
It was once considered inconceivable or at least ill-
advised to fly an aircraft without a pilot on board. In the
very near future, the United States Air Force will train more
UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] pilots than conventional pilots.
And today we talk about blackening the sky with such systems.
The UAV capabilities deployed on the battlefield today started
at DARPA in 1984. And what originally seemed impossible has now
become routine.
This progression characterizes many of DARPA's advances:
first impossible, then improbable, eventually inevitable. And
we take on new, seemingly impossible challenges each year, from
hypersonic vehicle technology to tobacco plants used in vaccine
production--which are related more than you might realize,
because speed matters not only in global strike but also in our
response to a biological attack; from nanoscale systems to
quantum mechanical effects, which are related by an impact far
disproportionate to scale, single sheets of carbon that may
enable radar systems with 10 to 15 times greater range. That is
a bit like having a really good right hook at the end of a 50-
foot arm. Or quantum effects that may at long last unlock the
secrets of the canine's keen sense of smell. DARPA's commitment
to the care of our military men and women is one way that we
honor their commitment to the Nation.
And we have ongoing programs devoted to stopping blood
loss, diagnosing and treating traumatic brain injury, and
assessing those at risk for suicide. I have spoken with
amputees who were surprised by their own emotional response to
receiving one of DARPA's advanced prosthetics and to feeling
like a bilateral again. The realization that what they once
thought was impossible no longer seems improbable but, rather,
inevitable.
And our commitment extends to the health of our S&T
workforce. We have a robust STEM program that extends from
computer science to the use of microsatellites. And would you
believe me if I told you that in the words of researcher Zoran
Popovic, we could put games into science rather than putting
science into games?
Believe. Because last year, Wired magazine reported a nail-
biting play-by-play of the battle between a 43-year-old Paris-
based marketing manager and a 13-year-old American who were in
fierce competition to solve a protein-folding puzzle. And if
you have ever tried to teach a student fractions, much less the
fundamentals of protein folding, you can appreciate this
amazing accomplishment.
We have other additional activities in work as we look
forward to some of the challenges the Nation faces, from
manufacturing to cyber. And whether you believe in a war
metaphor or a law enforcement model for cyber, the goals of the
response are common. At DARPA we are assembling some of the
best and brightest to work this problem and committing
significant resources. This set of programs and ideas is almost
overwhelming in scope and potential impact, but they are not
ours alone. Rather, they are the result of a vibrant exchange
among many.
One of the Agency's strengths is its ability to build
bridges between disparate communities and to uncover ideas in
unexpected places. This year we have redoubled our commitment
to this ethic, and we have aggressively engaged with three
important constituencies: universities, industries, and the
services.
Getting our business practices right is part of the job. It
is said that ambition is a dream with a V-8 engine. And our
full testimony highlights recent efforts to fine-tune the
engine. Included are various efforts to empower our program
managers and office directors and to fine-tune our processes.
What was once impossible, then improbable, and then
inevitable, this progression characterizes DARPA's history, its
present, and its future. The challenge serves as a timeless
calling and a source of wonder for the organization, for those
in it, and for those near it.
DARPA is the Nation's elite army of futuristic technogeeks.
They are dreamers with V-8 engines, and this is their service
to country. On behalf of these dreamers, I thank you, because
DARPA's success is in part owed to you, to your support and
confidence in our mission. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank the Director.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dugan can be found in the
Appendix on page 96.]
Ms. Sanchez. And I see that Mr. Murphy of New York got
scared away. But maybe Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania would like to
take my 5 minutes to ask his questions.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And to the whole dais, thank you so much for your service to
our country. And I appreciate it.
Dr. Walker, I will turn to you because my brother is in the
Air Force. I am interested. What is Air Camp?
Dr. Walker. Yes. Air Camp we are modeling--it is one of our
STEM outreach programs for seventh, eighth, and ninth graders.
And we are modeling it after Space Camp, which NASA has at
Huntsville, Alabama. And what we are doing is we have a week-
long week of activities in July where kids come in and we take
them to the U.S. Air Force Museum, which is right there in
Dayton, Ohio, which is a fabulous museum; take them to the
Dayton Air Show, which is all the airplanes; we introduce them
to the scientists and the engineers working at the lab; we show
them what we are working on. We actually train them on a flight
simulator and then take them up in an airplane and have them
fly an airplane at the Aero Club there at Wright-Patt. So it is
an outstanding--first time ever this summer, and we plan on
having it every year, sponsored by Dayton businesses and the
Air Force.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. I am from the Eighth District
of Pennsylvania, which is Bucks County and northeast
Philadelphia. And in my district we have what is called ETC,
Electronics Technical Corporation, sorry. So they did the
simulators for Mission Space for Disney World, but also the
Korean Air Force is a client, the U.S. Air Force is a client.
Do you see the simulators actually being more in the
future, because we could save on gas and everything, part of
the package that you all bring to the table? Because it is,
frankly, it is usually--the technology now is pretty damn good
training, and yet it saves the American taxpayer a lot of
money.
Dr. Walker. Certainly we are doing more and more pilot
training with simulators. Obviously, all the remotely piloted
vehicles, you know, we train those guys on simulators. So
simulators are a big part of where the Air Force is headed with
training.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. Thank you.
Dr. Lemnios, I wanted to touch base with you about--I note
that DDR&E has a new program in cybersecurity. And I was hoping
you could give me that line on what the goals are of that
program. With cybersecurity, obviously, it is a major threat to
our country. And if you could expand on that I would appreciate
it.
Secretary Lemnios. Sure. Congressman Murphy, let me tell
you how that came about and why it is in the program. It is of
enormous interest to many people. I saw the testimony here on
the 25th of February that had folks that addressed that similar
topic. There is a professor from Cornell and two from the
private sector.
About a year ago, the President's Cyber Policy Initiative
was published. And right after that, when I came into office
when we sort of stood up this S&T team, we looked at what would
be the technical underpinnings to enable those cyber policy
initiatives. The policy initiatives were sound, they made a lot
of sense, but we were looking for what were the technical ideas
that would enable us to work in that space.
And so we stood up a small 90-day study that included
academia, that included industry, and certainly folks across
the S&T community to really ask the question, What ideas do we
have that would allow us to operate in the cyber domain as that
policy review is sort of put in place? And that was really the
foundation of the fiscal year 2011 request. It sort of allows
us to move in the space of understanding how to operate
effectively, attribution of attack, protection against attack,
and it extends the technical side of what was started with the
policy review that was published about a year ago.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. Great.
Dr. Dugan, how about as far as DARPA, and what you are
doing to meet our Nation's cyber challenges?
Dr. Dugan. In 2010 and 2011, DARPA will invest over $300
million in cyber initiatives. And DARPA technologies are
already prevalent in both commercial and military use. As an
example, DARPA technology now protects all DOD network
connections to the Internet against denial of service attacks.
And the Agency is at the center of many new capability
developments. Our track record of success is solid.
As I am sure you are aware, we also have the National Cyber
Range, two prototypical efforts with 100 to 200 actual physical
nodes and tenfold more virtual nodes as a means for providing a
test bed for a whole variety of cyber initiatives.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. And now we will go to
Mr. Miller for his five minutes of questions.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. And I will ask my--since
you started with Mr. Murphy, if Mr. Conaway wants to take five
minutes.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Panel, thank you for being here. Kind of at the 10,000-foot
level, the chart we have got in our papers shows that the
budget requests for this year are somewhat in line with the
budget requests of last year, but below the appropriations
levels from this past year. Comments on that, Dr. Lemnios?
In particular, given the change in the Warfighter Act that
put additional emphasis on prototyping, the drop in the request
year over year and also over the appropriations in the 6.4 line
item, which shows about an almost $2 billion reduction in the
prototyping category. Help us to understand that relationship
with the new law.
Secretary Lemnios. Mr. Conaway, let me point to two things.
On the S&T side, the total S&T budget, the President's budget
as submitted, as compared with the fiscal year 2010 PBR
[President's Budget Request], is about the same. With regard to
the 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 initiatives, there was some shift to
emphasize basic research and applied research in those areas.
And those were really opportunistically driven concepts. We
found ideas across the S&T community that would have a
significant impact, particularly in cyber that we talked about,
but in other areas, in forward base protection and other
topics.
With regard to 6.4, the issue there was that we in fact
have two new PEs, program elements, that address the Weapons
System Acquisition Reform Act staffing and moving rapid
prototyping concepts to field more rapidly. So those were
intact.
There were some other activities that I would have to take
a question for the record, to get back to you as to what the
other adjustments were. But in general, sort of in broad terms,
the focus of the S&T initiatives was to drive deeper
investments in fundamental research. As we heard from Dr.
Dugan, the connection with the university communities is
absolutely critical to get new ideas to the field. And on the
advanced prototyping side in the 6.4 efforts, we in fact have
those in place.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you.
Admiral Carr, in your testimony you talked about the Navy's
international S&T efforts. How do you pick those partners? How
do you orchestrate the research so that we don't share a
breakthrough with folks we don't want to share with, or those
kinds of things? Can you kind of walk us through your thoughts
there?
Admiral Carr. Yes, sir. Well, we are interested in regions
of the world. We don't really pick partners just for point
solutions. And the recent opening in Prague, for example, was
to kind of help us with our window into Central and Eastern
Europe. Prague has a rich academic tradition, by the way. And
we have been doing some work with them, and the Air Force as
well, on Autonomous Airborne Vehicle Sense and Avoid for
several years now. The work we do is unclass, open source, so
it is far removed from things where we would have to worry
about classification, of course. And, really, we are there as
much as to take advantage of the good research they are doing
to avoid technological surprise.
So we have periodic briefings back at home on subjects of
interest like meta materials, power and energy, unclassified
basic research subjects, but just to watch what is going on in
trends around the world.
Mr. Conaway. All right. I guess for all of you, how is the
impact of the new law that was signed, I guess last year, on
weapons acquisition in terms of how did that overlay with what
you are doing? Are there issues with that that we need to look
at or be aware of that make the system less efficient, which is
not the goal? We wanted it to be, obviously, more efficient and
more value for the fighter. But what has been your experience
with this so far? And I know it is early.
Secretary Lemnios. I can take a first crack at that because
much of the Systems Engineering Initiative and the
Developmental Test and Evaluation activity, both of those
offices were staffed in DDR&E. They report to the Director of
AT&L [Acquisition, Technology and Logistics]. But they are in
our area because we wanted to couple those initiatives tightly
to the S&T community. It is critically important. It is a
workforce issue to make sure that the ideas that are going into
the evaluation of system concepts indeed have the best benefit
of seeing concepts that were starting to emerge from the
research communities. And that is actually working very well.
We are overlaid to a number of Department major defense
programs doing technology readiness assessments for major
defense programs that are underway. We are also doing
manufacturing assessments of those. And we have coupled an
entirely new cadre of folks to provide the technical
underpinning and risk assessment.
And I think you will see shortly the first annual report to
Congress on the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act. It is
due in a few days, and we are on track to submit that.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, gentlemen, ma'am. I yield back.
Ms. Sanchez. The gentleman yields back his time. Mr. Smith,
did you say you had a question?
Mr. Smith. I have no questions.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay. Mr. Smith, the fact that you don't have
any questions, I have one and then we will toss it back over to
the other side. By the way, some of you are looking kind of
bored out there.
Dr. Lemnios, I understand that the DDR&E has stood up a
Rapid Fielding Directorate in order to address warfighter needs
expeditiously. Would you please tell me how this directorate is
going to be more responsive when, according to a recent report
by the Defense Science Board, there are more than 20 programs
already in the inventory that purport to rapidly transition
technologies to the warfighter?
And also, what are the technologies that our warfighters
have specifically requested? And have our S&T programs been
able to successfully address those needs? And lastly, what are
the outstanding warfighter's needs that have to be addressed?
Secretary Lemnios. Madam Chairwoman, that is a great
question and it is the subject of most of my day, day in, day
out. I have met with your staff quarterly. They understand the
focus that we are putting on this. It is a personal push to
make that happen.
I mentioned in my opening comments and certainly in my
testimony the coordinates of innovation, speed, and agility. I
will tell you, as you well know, as the committee well knows,
those are the coordinates of any first-rate business. They are
the coordinates of any innovative organization. We are slowly
moving the Department in that direction. It is a challenge at
all ends.
We started by meeting with each of the combatant commanders
to understand what do they need in the field. I have met with
the combatant commanders. The avenue to accept and to capture
their needs is formalized in our Joint Urgent Operational Needs
Statements. Those come in directly from the combatant
commanders. We have a group that resources those directly. That
is the highest priority that we put in place within my
Department and within our focus. I will tell you, as well, that
the Defense Science Board studies and the other studies that we
have seen and we have tracked, in fact the Gansler report that
you have referenced, also have addressed how do we cohere and
how do we scale this enterprise? And we are looking at that.
That story is not yet complete. It is largely driven by
individuals that understand the intersection of the warfighter,
technology, and what can be actually resourced through the
Department and with Congress.
Each of these has been a mash-up. Each of these has been a
hand-crafted concept that we have had to take through. We are
doing that day in and day out. And we are working to try to
harmonize and scale that to the right level.
I will give you two examples of concepts that have gone
through and I think are starting to bear some significant
results. Certainly the MRAP [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
vehicle] and the MRAP ATV [All Terrain Vehicle] is the icon
case. That was a concept that started with a single letter from
General Petraeus. It was resourced, it was put to the field. In
fact, my principal deputy, Dr. Al Shaffer, Mr. Al Shaffer who
is behind me, was a lead person in making that happen. From
that letter from General Petraeus to the first vehicles that
were in the field was less than six months. We are now on a
ramp of producing these at a rate of about a thousand per month
and delivering these to the theater. This is a remarkable
concept.
It is a remarkable story of how we built a new capability
that was never in anybody's plan when this first started, and
yet the Department, Congress, the warfighter, came together to
build a capability that is saving lives day in and day out. So
it is critically important that we find ways to field those.
The Helicopter Survivability Task Force that we stood up
last July came forward with a reprogramming action. Congress
approved that action, and some of those concepts are now
finding their way to the field. One of those concepts was the
HALTT [Helicopter Alert and Threat Termination-Acoustic] anti-
sniper that started at DARPA. It has been resourced. It is now
being tested, and it will be deployed to the field later this
year.
Each one of these is a hand-crafted sort of a concept that
we have to hand-carry through the building. It is just the way
it is. And we are trying to find a way to resource this at
size.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. And now I will recognize Mr. Miller
for five minutes.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, ma'am. And I will yield my time to
Colonel Kline.
Mr. Kline. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Thank you,
gentlemen and lady, for being here today, for your testimony. I
apologize for not being here for the testimony. It is a crazy
way this place works. So you probably have covered some of the
very issues that I would like to ask some questions about.
But I would like to get in questions, if I could, please,
to the DDR&E, and then to Admiral Carr if time permits. I
should let you know, sir, that everything I know I learned from
members of your staff. So be ready.
Secretary Lemnios. Current or former?
Mr. Kline. Yes. The answer to that is yes. I am looking
at--this is a document prepared for us by HASC [the House Armed
Services Committee], and it is listing science and technology
priorities for 2011. It looks to be about ten or a dozen or so.
It starts with medical S&T that DARPA is responsible for,
expanded cyber protection, and it works its way down to STEM
workforce, all.
So two questions. You perhaps don't have the same piece of
paper I do. Are these priorities, are they lined up 1 through
11 or 12; or is this just a clump of priorities that you want
6.1, 6.2 to address?
Secretary Lemnios. So, Colonel Kline, I am not sure I have
that particular piece of paper, but I think I know----
Mr. Kline. The gist of it is medical S&T, the highest
priority, and we are working our way down to STEM. Or is it
more amorphous than that?
Secretary Lemnios. No, there are a core group of concepts
that have come through numerous studies. And when you step back
and look at these, whether they come from the Defense Science
Board, whether they come from the National Academies, whether
they come from internal studies, and you step back at 30,000
feet, there is a handful of topics that always find their way
to the top of the list.
Cyber is absolutely on that. And the barrier there was
finding the right technical ideas to go pursue. So our study
that we launched last year answered that question. And that was
the subject of the PBR 2011 submittal. We have done that in
other targeted areas.
Electronic warfare is another one where we launched a
targeted study to try to understand what could we do in this
field that would have significant impact for the Department 5,
10, 15 years from now, where the adversary is also in that
field on a commercial time scale?
DARPA has launched a whole set of programs five years ago
that will open new frontiers in biomedical engineering and new
frontiers in prosthetics.
Mr. Kline. All right. Let me interrupt because I am going
to run out of time. I get the idea that these things have risen
to the top. And I guess my question was: Does everybody agree
that medical S&T is first, followed by cyber, or are these
taken together as a group, the areas you are going to focus
S&T?
Secretary Lemnios. Those, taken as a group, are the sort of
80 percent region of what the focus is. We want to find
outliers that will have significant impact.
Mr. Kline. Sure.
Secretary Lemnios. And that is a subject as well.
Mr. Kline. Right. Hopefully that would happen in some basic
research.
Let me ask you about STEM. Obviously, there are a lot of
people talking about STEM and educating Americans across the
board. But you have gone so far, as I understand it, to stand
up a new office. Tell me about that office. I, having lived and
worked inside the DDR&E's spaces, that is pretty amazing. It is
hard enough without standing up a new office and new goals and
new purposes and new people. Tell me about that.
Secretary Lemnios. So what we have done there is stand up a
board of directors, not a new office, but an organization that
allows us to take--first of all, bring to bear those across the
Department that have concepts in STEM across the services and
DARPA and the balance of the DOD enterprise, and bring together
the best practices to try to understand where we could make
improvements in the overall STEM posture. So this is really a
board of directors-type model.
We have then gone back, we are going back now to try to
understand what are those critical technologies--so there are
really two parts to this. One is the overall STEM initiative,
and that is much larger than DDR&E. In fact, that is a national
issue. But then there is the DOD piece that is identifying the
critical technologies where we have to have core competencies,
systems engineering being one, and we need to make sure that in
fact we have those courses, the students that are tracking
those courses that are finding their way into DOD service.
So in the area of systems engineering we are standing up a
set of capstone courses with a number of universities this year
to try this experiment. And the experiment is let's find the
targeted areas where the DOD really needs core capabilities,
let's identify the schools that could really resource that
through open competition, and address a course structure and a
set of courses that allow the students to matriculate through
those avenues.
Mr. Kline. Okay. I know I am over my time, but I just want
to make sure I understand you haven't set up a new office with
a new SES [Senior Executive Service] 3, 4, 5-something running
it, and a military assistant and some other staff inside the
DDR&E.
Secretary Lemnios. That is staffed by a program manager.
Mr. Kline. Okay.
Secretary Lemnios. And she is pulling together the best
practices across the Department to try to understand where we
could have significant impact.
Mr. Kline. All right. I see my time has expired. I yield
back. I am sorry.
Ms. Sanchez. You are just stealing time from Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Kind of following on what
I think Mr. Kline was just talking about. And Admiral, I think
you talked about the landscape changing in S&T. And I just
would like to hear from each of you in regards to retaining the
best possible people, recruiting and retaining the best
possible folks that are out there. Are we doing enough? If not,
what can we do better? Anybody that wants to start. Admiral?
Admiral Carr. I will start. I think we are recruiting and
retaining wonderful people. It is not just a Navy or a military
issue. I think the country needs to do more. The statistics
show that we are graduating more people with technical and
advanced degrees, but we are not keeping up with demand. We are
diverging there. And last year for the first time in this
country, we awarded more advanced degrees to non-U.S. citizens
than to U.S. citizens. So we need to think about how we are
going to create a climate where we encourage more young people
to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and
math.
Of the 2.5 million students that graduate from high school,
about 2 million go on to college; half of them consider
technical education; fewer than half of them, 480,000, actually
graduate; and about 186,000 go on to pursue technical degrees.
Those numbers just aren't enough. It is not just a Navy
issue, but we all want a piece of it, and we all certainly
selfishly want to make sure that the base is wide enough so we
can draw from it. We contribute to it about $40 million a year
from the Navy to STEM outreach and education in the form of
grants, scholarships, competitions, and other support.
And I will leave some time for others to answer.
Dr. Killion. I will take on a bit of that. Another part I
think you were mentioning is about getting folks into our labs
and centers. What has been very gratifying over the last--I
have been here a while. I have come here more times than
anybody else at the table, so I can say this. As Mr. McClees
knows, I have been in this business working with the Army for
quite some time. It has been great over the last decade. Not
necessarily for the best reasons, because we are at war; but
because we are at war, our labs and centers have been able to
attract and support growing of the workforce, to really bring
in new young people with good ideas that are interested in
contributing to what can be done for this Nation. They are
excited about the kind of work that gets done. And we give them
interesting problems to work upon. That is the key part.
Part of the challenge is being able to hire them quickly.
And the Congress has been very magnanimous in giving us
additional authorities that have allowed us to do that. And we
need to exploit those to the greatest extent possible and show
to you that we need to have even more authority in that domain
so that we can hire people quickly. Because if you have to say,
Yeah, we want you, but come back in six months after we have
gone through our whole paperwork process, that is not going to
work and we will not be competitive. So to be competitive we
have to have that direct-hire authority.
Another piece of it is having the facilities and
environment in which you can actually do the cutting-edge
research that needs to be done. Some of the authorities that we
have gotten in minor construction have really helped us. We are
working with DDR&E on how we develop a strategy for more robust
facilitization of our laboratories going forward, because we
have to stay at the state of the art if we are going to attract
young people who are interested in doing work in science, math,
and engineering with our Department and in our laboratories and
centers.
Dr. Dugan. I would like to add, to give you some insight on
the output that we have already seen from some of our STEM
activities. So we have a program entitled Inspire, which
utilizes micro-satellites inside the Space Station as a
platform for student-led experiments. That program has
graduated more than 80 students from undergraduates to Ph.D.s,
with already a noticeable impact, as we have seen graduates
from the program among the top technical experts across all the
major space industry primes.
And you heard me mention something about a very novel
program that we have entitled Fold It. It was developed by a
researcher named Zoran Popovic. And Fold It takes a new
approach to inspiring and capturing the imagination of many
young people, and actually those who haven't been previously
associated with science. The protein-folding puzzles, these
puzzles for science in Fold It, have really elicited a very
interesting phenomenon. Since the launch of Fold It in May of
2008, over 120,000 people have participated in protein-folding
experiments, and an average of 200 new users sign on a day. Of
the 20 top players, only one to two have had experience in
biochemistry. So it is a very interesting example, I think, of
the importance of innovative strategies to not only train, but
to capture the imagination and inspire wonder in science and
engineering as it pertains to the Department's needs and the
Nation's needs.
Ms. Sanchez. Anybody else out there want to add to that
question?
Secretary Lemnios. Let me just add one more comment. The
example of the capstone course that I mentioned I think is a
good example of how we are trying to change the equation, how
we are really trying to drive the inspiration of kids and young
engineers into the fields that we have all enjoyed.
This is also very personal for me because in fact my wife
is very much involved in STEM, trying to inspire young women to
move into science and engineering. It is something that we talk
about at the dinner table. It is a good part of our life.
But the key part of this, it seems to me Dr. Killion
mentioned the key pieces: having the right facilities, having
the right challenge problem, and building the mentorship day to
day that inspires a student to move into a field and have some
traction that they in fact can achieve and they can contribute.
The capstone courses that we are putting in place, we are
starting with the service academies, we are moving to a few
universities. Each of those couple graduate students, and
perhaps undergraduate students, with a DOD user, with somebody
in uniform that understands a challenge problem. It might be a
UAV control problem. It might be an undersea autonomous vehicle
problem. And that user will work with the students hand in hand
as a mentorship to try to affect a capability that might
eventually transition to the user side of the equation.
Working as a mentor over a period of time is really what is
needed. And we are trying to build those channels. And they are
hand-crafted, but those are the channels we are trying to build
with a few universities this year and then scaling that to
something much larger next year.
Dr. Dugan. I would like to add just one more thing. Oh,
Tom.
Ms. Sanchez. We have a bit of time. They have just called
votes, so we might have another five or six minutes. So I think
we can get both of your responses in.
Dr. Dugan. I would just like to add that I think it is
important we recognize that the talent pool, the mind share is
global now. And we have seen evidence of this in our engagement
with universities as we have sought to protect the basic
elements of fundamental research within the university setting
as well as national security.
And as an example, we have a young fellowship program. It
is designed to bring young, very bright professors to
Department problems. And previously, that award was granted
only to those who could secure a security clearance, which
became a surrogate for U.S. citizenship. And what we recognized
in that program was that many of the universities were stepping
away, or they were reluctant to participate because they had
recognized on their own campuses that the mind share is global.
For many of the top universities, the sun never sets on
their campuses. They have campuses all across the world. And so
we relieved that restriction, with full awareness and
protection of national security interests, so that on balance
we could bring to the table some of the best minds present in
the country, whether or not they are U.S. citizens, to
participate in fundamental research. And I think we have to
develop strategies for understanding and capitalizing on the
nature of this global talent pool writ large.
Dr. Killion. Okay, so my story is a little less, let's say,
formal than that, but it is refreshing, because I went to speak
at my granddaughter's third-grade science class. And I pulled
together several science classes, and I brought in some robots,
and let them see the robots, they got to see the video from the
robots to do this. It was the most intense hour-and-a-half
session I have ever had in my entire career in terms of you
can't imagine the arms in the air asking questions. Had to
avoid the questions about do you put guns on these robots. But
the key was they are excited about science and engineering and
technology at that age.
Our challenge is keeping them excited, giving them the
kinds of problems that Regina is talking about, so it keeps
them interested and makes them realize they are able to do this
and it is important. And providing that environment when they
come into our laboratories, where they will stay excited and
stay with us, because we need their expertise and their ideas.
Third graders are great, but we do need those graduate
students, too.
Ms. Sanchez. Well you know, it is an interesting thing,
because I sit on another committee called the Joint Economic
Committee. And we had at that time Chairman Greenspan of the
Federal Reserve. And we were talking about all this
international stuff and the Chinese currency, what you read in
the papers, et cetera. And at one point he said to us the
problem is education. He said, I don't know what happens, but
in third grade our kids test at the top of any level and by the
eighth grade they are 43rd in the world as far as what is going
on.
So, as I heard some of your comments about we need to keep
them interested and everything, I was thinking to myself we
need to keep them interested between the third and the eighth
grade to get them there.
And personally, being a Hispanic, when I take a look at the
fact that 50 percent of Latina students in our Nation fail to
complete the 12th grade--you know, most people see the high
school dropout rate and they see 20 or 25 percent, but the
reality is it is at 50 percent. If you are in the 11th grade,
go and get a job at McDonald's, you are not considered a
dropout if you leave school to go and get a job at McDonald's.
So we are looking, and I realize what you said, Dr. Dugan,
about opening it up to other worlds or other nations. But the
reality is we are still looking at what do we need to do to our
workforce, home grown here in the United States, to get them to
do these science and technology programs.
And I guess I just will relate back to what you said, Dr.
Killion. I had the opportunity after 12 years of being in the
Congress to finally go to the South Pole. I think the Congress
people get one trip every two years through the Science
Committee. And of course, the people on the Science Committee
get to sign up first. And finally after 12 years--I don't sit
on the Science Committee--I got an open slot and I got to go to
the South Pole, which was really one of the most amazing trips
that I have ever made. To see the scientific research being
done on that continent and to understand the possibilities--it
was really an amazing thing to meet with my graduate students
from Stanford and from UCLA and people from Boston and others
just bringing their grad students to do the type of research
that we collect there. It was just the most amazing thing.
But there happened to be this penguin colony there also.
And there were these video cams set up out there where it was
picking up 24 hours a day what this penguin colony was doing on
the ice, how they were living, what they were doing, et cetera.
And they told me, ``Well, the scientists said you can go in
there because this is on a cam; but we do it so that you can go
to the Web site, and teachers in the third grade can teach
their students about the scientific knowledge about what is
going on with the penguin.''
So I came back to my district and I said to my teachers,
you know, there is this great program that we are funding,
actually, where we have this penguin colony, and you should
really tap into it and figure out how to use it and everything.
And I went back maybe about six months later to one of the
classes where they were doing this, where they had followed the
penguins every single day. And these kids were so excited about
science.
So you are right. We have to keep them excited, because it
can't just be in the third grade. It has to be all the way, so
we can get them through geometry and trig and algebra II and
calculus and everything else, to get them to be our engineers
of the future.
I thought that was one of the most worthwhile trips I took,
and actually was able to bring something back to kids in my
district.
Admiral, before I put down the gavel and we go and take our
votes.
Admiral Carr. I would just add that that sweet spot of
inspiration is right there in about junior high school. Much
beyond that, kids have begun to make up their mind. So I know
we all fund across from K through 12, all the way up to
graduate school, but it is a very important spot right there in
junior high. We need to aim there.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
To the members of my committee, anybody have another
comment or anything?
If that is it, we will adjourn and we will go to votes.
Thank you all. The committee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 23, 2010
=======================================================================
?
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 23, 2010
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7701.091
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
