U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–204 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–604 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LABORATORIES AND 

THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO MILITARY OPERATIONS AND READINESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND 

CAPABILITIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 3, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

CHRISTIAN D. BROSE, Staff Director 

ELIZABETH L. KING, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES

JONI ERNST, Iowa, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 3, 2017 

Page 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LABORATORIES AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO MILITARY OPERATIONS AND READINESS ...................................................................... 1 

Flagg, Melissa L., Ph.D., Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Research, Office of the Secretary of Defense ..................................................... 3 

Holland, Jeffery P., Ph.D., Former Director, Engineer Research and Development Center, United States Army Corps of Engineers ..................................... 4 

Montgomery, John A., Ph.D., Former Director of Research, Naval Research 

Laboratory, United States Navy ......................................................................... 14 

Peters, Ricky L., Former Executive Director, Air Force Research Laboratory, 

United States Air Force ....................................................................................... 16 

(III)

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LABORATORIES 

AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO MILITARY 

OPERATIONS AND READINESS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2017 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING

THREATS AND CAPABILITIES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in Room 

SR–222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Joni Ernst (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Ernst, Wicker, Fischer, Heinrich, Shaheen, 

and Peters. 

Also present: Senator Warren. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JONI ERNST 

Senator ERNST. Good morning, everyone. It is just a smidge after 

10 a.m., so we will go ahead and call this meeting of the Emerging 

Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee to order. 

Today, we will receive testimony on the Department of Defense 

laboratories and their contribution to military operations and readiness. I am pleased we have Dr. Melissa Flagg, Dr. Jeffrey Holland, 

Dr. John Montgomery, and Mr. Ricky Peters with us here today. 

Thank you very much for being on our panel. 

I look forward to their testimony, and I hope they are not only 

able to talk about the importance of laboratories but also the 

unique role our universities and the private sector play in advancing research and development for our Department of Defense. 

From personal protective equipment and lighter radio batteries 

for our infantry to directed energy, the technology researched and 

developed today will ensure we continue to outmatch our adversaries tomorrow. 

So we appreciate you being here today, and I would like to open 

it up to my ranking member for his comments. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARTIN HEINRICH 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Chairman. 

Let me start by just thanking Senator Ernst for holding this 

hearing on our Nation’s defense laboratories and technological innovation. I know we both understand the significance of their impact on national security and the economy. 

2 

Today’s hearing will help us better understand the Department 

of Defense laboratory enterprise and how this committee can work 

together to help it flourish. The DOD lab enterprise is a network 

of roughly 60 individual laboratories across the country, including 

two in my home State of New Mexico, which is proud to host the 

Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, where 

I actually started my career, and the Army Research Laboratory at 

White Sands Missile Range. 

The thousands of men and women at the laboratories, both public servants and contractors, play several critical roles for the DOD, 

including rapidly deploying new equipment to the battlefield—for 

example, the labs did the engineering work necessary to get the 

Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs as we know 

them, to theater as a rapid response to an operational need; supporting acquisition programs to make sure that DOD is a smart 

and technically informed buyer of advanced technologies, and helping control costs of major weapons systems; and performing cutting-edge, next-generation science and engineering research at a 

network of labs, as well as managing research and development 

programs in industry and universities, which have led to equipment and weapons systems that our warfighters depend on, like 

advanced radar and satellite systems and munitions. 

A recent Defense Science Board study of the labs stated that the 

labs are the core muscle the department has to create, transition, 

and deploy technology to the warfighter, but we need to do more 

to make sure that those muscles are strong and healthy, and that 

is the focus of the hearing we are having today. 

I know that all organizations suffer from constraints on their 

budget, and the labs are no different. I hope our witnesses can 

highlight the biggest budgetary challenges facing the labs, so that 

we can consider how we can address them as we work on this 

year’s defense authorization act. 

I am also interested in understanding how reductions to funding 

for civilian science agencies, agencies like NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] and NSF [National Science 

Foundation], will affect science and technology that is important to 

defense missions, and whether the labs could, with more resources, 

help address shortfalls in the Nation’s scientific enterprise that 

may be coming due to those budget cuts, for example, in areas like 

STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and Math] education or 

even university research. 

I also would like the witnesses to help the subcommittee understand how we can support the labs by streamlining laws and regulations and bureaucratic processes. On the Armed Services Committee, we have done a lot in the past to make the hiring process 

easier at the labs so that our labs can better compete with private 

sector enterprises to get the best talent. 

I also know there are major challenges in funding lab facilities 

and equipment, and in untangling the labs from government red 

tape. I would like to hear the witnesses’ ideas on what red tape 

they have encountered personally in many years of service at the 

labs, and how we can best address some of those challenges. 

Finally, I know that DOD leadership and this committee want to 

make sure that our warfighters benefit from the great spirit of 

3 

American innovation, including private-public partnerships with 

Silicon Valley. I know that DOD has efforts like DARPA [Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency] and DIUx that try to leverage 

commercial innovation for the benefit of DOD, and I think the labs 

can and should play a bigger role in those efforts. I would love to 

hear from our witnesses their views on how we can best make that 

happen. 

So I look forward to all of your testimony here today and will 

turn it back over to the chair. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

We will start with our panelists this morning. 

Dr. Flagg, we will start with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MELISSA L. FLAGG, Ph.D., FORMER DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

Dr. FLAGG. First, I just want to say thank you so much for having me. It is actually an incredible opportunity to participate in my 

democracy, in our democracy. I really enjoy it. 

My mother in Missouri, originally when I said I was going to be 

a witness, thought I had seen a crime, so she is very excited to 

know that I am actually here. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FLAGG. I want to just start by saying I worked for the Department of State and the Department of the Navy and DOD for 

about 12 years, and then I left government, and I went out to Chicago to work for a philanthropy there. I spent 2.5 years looking at 

creative scientists all over the country with no constraints, no bureaucracy, giving away free money, did not ask anybody to write 

any reports, gave them the money and walked away, because it 

was not taxpayer money, and accountability and transparency was 

not sort of the primary goal. 

When I came back, I had a lot of negativity of people saying, why 

are you going back to the bureaucracy? You are going to lose all 

of your optimism. 

I want to say that after 15 months of spending more time in the 

DOD laboratories than probably anyone in OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense], I left the Department of Defense more deeply 

optimistic about the future of this country than at any point in my 

life and so deeply recommitted to spending the next 30 years focusing on how I can help have people understand the capabilities that 

we have, while also respecting the humility and the secrecy that 

is required in some of these efforts in order to ensure that we have 

sustained advantage. 

So I am an incredible advocate. I am extremely committed. I do 

not believe they are perfect. I also do not believe I have met an organization made up of humans that is. I also believe that we need 

to find ways to celebrate the laboratories without having it show 

up necessarily in the New York Times. 

Thank you. 

Senator ERNST. Dr. Holland? 

4 

STATEMENT OF JEFFERY P. HOLLAND, Ph.D., FORMER DIRECTOR, ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, 

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Dr. HOLLAND. Chairman Ernst, Senator Heinrich, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I really want to thank you 

for the opportunity to discuss both the current roles and the future 

of the science and technology laboratories within the Department 

of Defense. I greatly appreciate the support that this committee, in 

particular, has shown to S&T [Science and Technology] over the 

last several years. I spent 37 years at the Engineering, Research 

and Development Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi. I actually want 

to work there just after Grant came through—— 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. HOLLAND.—and was there right after he left, in fact. 

ERDC [Engineering Research and Development Center] is the 

S&T arm of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and it conducts research and development for the warfighter, for military installations, and for the Corps’ Civil Works’ mission. I was fortunate 

enough to be the director of that organization for many years, as 

well as many other functions in the organization. 

In fiscal year 2016, ERDC executed a budget of $1 billion of S&T 

for a variety of activities, and for many different organizations 

within the Department of Defense, including $500 million of what 

could easily be thought of as other people’s money within the Department of Defense. 

These activities were involved in solving people’s problems, 

which is a primary function of the Department of Defense laboratories. 

Today, I would like to address three elements of everything that 

is critical to what ERDC and, in fact, what each of the S&T laboratories do. That is people, programs, and facilities, and I think we 

will hear those three concepts all along the way as we move 

through. 

Innovation requires a talented work force. I am proud to have 

represented 2,300 scientists and engineers, technicians, and administrative personnel as the director of ERDC for the many years that 

I was the director. ERDC has as its 5-year goal to hire 800 additional scientists and engineers, which would be a net of 300 of 

growth for the organization over the next several years. 

The authorities that have been given to ERDC and to the S&T 

laboratories under the S&T Reinvention Laboratory Demonstration 

Projects are the very things that make it possible for organizations 

like ERDC to be able to compete in the marketplace for the types 

of talent that the Department of Defense laboratories need. 

In every case where these authorities have been fully implemented to the laboratories, I have found that the laboratories have 

done a tremendous job of implementing those capabilities. Conversely, where those capabilities have not been fully implemented 

in the labs, we have found that those opportunities have gone 

wanting. 

Differing NDAAs [National Defense Authorization Act] have provided numerous enhancements to ERDC’s hiring authorities and 

those of the other labs, for example. NDAA 2015 provided direct 

5 

hiring authority for students. But, as an example, that authority 

has not yet been fully delegated to the laboratories. 

Because ERDC has great people and because the other laboratories, for that matter, have great people, it can execute impactful 

programs. DOD labs play a key role in national security, and 

ERDC has a long history among the other laboratories of providing 

innovative solutions to keep our warfighters and civilians safe. 

ERDC force protection technologies are installed in theater to 

protect base camps from rocket and mortar attacks. The State Department is using them for technology to protect certain critical facilities and personnel, and many of the buildings in the National 

Capital region, such as the one in which we sit, as well as the Pentagon and others, are safe because of ERDC protection technologies. 

ERDC’s airborne counter-IED [Improvised Explosive Device] systems are currently providing CENTCOM [United States Central 

Command] with unique capabilities, and there actually is a whole 

story, and perhaps an undercurrent for another time to discuss, of 

the enormous integration activities that the laboratories performed 

in bringing basic science to bear during the height of the IED fight, 

both in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we were able to field solutions 

in a manner that went from 18 months or less to just a very few 

months in bringing solutions to the field. 

ERDC tunnel technologies have been provided and applied in 

Iraq and along the Egypt to Gaza border, U.S. and Mexico, in support of DOD and DHS [Department of Homeland Security], for that 

matter. 

Finally, I would like to mention the idea of facilities and the 219 

program. ERDC, like all of the DOD S&T laboratories, needs to 

modernize and recapitalize its facilities to ensure continued worldclass support for the warfighter and the Nation. 

Its 219 authority allows ERDC to fund facility improvements, 

and it has had great success in using this authority. This is particularly important, given that ERDC finds great difficulties in obtaining major milcon funding. 

It was rewarding to see that fiscal year 2017 NDAA, signed into 

law in December 2016, extended the program to fiscal year 2025 

and increased the threshold for this capability to $6 million. Thank 

you to the committee for supporting this type of capability. 

Unfortunately, ERDC has not yet been able to take advantage of 

the authority provided in the 2014 NDAA that allows the lab directors to approve funds over multiple years for larger infrastructure 

needs. While ERDC is working to make this possible, the labyrinth 

of implementation issues associated with that provides difficulty 

after difficulty in making that possible. 

In conclusion, I took great pride in being the director of ERDC, 

as I am sure you will hear from each of the witnesses today in 

their respective organizations, and I would like to mention to you 

that, in no small part, the ability to provide this world-class capability that we do very much have is the result of the capabilities 

that you have helped us to achieve. 

Thank you for this opportunity to give this statement. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holland follows:] 

6 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY DR. JEFFERY P. HOLLAND

Chairman Ernst, Senator Heinrich, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center’s (ERDC) role and mission as a major Department 

of Defense (DOD) Science and Technology (S&T) laboratory. I greatly appreciate the 

support this committee has shown to S&T, and the opportunities this support has 

provided ERDC over the years to enhance its ability to carry out its mission. 

ERDC is the science and technology arm of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), conducting research and development (R&D) in the areas of Military Engineering, Geospatial Research and Engineering, Environmental Quality and Installations, and Civil Works. Army’s S&T investments develop technology options to ensure the Army is ready today and remains robust tomorrow. ERDC, and other Army 

laboratories, create new understandings that translate research into militarily-useful technologies through innovative solutions to satisfy capability gaps across the entire force. 

ERDC’s seven laboratories are located in four states: the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory in Champaign, Illinois; the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, New Hampshire; the Geospatial Research Laboratory in Alexandria, Virginia; and the Coastal and Hydraulics, Geotechnical and 

Structures, Environmental, and Information Technology Laboratories in Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. In addition to its laboratories, ERDC has field sites conducting specialized research: a 1,800-foot coastal research pier in Duck, North Carolina; an Aquatic 

Ecosystem Research Facility in Lewisville, Texas; the Permafrost Research Tunnel 

in Fairbanks, Alaska; and its International Research Office in London, which exists 

to promote cooperation with the international research community as a means to 

advance science and engineering knowledge and technical capabilities in areas relevant to the U.S. Army, DOD and our international military partners. ERDC has 

a workforce of more than 2,300 engineers, scientists and support personnel within 

its seven laboratories and field sites. 

In Fiscal Year 2016, ERDC executed $425 million in research, development, test, 

and evaluation (RDT&E), highlighted by work in support of the nine Army S&T Objectives (STO) programs, the Army’s top S&T efforts warranting Army senior leadership oversight. ERDC also executed just over $70 million in Civil Works direct funding on R&D to address navigation, flood control and risk management, and ecosystem management and restoration. This body of R&D promotes safe and resilient 

communities and infrastructure; helps facilitate commercial navigation in an environmentally sustainable fashion; restores degraded aquatic ecosystems and prevents 

future environmental losses; and implements effective, reliable and adaptive lifecycle performance management of infrastructure. In addition to these major programs, ERDC executed more than $500 million in reimbursable programs for every 

Service within DOD and other federal agencies, such as the State Department, the 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Department of Interior, the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Science Foundation. 

ERDC builds its program ($1 billion in fiscal year 2016) by its stakeholder base 

(i.e., Military Engineering, Geospatial Research and Engineering, Environmental 

Quality/Installations, and Civil Works). This approach forces ERDC to view problems from stakeholder perspectives, rather than from a technical interest perspective, and necessitates that it solve problems that span technical areas by employing 

multi-disciplinary teams. As part of its annual program development process, ERDC 

meets with a wide variety of stakeholders to better understand their problems. At 

any given time, ERDC has as many as 50 employees embedded in stakeholder organizations to ensure complete understanding of stakeholder requirements and to effectively transfer technology to these stakeholders. 

To meet stakeholder objectives, ERDC creates tailored scopes of work and develops solutions to fit their business processes and decision making. It transitions its 

technology to the Warfighter, to Civil Works, to the acquisition community, and to 

other government agencies, academia, and industry. It also provides the Warfighter 

and deployed civilian personnel around the globe with 24/7 access to subject matter 

experts through the USACE Reachback Operations Center. ERDC responds to thousands of reachback requests each year from around the world. In addition, ERDC 

provides subject matter experts through deployment to both Contingency and Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR) operations. Since 2003, ERDC has 

deployed 335 team members, some with multiple deployments, to support Contingency Operations; and more than 435 team members to support HA/DR operations 

both CONUS and OCONUS. 

7 

Today, I would like to discuss three components resident in everything ERDC 

does as it carries out its diverse mission—People, Programs and Facilities. These 

three components are essential, not only to ERDC’s success, but also to the success 

of each and every Defense laboratory. 

Cutting-edge solutions to challenges of national importance, a satisfied stakeholder base that returns time and again for the services ERDC provides, and worldclass facilities in which to conduct that research—none of these can be successful 

without our people. They are ERDC’s most critical resource and the resource I am 

most passionate about. 

Innovation requires a talented workforce, and I am proud to have represented, as 

ERDC’s past Director, the more than 2,300 engineers, scientists and support personnel of the ERDC. These men and women are committed to solving national security challenges and developing technology solutions to ensure the readiness of our 

Warfighters and the installations that support them, as well as their responsibility 

to enhance and protect our nation’s water resources and the economic security they 

provide. These team members are agile, stakeholder-focused, passionate about their 

work, leaders in their technical fields, and committed to the delivery of exceptional 

products and services. 

ERDC partners with academia, industry and the other Services to provide solutions to military and national security challenges, but it is its in-house capability 

to assemble multi-disciplinary teams across its seven laboratories, in concert with 

key external partners, of which we are most proud. It brings the best minds to the 

challenge, and provides its stakeholders with the technology, products and services 

they need to fit their requirements and meet mission goals. 

If we are to continue providing reliable and sustainable S&T solutions to our Nation and Allies, it is vital that we hire and retain the best and brightest engineers 

and scientists our country has to offer. 

ERDC has embarked on a human capital initiative to hire 800 engineers and scientists during fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2020 in order to maintain and enhance 

in-house capacity to meet its mission. In its first year, ERDC exceeded its annual 

goal by hiring more than 160 new researchers. ERDC was able to meet this important goal in large part because of its Direct Hiring Authorities, which save time, 

effort and costs, and allow the organization to more effectively hire the best and 

brightest minds available. 

These authorities are possible only because ERDC is one of 18 Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRLs) with Laboratory Personnel Management 

Demonstration (Lab Demo) Projects authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 1995, PL 103–337, Section 342. Thank you for your 

support of Lab Demo. 

ERDC’s Lab Demo Program was implemented in 1998. Its program includes Performance Management (Pay for Performance); Position Classification (Pay Banding); 

Hiring flexibilities (Distinguished Scholastic Appointments); Employee Development 

flexibilities (Degree Training, Sabbaticals), and Reduction in Force flexibilities to assure the best employees are retained. 

Over the years, Congress has recognized and addressed the unique human resources needs of the STRLs by including additional authorities and provisions in 

several NDAAs. These include: 

• Exclusion of the STRLs from the National Security Personnel System; 

• Direct Hire for Advanced and Bachelor’s Degrees, STEM Technicians, and Senior Science and Technical Managers (SSTM) (and expansion of these authorities); 

• Direct Hire for Students (authorized in December 2014, but not yet delegated); 

• Ability to adopt a flexibility available in another STRL; 

• Non-competitive conversion of students to permanent employees; 

• Utilization of Retired Annuitants; and 

• Retirement incentives payment. 

The foregoing provisions address the uniqueness of STRLs like ERDC, first and 

foremost, by placing the responsibility for Human Resources and the accompanying 

authorities at the Laboratory Director level. 

ERDC’s list of success stories is endless, but a few stand out. In an age where 

we are competing with the salaries and benefits offered by private industry, the Lab 

Demo Program has increased ERDC’s ability to compete for the best and brightest 

students. Pay for Performance has allowed ERDC to achieve a higher retention rate 

for high performers, with an increase in turnover for low performers. ERDC has 

achieved increases in minority and female engineers and scientists, as well as an 

increase in PhDs. It has successfully utilized Voluntary Emeritus positions, whose 

8 

experience and technical skills enhance ERDC’s reputation and expand knowledge 

of its programs at universities and organizations around the country. 

Implementation and increased authorization for SSTM positions within ERDC (23 

positions in fiscal year 2016) allows ERDC to recognize positions responsible for directing many of its highly visible and technical programs. These SSTM positions are 

especially valuable to recognize the performance of higher-level duties when Senior 

Executive Service (SES) and Senior Scientists (ST) spaces are less appropriate. 

While these authorities have greatly enhanced ERDC’s ability to hire and retain 

world-class scientists and engineers, it still faces challenges. When Congress includes new hiring authorities granted to Laboratory Directors in the annual NDAAs, 

ERDC is currently required to implement them by publication of a Federal Register 

Notice. For example, in NDAA 2015, Congress delegated Laboratory Directors direct 

hire authorities for students. The NDAA was signed in December 2014. These authorities have not been delegated, nor has a Federal Register Notice been published 

authorizing their use. As a result, the STRLs are continuing the untimely process 

of advertising student positions through USA Jobs and losing valuable students to 

the private sector. Additionally, NDAA 2016 authorized the noncompetitive conversion of students to permanent appointments, increased authorizations for direct-hire 

appoints and authorities regarding the utilization of reemployed annuitants and the 

payment of retirement incentives. These authorities have not yet been delegated. 

I want to thank Congress for its continued support to the STRLs by including language in the 2017 NDAA that will greatly benefit the STRLs. 

DOD’s challenges in recruiting and maintaining a high-quality workforce also include competition for these individuals, a limited supply of top-quality STEM students and careerists, and the ability to make job offers in a timely manner. ERDC’s 

ability to offer competitive salaries and benefits, coupled with other provisions in 

the Direct Hiring Authorities, allows ERDC to compete in this hiring pool. Additionally, ERDC uses every student program available to increase its pool of future recruits. During this past year alone, ERDC employed more than 230 student interns 

from 65 colleges and universities. With authority to directly hire students, that 

number would increase. 

Because ERDC has great people, it is able to execute meaningful and impactful 

programs. DOD Service Labs play a key role in National Security, and ERDC has 

a long history of providing innovative solutions to keep our Warfighters and Civilians safe at home and abroad. On September 11, 2001, the plane that was flown 

into the Pentagon struck a section that had just been retrofitted with ERDC-developed blast protection technology. This protection kept the section from collapsing 

long enough to get personnel to safety, significantly reducing the death toll at the 

Pentagon. 

ERDC has since developed and deployed several pioneering force- and terrorist- threat protection technologies. More than $1 billion in protection technology has 

been installed in theater to protect base camp structures from rocket and mortar 

attacks. Research into weapons effects on structures and affordable mitigation techniques informed the composite and construction industry without revealing theater 

vulnerabilities. ERDC, working with industry partners, identified solutions that 

were technically feasible and readily available for immediate fielding. ERDC’s Overhead Cover Protection system development was fast-tracked, in part, by $250 million in supplemental funding from Congress. This multi-layer protection system was 

designed and constructed over existing critical facilities at U.S. base camps in 

Iraq—living quarters, dining halls and other high-occupancy facilities—to protect 

the force from insurgent rocket and mortar attacks by preventing them from penetrating overhead cover barriers and hitting facilities. This technology reduced a high 

casualty rate pre-emplacement down to zero. The State Department later invested 

in this technology to protect its critical facilities and personnel around the world. 

The very building we are sitting in today is safer because of ERDC protection technologies in collaboration with the Architect of the Capitol. 

Another technology breakthrough is ERDC’s Deployable Force Protection (DFP) 

program. Products include the advanced, lightweight Modular Protection System 

(MPS), based on an innovative, patented material of high-strength, flexible concrete 

with ballistic performance—comparable to ceramic armor—at a fraction of the cost 

and weight. Four trained Soldiers can assemble an 8-by 12-foot MPS module in 15 

minutes without equipment or special tools. The Army’s Rapid Equipping Force 

(REF) quickly introduced the MPS into Iraq and Afghanistan, and in 2010, a modified version was developed for the Navy. DFP now includes MPS Mortar Pits, Guard 

Towers and other quickly-deployable protection systems that are easily constructed 

and reusable, keeping our Warfighters safe. Prototype protective structures developed in the DFP program were recently needed to protect critical assets in numerous deployed locations. The lab’s inventory of prototype structures was rapidly made 

9 

available to satisfy urgent theater needs, while the Army REF procured additional 

quantities from vendors holding licenses for the government-patented technology. 

Anticipating future orders, researchers are working with the Defense Logistics 

Agency Warstopper Program and Rock Island Arsenal’s Joint Manufacturing and 

Technology Center to prepare both government and industry manufacturing groups 

to meet future surge requirements. 

ERDC-developed technologies to deny, deter and defeat IEDs are being used in 

Afghanistan, where insurgents employ IEDs powerful enough to throw 14-ton 

MRAP vehicles into the air. In a five-month period at the beginning of this emerging 

threat, more than 100 Soldiers had suffered crushed or damaged spinal columns 

from being thrown around in MRAPs. One ERDC advance, called HARD IMPACT, 

defends U.S. and Coalition forces against IEDs placed in thousands of road culverts 

throughout the country by retrofitting existing culverts with protection designs and 

incorporating those designs into new roadway systems. ERDC was approached by 

the U.S. Intelligence community to develop forensics capabilities after blast events. 

Two programs, CALDERA and FERRET, developed procedures, tools and training 

to effectively collect, measure and document post-blast forensic signatures of underbelly IED attacks. These technologies and products have been transitioned to Intel 

analysts and Warfighters. 

In the interval between 2006 and 2014, in support of numerous U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Joint Urgent Operation Needs Statements, ERDC engineers and 

research teams led whole-of-government and industry teams in developing more 

than six major quick reaction capability (QRC) programs that were formerly recognized by the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) and 

CENTCOM as effective counter-IED (C–IED) systems. The total ERDC QRC resource execution in this period exceeded $2 billion. Airborne systems included Saturn Arch, Desert Owl, Copperhead and Radiant Falcon, all of which were 

transitioned to Army Aviation by the close of 2014. At present, Saturn Arch and 

Copperhead continue to provide CENTCOM with unique C–IED operational capabilities. On the ground, ERDC led the successful development and deployment of the 

Sand Dog C–IED system, which was deployed on Talon robots for both Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal and Engineer Route Clearance teams. 

Tunnel Detection technologies developed by ERDC have been applied along the 

Mexico border, in Iraq, and along the Egypt/Gaza border. ERDC is the technology 

lead for the U.S. Government’s Interagency Tunnel Deterrence Committee—11 law 

enforcement and intelligence agencies—which has been involved in hundreds of tunnel detection efforts along the border of Mexico since 9/11. ERDC developed and has 

remotely operated detection systems in Iraqi prisons; at the request of the State Department and DOD, ERDC installed a tunnel detection system along the Egypt/ 

Gaza border and trained Egyptian military engineers to operate the system. ERDC 

has worked with additional Allies to provide tunnel detection technologies and training to help ensure regional stability. 

ERDC is collaborating with the U.S. Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and others 

to identify significant challenges for planners, analysts and operators that impede 

the ability to accomplish operations in an Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environment and the capabilities needed to address the challenges. ERDC’s role in force 

projection in A2/AD environments is focused on developing and demonstrating technologies for planning and conducting entry operations with non-existent, damaged 

or destroyed infrastructure. ERDC technologies include rapid airfield repair kits for 

early-entry airborne engineer units; terrain surfacing kits for Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS) landing strips, helicopter landing zones, and logistics over-the-shore 

operations; remote monitoring of critical infrastructure using infrasound; battlefield 

sensors for operational engineer reconnaissance, assessment and planning; and decision support tools to capture Subject Matter Expert (SME) processes for remote infrastructure assessment. Coastal modeling technology developed in ERDC’s Civil 

Works mission area is also being applied to the A2/AD environment, a great example of dual-use technology that crosses mission area lines. Also, as part of the Long 

Range Research and Development Planning Program-Ground Combat (LRRDPP– 

GC), ERDC and its fellow S&T laboratories are currently working to help shape policy for the Third Offset Strategy. This strategy’s goal is to identify high-payoff, enabling technology investments to provide U.S. forces with a decisive advantage in 

land-associated operations in the 2030 timeframe. 

ERDC’s Map Based Planning Services (MBPS) program provides DOD with a 

unique, web-based capability for military planners to collaboratively develop strategic plans. MBPS employs the concept of a digital plan with automated tools to reduce the burden of manual work, the risk of human errors, and the resources expended on updates and corrections. With military planners deployed across the U.S. 

and all over the world, substantial time and cost savings also result from reduced 

10 

travel to various planning team meetings. By increasing efficiency in the planning 

process, MBPS allows planners to provide senior decision makers with more options 

within months rather than years, and thereby meet the challenges of a rapidly 

evolving world. 

National- and theater-level assets provide a synoptic view of the operational environment; there is a growing need and a growing number of requests for ERDC’s 

Tactical Mapping (T–UAS) program on demand—high-resolution tactical mapping 

capabilities at the lowest levels to support mission planning and enhanced situational awareness. The T–UAS program uses a variety of UAS full-motion video and 

electro-optical image data to rapidly produce 2D and 3D geospatial products and 

provide enhanced local situational awareness to users at the lower echelons of the 

Armed Forces. This technology builds on previous ERDC R&D to fill in gaps for 

mast-mounted Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) efforts and has gone from a 

concept and capabilities demonstration in late 2015 to funding by REF to field mapping platforms and FMV kits for Warfighters in Iraq in June 2016 with the first 

map products created in July. 

Future readiness includes not only providing our Soldiers with the equipment and 

technology advances they need to win the fight, but also delivering environmentally 

sustainable solutions for energy, water, and waste (EW2) on installations at home 

and abroad. ERDC R&D also supports installation training needs while protecting 

the environment. 

ERDC has developed a holistic approach for EW2 environmental sustainability at 

military installations around the world and in contingency environments. The 

ERDC-developed Net Zero Planner (NZP) is a web-based tool for installation-wide 

EW2 planning. The tool is designed to perform complex engineering calculations 

with relative simplicity and provide an engineering-based solution for planning EW2 

investments at installations. NZP has been demonstrated at multiple DOD installations and is currently being used by the USACE Fort Worth District to develop sustainability component plans as part of the master planning process. ERDC is working closely with Headquarters, USACE to develop a transition plan for NZP and incorporate it into the planning process across the Corps. 

ERDC is the Army leader in Operational Energy R&D and is developing scalable 

solutions for small, semi-permanent contingency bases (300 to 1,999 personnel). 

Operational energy R&D focuses on the primary areas of planning and analysis; resilient distribution; metering and monitoring; demand reduction; and supply efficiency. These focus areas are inter-related and are designed to address all stages 

of the base camp lifecycle. Planning tools such as the Virtual Forward Operating 

Base assist in base camp planning and operation to reduce supply and logistics burdens on camp operators. ERDC’s Deployable Metering and Monitoring System gives 

operators knowledge of where their resources are being used. 

ERDC, together with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Marshal Space Flight Center and Kennedy Space Center, and Caterpillar, Inc., is 

developing an additive 3D printing technology capable of printing custom-designed 

expeditionary structures on demand, in the field, using concrete sourced from locally 

available materials. The three-year Automated Construction of Expeditionary Structures (ACES) program brings together expertise from within ERDC, NASA, Caterpillar, and Contour Crafting Corporation to conduct highly-focused research designed to prototype an automated construction system that can fabricate a 500 ft2 

structure in less than 24 hours. In late 2016, when the Secretary of the Army asked 

for examples of Army innovation, the Honorable Katherine Hammack, then-Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment, briefed him 

on the ACES program. Presented with more than 35 examples of Army innovation, 

the Secretary chose ACES as one of three to present to the Secretary of Defense 

to show the most promising innovation activities going on in the Army. 

ERDC R&D is also providing integrated maneuver land sustainment technologies 

to support installation training land management through the use of vehicle-based 

impact models; application of training exercise impact assessment and monitoring 

technologies; range design guidance; impact mitigation and resolution technologies; 

and installation encroachment assessment software. One success story is ERDC’s 

work to assess training lands at Fort Hood, Texas, the largest active duty armored 

post in the U.S. Every acre counts, to both the Army and to two endangered species 

of birds that call the installation home. In 1993, 36 percent of Fort Hood training 

land was under seasonal training restrictions for habitat protection. ERDC worked 

with Fort Hood biologists for years to assess habitats, sources of negative impacts, 

and potential stress from military training on both species. This collaboration has 

proven that military impacts on the species are nominal and that current management strategies have positive impacts on both endangered birds. By 2000, the percentage of restricted training lands had dropped to 24 percent; by 2010, it was 4.6 

11 

percent; and by 2015, it was 0 percent. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rendered 

a Biological Opinion in 2015 that allows the Army to manage all training lands at 

Fort Hood without seasonal restriction, but within agreed-upon impacts to the bird 

species. 

In the area of information technology, ERDC manages and executes the DOD 

High Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP), a comprehensive, 

highly-integrated, high-performance computing ecosystem that includes supercomputers and related expertise, a nationwide DOD research network, and system and 

application software to the Services and Defense agencies. The HPCMP is characterized by three core elements: DOD Supercomputing Resource Centers, informationassured networking (the Defense Research and Engineering Network and associated 

cybersecurity posture), and software applications expertise that addresses the 

unique computational requirements of the DOD. These three elements form a complete ecosystem that supports the DOD research, development, test, and evaluation 

(RDT&E) and acquisition engineering communities. 

The HPCMP supports approximately 2,000 active users from Army, Navy, Air 

Force, Marine Corps, and other DOD agencies within the Science and Technology 

(S&T), acquisition engineering and Test and Evaluation (T&E) communities. 

HPCMP users address challenges such as the discovery of new materials to address 

unique DOD requirements, numerical modeling of hypersonic flight, modeling and 

prediction of weather to support DOD, analysis of space systems, and evaluation of 

options for future DOD systems, including the design of next generation aircraft carriers, submarines, air vehicles and ground vehicles. 

DOD Supercomputing Resource Centers (DSRCs) provide advanced computational 

resources and specialized expertise to enable DOD to take advantage of supercomputing. DSRCs are located in: 

• AFRL DSRC at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio; 

• Air Force Maui High Performance Computing Center (MHPCC) DSRC at the 

Air Force Optical & Supercomputing Observatory site in Kihei, Hawaii; 

• Army Research Laboratory (ARL) DSRC in Aberdeen, Maryland; 

• Army ERDC DSRC in Vicksburg, Mississippi; and 

• Navy DSRC at the Naval Meteorology & Oceanography Command, Stennis 

Space Center, Mississippi. 

The Defense Research and Engineering Network (DREN) provides a robust cybersecurity posture for the HPCMP. DREN provides a very high bandwidth, low latency, 

low jitter network specially designed to serve the needs of the science/engineering 

and test/evaluation communities. The DREN supports Unclassified, Secret, and 

above Secret communications and delivers service to 53 of the DOD’s 62 laboratories 

and 20 of the DOD’s 22 major range and test centers. In the S&T environment, the 

DREN is a critical enabling technology for the collaborative science and engineering 

workflow; in the T&E environment, the DREN is a unique resource enabling a diverse range of critical activities that cannot be provided by traditional networks. For 

example, the DREN supported 26 T&E events in fiscal year 2016, including: 

• F–35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Record and Playback Event 3 

• Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) II Live Fly Testing (On Going) 

• TRITON Flight Testing (On Going) 

• Aegis Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Base Line (B/L) 9C1D BLD 

18.1.2 

• Joint Distributed Infrared Countermeasures (IRCM) Ground-test System 

(JDIGS) 

The HPCMP is also charged with the creation, improvement and optimization of 

software applications that use the network and supercomputers efficiently to develop effective solutions to the DOD’s challenges. This includes training for engineers and scientists on effective use of HPCMP resources; R&D to pull emerging 

technologies from industry and academic centers into routine use by HPC users; and 

efforts to increase effectiveness of existing applications to new DOD challenges or 

develop new DOD-unique applications. 

The largest strategic software investment for DOD resides in the Computational 

Research and Engineering Acquisition Tools and Environments (CREATE) initiative, which provides government-owned high-fidelity, multi-physics software for 

ships, air vehicles, radio frequency, and ground vehicles essential to supporting the 

acquisition engineering community. While HPCMP-developed software applications 

are service/mission specific, they are designed to provide cross-service/OSD agency 

capabilities. As such, these investments provide the Department with significant 

synergies in terms of software sustainability and applicability within the services. 

One example of leveraging HPC resources to address high-impact DOD challenges 

12 

is the ERDC-led Engineered Resilient Systems (ERS) program. DOD is leveraging 

years of S&T investment to transform acquisition processes through ERS. By enabling more detailed engineering analyses, ERS significantly increases the number 

of materiel alternatives examined early in the acquisition process, in equal or less 

time than traditional methods. The program and its associated DOD Community of 

Interest are developing concepts, techniques and tools that significantly sharpen requirements prior to major acquisition milestones and support prototyping and experimentation. 

In addition to its world-class research to support the Warfighter, ERDC is also 

the world leader in Water Resources Infrastructure and Management, Navigation, 

Operations and Maintenance, and Environmental Resources R&D in support of the 

USACE Civil Works mission. This R&D is critical to national security by enabling 

a vital lifeblood link to our nation’s commerce and economy, and supports the movement of supplies and materiel vital to our national defense. The Civil Works capabilities ERDC develops and provides not only support national security interests 

within our borders, but also enable this Nation to support water resources maintenance, repair and rehabilitation operations in war zones, like Mosul Dam in Iraq, 

and Kajaki and Dahla Dams in Afghanistan. ERDC Civil Works expertise, combined 

with its military technology and environmental security R&D, is truly unique. 

ERDC’s ability to leverage these otherwise disparate capabilities within the bounds 

of one organization creates powerful dual-use opportunities. ERDC’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Program is a perfect example of how it leverages its military 

expertise to protect Civil Works infrastructure. Technologies developed to protect 

personnel and facilities in contingency environments have been transitioned to protect critical infrastructure in the U.S., from buildings in our capitol and major cities, 

to locks and dams and other navigation infrastructure; and from bridges like the 

Golden Gate, to other transportation infrastructure such as subway and railway systems. 

Finally, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the importance of facilities, infrastructure and the 219 Program to the overall DOD S&T posture. 

The ERDC employs a world-class team and conducts world-class research, but it 

has a need to modernize and recapitalize its experimental facilities to ensure it can 

continue to support the Warfighter and the Nation in a world-class manner. While 

ERDC has some new and state-of-the-art facilities, the average age of ERDC facilities is 41 years, and its recapitalization rate extends into the next century. Technology advances are moving at a rapid pace and U.S. adversaries are taking full 

advantage of these advancements. Research facilities must be built to be adaptable 

and resilient or they will become outdated and obsolete. Just as importantly, the 

Nation must ensure our research facilities have sufficient sustainment dollars in 

order to minimize the amount of research dollars we must divert to support operations and maintenance. Finally, our research facilities must be of a quality to aid 

in recruitment and retention of the best and brightest research staff in the world. 

In fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015, ERDC was successful in obtaining funding for two Unspecified Minor Military Construction (UMMC) projects using the 

Laboratory Revitalization Program authority provided by this Committee. With that 

funding, ERDC constructed a new $2.5 million Fragmentation Research Facility and 

will soon begin construction of a $3.8 million facility to construct large concrete targets to support blast, penetration and fragmentation research. For fiscal year 2017, 

ERDC submitted a list of requirements for consideration in the UMMC program, its 

number one priority being a Transformer Yard ($1.9 million) at its Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in New Hampshire that will improve efficiency, 

safety and operations. ERDC also included a project to expand its capacity to improve Projectile Penetration Research ($3.8 million) at its Vicksburg, Mississippi, 

campus to meet current and future requirements. Both projects were selected for 

funding in fiscal year 2017. The expanded authority for labs provided in the Laboratory Revitalization Program, particularly the $4 million UMMC threshold, has been 

extremely valuable to the ERDC. It was rewarding to see that the fiscal year 2017 

NDAA signed into law in December 2016 extended the program to fiscal year 2025 

and increased the threshold to $6 million. ERDC hopes to take advantage of the 

new threshold right away, and is optimistic that, over the next few years, Congress 

will see fit to make this program permanent, allowing Laboratory Directors to plan 

and execute infrastructure improvements well into the future. 

While ERDC has had some success with minor construction, it has yet to break 

into the Major Military Construction future years’ defense plan. ERDC has not had 

a project funded with MILCON in recent memory, nor does it have one in the current POM. In light of significant reduction in funds available for military construction and the requirement for Army leadership to support Soldier readiness initiatives, ERDC has deferred asking for support in MILCON for the past few years. 

13 

ERDC leadership has begun identifying requirements where MILCON would be an 

appropriate funding source in order to try again in future. With limited funds available and considering Army needs, it is understood that there will be many more 

projects deferred than will be programmed for funding. This reality is likely to remain the situation for years to come, making the Laboratory Revitalization and 219 

authorities even more critical to ensuring laboratory directors can respond quickly 

and adapt to emerging threats. 

ERDC’s 219 Authority gives it a mechanism to provide funds for innovative research, technology transfer, workforce development, and to improve facilities and infrastructure. ERDC has had great success in using this authority over the years and 

greatly appreciates the Committee’s willingness to extend the authority each time 

it was close to expiration, to expand the authority, and to provide clarification of 

the Congress’ intent in order to improve the program’s effectiveness. I always appreciated that your staff took the time to meet with me here in Washington, DC and 

travel to ERDC facilities and see firsthand how we were implementing this program. The cooperation across the Committee staff and with their colleagues in the 

House has resulted in a great program, and I am pleased to see that the fiscal year 

2017 National Defense Authorization Act made this authority permanent and increased the amount that can be collected from 3 to 4 percent. 

The 219 Program has allowed Directors to allocate funds toward research efforts 

to address needs and requirements that arise faster than the normal budget planning cycle. This was recently highlighted by an ERDC investment to develop an Advanced Blast Load Simulator prototype. This research led to a working 4-ft by 4- 

ft prototype and a comprehensive and affordable plan to build the capacity to conduct controlled blast experiments on target surface areas of 12-ft by 12-ft. Previous 

attempts to build this scale were technically challenging and cost-prohibitive. Conducting blast experiments of this size in a controlled laboratory environment will 

allow ERDC to perform multiple experiments in a shorter period of time at significantly reduced cost and with improved accuracy. Full-scale field tests are expensive, 

time-consuming, and require valuable range time. While field tests will always be 

necessary, the simulator will ensure those tests are optimal and shorten the time 

required to provide solutions to save Soldiers’ lives. This would not be possible without Section 219 authority. 

In fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, the 219 Program allowed me, as then- Director of ERDC, to spend approximately $5 million a year to upgrade facilities infrastructure at the four main ERDC sites and at our research facilities in Alaska. 

Improvements include airfield and pavement testing areas; backup generators and 

chemistry labs for projects that ensure ERDC was able to properly maintain housing 

of animals and live organisms for experimentation; and to upgrade and maintain 

dominance in extreme cold environments. Each of these projects is relatively small 

compared to some of the multi-million dollar military construction projects you may 

see, but they have a huge impact on the quality of research and capability of ERDC 

engineers and scientists. I appreciate the flexibility this mechanism provides. Unfortunately, the labs have not yet been able to take advantage of the authority you 

provided in the fiscal year 2014 NDAA that allows directors to accrue funds over 

multiple fiscal years to support larger infrastructure needs. Laboratories continue 

to work toward a way to implement processes that will allow them to do this in an 

accountable, auditable and sustainable fashion. Your staff are aware of this and are 

committed to working with the laboratories to address these challenges. 

In conclusion, Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley has stated that ‘‘we will 

do what it takes to build an agile, adaptive Army of the future. We will listen and 

learn . . . from the Army itself, from other Services, from our interagency partners, 

but also from the private sector . . . we will change and adapt.’’ I always took pride 

in the relationships ERDC built within the Army, with its Service partners and 

other federal agencies, and with academia and industry. These were ‘‘my’’ stakeholders, as were Congress and the American public. It is for you I worked, and I 

did not take lightly the trust that was placed in me to solve problems critical to 

our Nation’s security and the well-being of our Armed Forces and citizens. 

The engineers and scientists, support personnel, and leadership of the U.S. Army 

Engineer Research and Development Center take extreme pride in what they do. 

On behalf of its new leadership, I invite you all to visit at any time to see this firsthand as you talk to the ERDC team. ERDC team members come to work every day, 

knowing that what they do makes a difference—they are saving lives; helping safeguard our citizens at home and around the world; and protecting and enhancing the 

environment around us. 

Thank you for your time. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or other Members may have. 

14 

Senator ERNST. Thank you very much, Dr. Holland. 

Dr. Montgomery? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MONTGOMERY, Ph.D., FORMER DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, 

UNITED STATES NAVY 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you very much. I have to tell you how 

I ended up at the Naval Research Laboratory. 

Like many things in life, and often in science, it was an accident. 

It turns out that I was in graduate school, that it was time for me 

to come out. I had a pregnant wife. I had no way to pay for the 

baby. I heard through the grapevine that NRL was hiring, and I 

signed up sight unknown what I was going to end up with. 

I ended up in the Electronic Warfare Division of the Naval Research Laboratory in the fall of 1968. I served in that division for 

34 years, and 17 years as its director. Then in 2002, I ended up 

as the director of research of the Naval Research Laboratory. 

You know, I thought my first 34 years were fun. The second 14 

that I served as director was not only great fun, it was very rewarding. But it was very challenging, and, in many ways, we had 

a lot of help from the folks on the Hill at managing some of our 

challenging problems. 

I retired from Federal service on the 3rd of August 2016. 

So I am really grateful to have an opportunity to talk to you 

about my experiences there at the lab. I am currently, as far as 

DOD is concerned, a private citizen. I will express a point of view 

which is mine, but that is founded in almost 50 years both as a 

practicer and a participant in the larger DOD lab community. I 

have witnessed firsthand the great value that it has had to the Department of Defense and in many ways unrecognized, unseen, and 

unappreciated. 

One of the greatest EW [electronic warfare] solutions is an active 

electronic decoy, which is towed by aircraft. Its success rate is really high. I am proud of having been involved in that. But it does 

not say NRL [Naval Research Laboratory] inside. It does not recognize the fact that the magnet technology that made the power 

source a traveling wave tube small was invented by NRL, or that 

the cathode and the beam control and the aerodynamics and the 

control systems all came out of the DOD laboratories, and we 

worked at the Navy and Air Force until it was completed and fielded. At the time, it was a revolutionary solution, which serves us 

well today. 

So there are many things that I mentioned that we had received 

as new authorities—section 342 that gave us the STRLs [Science 

and Technology Reinvention Laboratory]; section 219, the direct 

hire authority—all of those have been very important to us, and we 

have been able to use them effectively. 

The direct hire authority, there are several hundred people at 

the laboratory that we hired using direct hire authority. The creation of the Karles fellowship program named after Jerome and 

Isabella Karle, he a Nobel Laureate in physics, she equally honored. He was a chemist, and she was also a chemist. We named it 

after her. We have almost 200 of those, the best and the brightest 

this Nation has to offer from all over. 

15 

There are authorities that await implementation, such as 

1107(h), the NDAA of 2014, which would further strengthen the 

laboratory. 

So I am going to tell you a little bit about the lab. It was created 

in 1923 by an act of Congress. Its role is to do basic science, fundamental technology, and see that it influences and gets embedded in 

naval systems. That is both the air part of the Navy, surface submarines, the space part of the Navy, as well as in the Marine 

Corps, and to take that science and technology understanding and 

harness it to the solution of problems emerging operationally in the 

Navy and the Marine Corps, and bringing that knowledge to bear 

to solve those problems. 

An example of that, of course, is the work that has been done 

over the last number of years in dealing with improvised explosive 

devices, and others which may yet arise in the radiological and biological and nuclear area. 

So NRL has had a long history of putting things out there that 

changed the military forces and changed the world, in fact. Many 

of them with civilian impact—sonar, radar, nuclear submarines, 

global positioning system, spy satellites. NRL built and fielded 100 

satellites with Federal employees out of NRL. Electronic warfare, 

which was founded out of the lab, which has come to be of greater 

importance recently. All of these are continuing today. 

Some of the things that we are working on are just now revealing what their potential may be—the electromagnetic railgun that 

allows you to fire projectiles at Mach 7 or Mach 8, reaching out 100 

miles or more. Or in short-range engagements, they have the potential of engaging hypersonic cruise missiles that otherwise we 

might not have the ability to engage at all due to the deficiency 

and relative velocities that we would otherwise have. 

Spintronics, a new form of electronics which will fundamentally 

revolutionize how we do electronics—higher speed, lower power, 

greater bandwidth. It uses rather than the motion of electrons 

through media—sort of like running through a crowd at the mall 

at Christmastime. You waste all your energy bouncing off all those 

other people. Spintronics do not do that at all. They just flip the 

electron spin. You can actually make electron currents. 

A crude analogy of that, and we have all seen this, these domino 

constructs where you push and flop the first domino, and you see 

this wave of dominoes falling over, the dominoes do not actually 

move longitudinally. They just change from vertical to flat. That is 

exactly what happens with these electrons as they flip. 

That can carry information for ultrafast processing, high-bandwidth communication. The laboratory is working with the semiconductor industry to transfer that in. It will be a fundamental revolution. 

Other things, quantum systems, a big effort on that for 

encryption, for processing, for sensing. 

Bio-printing, very interesting, because what is emerging now 

among these technologies is the ability to take a skin cell from your 

hand, induce it to be fluripotent, specialize it to a heart muscle cell, 

and using 3D printing to build you a brand-new heart from your 

own cells and then replace it. 

16 

Given my age, I doubt it will be in widespread use in time to 

help me, but I will take great satisfaction in seeing its development 

along the way. 

Synthetic biology for fuels, for creation of drugs that we cannot 

create today, and the larger field of genetic engineering as we start 

to understand what all we can do in synthetic biology with the revolutions in CRISPR/Cas9, where we can develop things which are 

organisms that live and produce products we can use that never existed before in nature. 

Other things are still amongst the yet unrecognized products of 

the basic sciences that we are doing at the lab and across the larger enterprise. They may become every bit as important as the 

things that I mentioned earlier in terms of shaping the world. It 

may take decades to do that, but they may, in fact, change the 

world. 

So this is done by Federal scientists with deep understanding of 

the Department of the Navy in a Navy-owned facility, and its results are owned by the Navy. The laboratory and its mission has 

been of vital import in the past, but it may be even more critical 

in the future as the technological and scientific centroid of worldwide activity inexorably moves eastward, and we are no longer the 

sole dominant player in the world of science and technology. I hope 

we will have an opportunity to amplify that further on. 

So what are the three things that are the most important to me 

from my experience at the laboratory? 

Allowing the director control over the tools of the laboratory. 

That includes the scientists, the equipment, the funding, the pay 

scales and compensation, and recognition and rewarding. Section 

1107(h) of the NDAA of 2014 would be of great assistance in that 

area. 

Regenerating our facilities, the average age of the facilities at 

NRL this decade—our decadal replacement rate is 636 years. When 

that dropped from 1,101 to 636, I was really excited because at 

least there was a biblical precedent of somebody lasting long 

enough to see one of those cycles through, facilities. 

An acquisition system, a means to buy things that is tailored to 

the requirements of buying something in partnership with industry 

and universities that never existed before in the history of humanity, and where the outcomes are truly unknown because you are 

probing the boundaries of knowledge and understanding, and it 

was never explored before and it is hard to put down on paper the 

outcome of that science. That is not how our current acquisition 

system is designed. 

So thank you for your patience. Thank you for listening to me. 

Senator ERNST. Wonderful. Thank you, Dr. Montgomery. 

Mr. Peters? 

STATEMENT OF RICKY L. PETERS, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY, UNITED 

STATES AIR FORCE 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you very much, Chairman Ernst and Ranking Member Heinrich. It is a real privilege to be here today, and 

I appreciate the opportunity. I am also honored to be here with my 

17 

colleagues to share the Air Force Research Laboratory successes, in 

particular supporting military operations and readiness. 

I was privileged to spend 35 years as a civil servant in the Air 

Force. What an awesome, awesome time that was. Ten of those 

years, sort of toward the end, were in the test world, which included an assignment at the Pentagon as the director for Air Force 

Test and Evaluation. I did spend 25 of those years in the Air Force 

Research Laboratory. 

I retired in September 2015, and so perhaps some of the things 

I will say today are dated, but it is nice to not have anybody script 

anything for you, to come in and get an opportunity to answer your 

questions, and I am truly looking forward to that. 

I can tell you, though, in every assignment I had, I was amazed 

by the talented scientists and engineers and everybody else who 

supported them. That was the one thing that I learned in the laboratory and across the Air Force. The contracting specialists, the 

financial experts, the personnelists were just world-class. As a result of that teaming that we had, that is what enabled our Air 

Force to be second to none, just an amazing group of people. 

So today, I went from an organization of 10,000 people to one of 

10, so I am now a small-business person on the outside. 

A lot of what we did in the Air Force Research Lab is extended 

into that piece now. I am working for a small company that actually is formed by the Greater Dayton Hospital Association. The reason I mention that it is 29 regional hospitals that grouped together. 

It includes the VA Center and the Wright-Patt Med Center, so 

there are the military aspects of that as well, a group that comes 

together to help solve medical challenges in the region and also 

looks at things they can do together, to work closer together. 

It was an awesome opportunity. Three of those organizations in 

the GDHA [Georgia Dental Hygenists Association] actually came 

together and invested in us, Kettering Health Network, Premier 

Health Partners, and Dayton Children’s Hospital. They teamed 

with a small innovation and design firm out of Cincinnati called 

Kaleidoscope. 

So with that group, we actually take unmet needs out of the hospitals, and that includes things that perhaps would come out of the 

military side, and look at commercializing those. So unmet needs 

are ideas that we want to take on. This small team does that from 

idea all the way through development, and commercializing out the 

backend and spinning out small companies. So it is a great small 

microcosm of what you would find in the AFRL, from very basic research all the way through development. But now we add the commercial side into that. 

So a great extension of what I did there. I absolutely loved the 

time that I was there. I will not spend any more time talking about 

that now. I am anxious to hear your questions and respond to 

those. But thank you again for the opportunity today. 

Senator ERNST. We appreciate it. 

Thank you all very much. I wish we had a lot of our younger generation here. They would be so excited to hear about how you utilize science and technology at your various laboratories, and the 

level of enthusiasm is just incredible. So thank you very much for 

that. 

18 

We will start with 7-minute rounds of questions. As we happen 

to be joined by other members, as they come in, we will include 

them in the round of questioning as well. 

My first question to you all today is about soldiers’ protective 

equipment. I am concerned that the Department of Defense is not 

devoting enough attention to advancing individual soldier’s protective equipment, like body armor and helmets. 

I am even more concerned that body armor currently produced 

by a private company in Iowa and not being used by the DOD appears to be better than what our servicemembers are actually 

wearing when they are out on the battlefield. As we devote billions 

of dollars to advanced aircraft and space capabilities, there simply 

is no excuse for sending an infantryman into a fight without the 

best possible protective gear. 

So my question to the panelists, if the best body armor is being 

made in the private sector, how do we go about getting it to our 

servicemembers? We have talked about different acquisition issues, 

but then also, how can the laboratories work even further on that 

personal protective gear? 

Any of you, if you would like to answer? Thank you. 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. There is a bit of a challenge in that the services have very large quantities of these equipments to buy. One of 

the fundamental challenges is understanding, when a new idea 

comes about, how to validate and come to understand the advantages it represents as compared to that which we have. So testing 

processes are important. 

For example, in working with the Army and new materials as developed by industry, NRL is looking at improved ways to provide 

body armor out of new material such as ultrahigh-density polyethylene fibers to replace Kevlar, working with the Army and with 

industry on fabrication of these vests. 

That does not really address your issue of how you get them 

through the acquisition process, which hopefully we will touch on 

a little further, but it does point out the fact that having clear, demonstrable, greater military value than that which is already 

there, which is provable, is really important. 

There are other aspects of the protection as well that you can see 

the very large, cumbersome chem-bio suits that our soldiers wear 

in the field. It is pretty topical these days, given what has gone on 

in Syria. But work in the laboratory and in partnership with industry is the coding of every individual fiber within the uniform with 

enzymes that, on contact with chemical or biological agents, break 

them down to harmless compounds. 

Those could provide a much more comfortable environment in 

which soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors can operate in those 

environments, and yet still provide them protection that they need. 

So channels that allow those new ideas, better approaches to, as 

an institutional method, move into the mainstream and produce 

and distribute it is something that we need. Rapid prototyping and 

experimentation are going to be critical to that, and perhaps we 

will touch more on that later. 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely. 

Anyone else? 

Yes, Dr. Flagg. 

19 

Dr. FLAGG. I think one of the things that I found as I traveled 

around the country and I talked with folks is that it is very hard 

for people who believe they have a great solution to understand the 

context within which that solution would be employed, and then to 

really draw the apples-to-apples comparison. 

I think that some of the examples of ways that we can go about 

making this a more effective process are things like examples 

where I know the Army has done these sort of roundups, where 

they allow people to bring their solutions in and have them tested 

out against common goals. 

We sometimes resist using research dollars, that are precious 

and are small and that we fight to protect, to apply them to clearly 

testing and sort of acquisition-related processes. But I am a big believer in bringing people at the local, state, regional levels into the 

process. 

I think if you begin to understand that it is not just it stops a 

bullet better, it is that it is light enough, it integrates with all of 

the other equipment, it gives them the mobility to run, to move, to 

shoot, to launch UAVs, to do whatever else they need to do, it is 

a very dynamic environment, and it is very different than someone 

who is in a vehicle, getting out, making one shot, which tends to 

be a more domestic context that many of these things locally are 

developed against, sort of those goals. 

So I think if we can develop places, times, moments, where folks 

in the region can bring their ideas together and show them, test 

them out, that actually we would all learn something from that. 

The laboratories could see that there might be parts of that they 

could integrate or that they have tech transfer or goals that they 

could provide to small business to make it more likely that those 

ideas could be developed into robust, applicable solutions. 

I also think that it would make regular people feel more engaged 

in their government. 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely. 

Dr. FLAGG. To understand what the real need is is very hard 

when you are far away. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. 

Anyone else? 

With that, I will yield back my remaining time. We will have 

time for additional questions in a moment. 

But, Ranking Member Heinrich? 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to start by asking you all, and I know, Dr. Holland, you 

addressed this a fair bit in your testimony, about some of the hiring flexibility that has been provided. It seems like that has not 

been universally applied across the lab enterprises. 

How can we do a better job of making sure that that is actually 

utilized? Where are the challenges to making that happen? Really, 

from any of your perspectives, how can we make sure that those 

hiring authorities are actually making it through to where we are 

able to hire more effectively, more quickly, and get the talent that 

we need for these enterprises? 

Dr. Flagg? 

20 

Dr. FLAGG. I am going to start, because they are all going to say 

it is our fault, or it was. I am not constrained by the OSC lawyers 

anymore, so I can say what I want. 

Senator HEINRICH. That is exactly why we invited you. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FLAGG. Everybody is nervous behind me now. 

The first thing I would do is call the lawyers from every service 

in here and ask them how they are going to find a way to yes, not 

how they are going to do the easy thing and say, ‘‘No, I have never 

done it before.’’ Because the lawyers are running that organization 

right now, not the mission specialists, first. 

The second thing I would do is call the personnel and readiness 

people in, and the military folks in each of the services who oversee 

the civilian hiring and personnel authorities at each of these laboratories, and ask them why they are so obsessed with everything 

being the same rather than every part of the system being optimized to fulfill the mission. 

The mission is: Send those men and women out into the field to 

do a dangerous, ugly job, and give them the highest likelihood to 

succeed at the mission and come home alive. That is the mission. 

The mission is not: How do I make everybody feel like they are 

getting a fair sort of environment where nobody is getting special 

treatment in personnel hiring authorities or how we do our budgets? 

Right now, there is more of a focus on controlling your little 

pooka and making sure that nobody gets special treatment and everyone is equal and that the lawyers never tell you you are going 

to go to jail than there is on getting the mission done. It is a problem. 

I will say that, at the end of 15 months, I had spent 15 months 

banging my head against a wall and being a part of the problem. 

When I walked out, it was with a realization that, if I ever go back, 

I would rather risk going to jail than tolerating that kind of ignoring of the mission that I see happening right now—not because any 

one individual is trying to do the wrong thing, but because everybody is trying to do the safe thing. 

Senator HEINRICH. Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. Just a couple things that I would add. I would say 

that everything that happened with the laboratory demonstration 

projects and section 340 2 years ago was amazing. What I think 

built just a powerful system there was that we took scientists and 

engineers and said, what would you like the system to be? 

We had just a phenomenal mentor in Dr. George Abrahamson 

from SRI. He helped us build that system, and it was a system that 

we wanted and we knew it would help us promote people, to retain 

people, to hire people. It was the right system for us. 

We had one personnelist, incidentally, that was on that team. 

There was a core team of five and about 50 total. The personnelist 

was brilliant because she would say, here is what we need to do 

to get a waiver, and here is who has that authority all the way 

through OPM [Office of Personnel Management]. 

So you gave us that, and we went forward with it, and we built 

the right kind of system. Everything that has come since then, I 

believe, has taken forever to implement. 

21 

So all the new flexibilities that you have given us—— 

Senator HEINRICH. Why is that, Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. You know, 2015, the authorities that the Air Force 

was given, and the services, in 2015 in the personnel area, the policies still are not in place. We do not know. We just do not have 

them implemented yet. 

Even something like manage-to-budget, we are still being monitored in AFRL by the number of slots we have and the limitation 

on over-hiring. Instead of saying manage-to-budget—we had a goal 

in the lab of no more than 25 percent of our total income that we 

got would be spent toward salary, so we had something. What are 

we willing to bet, and what are we willing to put it risk, knowing 

that we still had facilities to take care of and we still had contracting on the outside to support us? 

So truly give us that manage-to-budget authority and stop measuring in terms of the number of people, and I believe that would 

really help out in the Air Force. 

In terms of the time, though, that it takes to hire people, I cannot answer that. There has been a lot of centralization that happened. 

I know, sir, in Albuquerque, we have had some trouble hiring in 

Directed Energy and Space Vehicles. I cannot give you an answer 

for it. 

But we keep trying to look at the process. We keep trying to fix 

it. I think Dr. Flagg had it correct, that we just need to get the people out of the way and have something specific for science and technology. It was working when we first stood up the lab demo 

projects, I can tell you that. 

Senator HEINRICH. Dr. Holland? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Once we get OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] lawyers all in a room and bind them, however you would like 

to infer that, then the services then put their own spins on the implementation. So the guidance that comes out of OSD, out of DOD, 

will have to be clear and relatively unassailable, to the services. 

The reason that the original things that happened with the laboratory demonstration projects worked so well is because there was 

a clear champion at the beginning. I would suggest to you that the 

new Under for research and engineering—— 

Senator HEINRICH. Who was leadership-based. 

Dr. HOLLAND.—would have to be viewed as your champion at a 

very high level, someone who owns all of the purview that is necessary to make these things happen, and someone who you can 

hold accountable for that matter, because, at the present time, you 

lack that scenario. 

Otherwise, you will get the OSD spin, the service spins, legal and 

the human resources spins. Then by the time you get done with 

those, you have a 2- to 4-year implementation planning process 

going on. 

Some of us have actually gone out and implemented, quite candidly, on our own at times, the ones of us who are crankier, who 

did not pay attention to whether we were retired or not. That was 

only way to go ahead and get things going, because we felt that you 

had given us the responsibility and law to do that to begin with. 

That was fraught with difficulties all on its own. 

22 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Let me comment, if I may? 

The direct hire authorities for advanced degrees, bachelor degrees, veterans, technicians have been of tremendous value to us. 

We can get a person a firm, formal offer in about 2 weeks. Within 

the Navy, the Navy has allowed this authority for doing this to vest 

in the laboratories within the Navy. That was a challenge that 

OCHR [Office of Civilian Human Resources] undertook years ago. 

But we have a fundamental problem. Our pipeline is founded 

largely on students. It may be a faculty member collaborating with 

one of my scientists to say this is the best graduate student I ever 

had. You ought to hire them. 

What we would like to be able to do is go out and use the direct 

hire authority that you have authorized and be able to say, yes, I 

am going to bring that person aboard and make him an offer. We 

used to be able to do that. We can no longer do that. 

My summer student program has gone from about 500 a year 

down to a low of 45 a year, creeping back up to about half what 

it used to be. We cannot penetrate the system to get the use of the 

direct hire authority for students. 

If you can help get that through the system, that would be of tremendous—I have some hope. Some of the authorities for personnel 

within the demos on 4 April moved to OSD, and we hope that 

maybe there will be a new view in hand after you get the lawyers 

together. 

Senator HEINRICH. [Presiding.] I want to thank you all for your 

candor. 

Senator Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

We have a vote, so it may be that members will be coming and 

going. 

But let me direct my first question to Dr. Holland. I want to 

thank you for your work at ERDC. I understand we have some scientists from the lab at Mississippi with us today. Would you like 

to introduce the scientists? 

Dr. HOLLAND. They are from all over the ERDC. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. Mr. Ranking Member, 

thanks for indulging me on that. 

Let’s connect the dots between the lab to the warfighter, if you 

will, Dr. Holland. How does our supercomputing capability eventually help us win the fight? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Senator, the department as a whole has become, 

I would say, close to 50 percent computational in its scientific experimentation, if you will. So the supercomputing work that we do 

is fundamental to all of the services and to the work that the OSD 

organizations do. 

A good example would be the work that we did on the MRAP, 

on the underbelly blast. There were multiple Army organizations 

that were involved in that. ERDC was one of those. The Army Research Laboratory, the Tank and Automotive Command folks were 

involved in that. 

Endless numbers of calculations were done, literally tens of millions of computing hours were used to do blast calculations. Those 

were then compared against very specific field studies at multiple 

scales to make sure that the calculations were validated. Then 

23 

those were extended far beyond the range of what we would have 

ever been able to afford in terms of doing real field studies of fullscale calculations. 

From that, we made decisions on what the underbelly needed to 

look like for the MRAP. That went to full production, and those solutions went to theater. 

From that point forward, we have had, as a military, very few, 

if any, difficulties with IED [Improvised Explosive Device] issues 

with the MRAP from that point forward. 

For the calculations that we believe in, that we validated, we 

have the capability to make those types of decisions now through 

the use of supercomputing. 

Senator WICKER. So that is just one example of a real success 

story there. 

Dr. HOLLAND. Yes, sir. 

Senator WICKER. Let me then transition to some of your partnerships with academia. Particularly, I would like for the members of 

this subcommittee to understand your cooperation with historically 

black institutions like Jackson State University. How has this 

worked with Jackson State on cyber defense and big data analytics? Can you comment on the larger partnership with the historically black colleges and universities? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Yes, Senator. 

ERDC, in particular, has educational partnership agreements 

with 13 historically black colleges and universities and minorityserving institutions across the Nation. One of those, and one of the 

longest standing ones, is with Jackson State University in Jackson, 

Mississippi. 

JSU has been, at various times, either first or second among the 

research universities in HBCU/MIs in the country. ERDC’s relationship with them touches cyber, touches computational chemistry 

areas. Those things touch several of the military applications that 

ERDC is involved in. Those relationships go back probably 25 

years, to my memory. 

Senator WICKER. What would those applications be, an example 

of that? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Those range from environmental quality issues related to cleanup of military ranges to keep those ranges open, all 

the way up to specific applications on the classified side, to cybersecurity issues, Senator. Those are very strong partnerships. There 

are even extensions of those that go into homeland security that involve Jackson State University. 

So we have been able to meld those relationships. For example, 

ERDC, actually, openly provides the library to the Jackson State 

Engineering School that allowed it to be accredited under ABET accreditation, so there is a strong integration that exists with Jackson State and has been for many years. 

Senator WICKER. Well, thank you very much. Let me see if I can 

squeeze in another question in a minute. 

Dr. Montgomery, the Naval Research Lab at Stennis Space Center has worked closely with Naval Oceanography to develop cutting-edge unmanned underwater vehicle, or UUV, systems. 

Talk about that, and do you believe the Navy and NRL will increasingly emphasize UUV research and development? 

24 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Absolutely. The depths of the ocean are profound. Their reach is a vast. In order to be able to access areas 

which are otherwise denied, we need to be able to have vehicles 

that can span large spaces, that can operate underwater for very 

long periods of time, that have the intelligence to be able to deal 

with the unforeseen, the mountain, like the San Francisco that did 

not appear on the charts that they were using to detect it. 

So the NRL is working with the Office of Naval Research on 

large-diameter UUVs, which are using hydrogen power, and a GE 

fuel cell based engine of 95 kilowatts, which uniquely we have been 

provided by General Motors to do this, which can provide payloadcarrying capabilities large distances and large payloads. 

Other approaches in the research area are taken where air vehicles are designed to penetrate with GPS precision into denied areas 

at bird-like speeds so they do not show up on radar, and then insert themselves into the ocean and become a UUV already where 

you want to do your sensing with the ability to bring things back 

out, the information that you gain. 

This is critically important. It is going to proliferate widely 

worldwide, not just what we will do in the U.S., but potential adversaries will be doing that as well for undersea mapping, for sensors and detection of hostile forces underwater, and to penetrate 

into denied areas. 

It is a real cool area. 

Senator ERNST. [Presiding.] Thank you very much. 

Senator Shaheen? 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you all for being here today. I apologize because I had another event. I missed the testimony, so if you have already been 

asked this question, I will just ask you to repeat it. 

But are the labs currently covered by the hiring freeze? 

Mr. PETERS. Yes, they are. I know AFRL is, ma’am. So that has 

been a real challenge. This is the prime time for hiring right now. 

Typically, we do not have trouble recruiting and retaining really 

top-notch people, but there is a blanket waiver for some of the 

PALACE Acquires and some of the things like that, but it is impacting AFRL, I can tell you that. There are vacancies right now 

that need to be filled. 

Senator SHAHEEN. To what extent has the budget uncertainty 

over the last, as long as I have been here almost, affected recruitment and hiring? Has that also been an issue? 

Mr. PETERS. Historically, that has not been an issue. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Good. 

Mr. PETERS. It is more about not being able to manage-to-budget, 

and actually having to keep within the slots that we have, the 

over-hires and the ratio that we have there. 

I believe the flexibility has been given. Personally, I do not believe we need more authorities in the personnel area. We just need 

to be able to use the ones that we have. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Great. So that is really dependent upon the 

leadership within the department? 

Is that the challenge, Dr. Flagg? 

Dr. FLAGG. I think the biggest challenge here is that every single 

lawyer between you and a lab director gets to say no. 

25 

Senator SHAHEEN. I understand that, but let’s be clear. The reason the lawyers can say that is because the leadership has not said 

to the lawyers get out of the debate. 

Dr. FLAGG. I agree. I am not going to argue that. I did kind of 

have a soapbox earlier that you missed on this issue. 

Senator SHAHEEN. No, I heard it. 

Dr. FLAGG. Okay. But I do believe that, as Dr. Holland mentioned, there needs to be a strong, unyielding demand signal sent 

to the new Under Secretary for Research and Engineering that 

they are not there just to do cool, sexy things that get into the New 

York Times. They are there to make sure that the future of defense, which is in our laboratories, is secure. That means doing 

some of the unsexy stuff like telling the lawyer get to yes. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I doubt that you would get any objection from 

the members of the committee, but ending the hiring freeze will 

also be important. 

Dr. FLAGG. Absolutely. I would actually say that the budget uncertainty, in my opinion, does, in fact, affect our partnerships externally, and it does, in fact, affect retention. 

The moral issue that I see when I would visit the labs is that 

not the budget uncertainty hurts in hiring, but it makes people feel 

very uncertain about whether their projects will continue or whether they will get to take on new and challenging questions. Frankly, 

they have other opportunities. 

So for me, the budget uncertainty is, in fact, a deep challenge, 

but it is not necessarily the hiring. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Research Enterprise—that is a mouthful—indicated that our Nation’s laboratory infrastructure is becoming outdated and that it lacks the benefits of modern efficiencies and technology. In New Hampshire, we 

have the Cold Regions Research Lab, which has been very important to us. 

So when I see that kind of conclusion, understandably, I question 

what we ought to be doing to make the changes to make sure that 

our labs can continue to operate efficiently. 

So do you all agree with that conclusion? What should we be 

doing to change that infrastructure so that it works better? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. May I comment on that? 

Senator SHAHEEN. Dr. Montgomery? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. There are a number of areas of concern. 

One is how the milcon process functions. We can make it better. 

I will mention that a little more. We can make it better or we can 

find an alternative mechanism. 

The sustainment models that are used within the Department of 

Defense are inadequate. They have been scored badly by GAO 

[Government Accountability Office]. They have a sustainment, renovation, and modernization model which determines how much one 

should spend per square foot to maintain a facility on the average 

over the first 50 years of its life. That model provides 40 percent 

less for a research and development establishment in DOD than it 

does to maintain a public restroom. The office building called the Pentagon gets about $8 a square 

foot per year. The Naval Research Laboratory, the corporate labVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:23 May 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\36204.TXT WILDA
26 

oratory of the Department of the Navy, received in this model at 

most $2.60 a square foot. Now due to the pressures on the budget, 

the challenge is for it to actually be given the amount of money 

that the model actually calls for. Usually, fiscal constraints result 

in substantially less modernization. 

So what do you end up with? What you end up with at NRL, you 

end up with state-of-the-art scientific equipment and some of the 

best and brightest people in physical structures that were antiquated. Here is my story. We had a building that had $15 million worth 

of scientific equipment in an area that needed a roof. So we got the 

guys to come put a roof on it after years and years. The guy putting the roof on set the roof on fire, so we were losing the roof. But 

the good news is the sprinklers actually came on. The bad news is 

they rained down on $50 million worth of equipment. The good 

news is, because the roof had been leaking for so many years, all 

the vital equipment was under plastic tents. 

So what happened is we really did not lose that. The good news 

is that the contractor was insured. The bad news is, we never saw 

a penny of it. We had to pay for it out of hide in funds that would 

have been used for something else. 

So the modernization of the facilities is of critical importance. 

How can you do it? You can have a set-aside for laboratory 

milcon and fight the battle of the milcon. You can do what I suggested that in some quarters was thought outrageous, is you 

change a few words in the law for section 219, where it says minor 

military construction, change it to construction. When it says $4 

million, you take out the $4 million, and let us take the 3 percent 

from section 219, put that aside for several years, and every 3 

years, I could have $40 million to $60 million a year, which would 

build me a building which was about 60,000 square feet, which is 

big enough to be efficient. If I have $5 million, $4 million, I am 

going to get about 8,000 square feet and stacking those up, as a 

fundamental solution, it is not. It is just a Band-Aid. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. I have to go vote, but 

I appreciate the conversation. 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Well, good. Maybe you can vote for what I just 

suggested. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, we will take a look that, won’t we, 

Madam Chair? 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely correct. Absolutely correct. 

We will start our second round of questioning. Again, as people 

arrive, we will take those questions. 

So as you all know, when the military wants to research and 

then field a new product, they have to actually build the product 

many times for testing. In Iowa, one of our universities has been 

working with DOD to conduct that testing on human-based 

avatars. It is cutting down the number of times we have to make 

products for testing, and it is saving taxpayer dollars, time, and 

human resources. 

So, Dr. Flagg, can you describe some of the benefits of computerbased avatar testing and any thoughts on that program and how 

we might be able to expand that through our laboratories? 

27 

Dr. FLAGG. Sure. I think that it is an incredibly interesting area. 

I know a little bit about it mostly because we are often asked about 

why we do animal testing. So we have to think a lot about when 

you can use virtual testing and new ways of thinking about how 

we do testing and when you actually have to put it onto a living 

organism to really understand it. 

I think the combination is incredibly powerful. We do not actually have a model of the full human system. We are actually very 

complex. While we kind of know how things work, we are not actually able to model the things that are going on inside of our bodies 

effectively yet. Most people think we must have that, but in 

science, we just do not have that yet. 

But what we do have is sort of the macro understanding of how 

we interact with the environment. This is where I think these virtual training systems that allow you to put the person into an environment that was not necessarily created specifically with the user 

in mind—because most engineers, God bless them, think more 

about the machine than they do the person until we have to shove 

one of them in there. 

I think it is an incredible opportunity to be much more thoughtful about that very early on in the engineering. I think these types 

of technologies in Iowa and many other places, and I think were 

some of our laboratories are sort of playing around with some of 

this as well, allows you to work on something in Iowa where a lab 

in Massachusetts, at Natick or something is working on something 

similar, to be able to compare, where you were doing that similar 

test in your own environments on your own activities, but to be 

able to share those results. 

So I think it increases our ability to integrate across the private 

sector, academia, and our laboratories. It allows us to much more 

affordably test very early in the system, where we would not necessarily stick an actual human in. It also allows us to test in environments that are incredibly dangerous and incredibly hostile. So 

I do not want to put necessarily a person into every explosion. So 

there are great ways of using the virtual testing before you actually 

get to something like WIAMan or some of the other activities that 

we have in the Army that are very expensive. 

So I think it has an incredibly relevant place in the system as 

long as we remember that it is one part of a series of things that 

need to be done to keep the human in mind very early on and to 

make sure that we minimize cost, but also that, at some point, we 

really know what is going to happen when we put an actual person 

in. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. I appreciate it. 

Any other input from our panelists? Dr. Holland? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Yes. It is really important that the environment 

that we are describing be one that can be validated in some sense. 

I think that is what Dr. Flagg was speaking to. 

From that perspective then, as best these environments can be 

built from an understood physics perspective, the more we can believe in them. The more that they are constructed from pure empiricism, for example, the more we are extrapolating on things that 

we get to the point of guesswork. Then when we add very sophistiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:23 May 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\36204.TXT WILDA
28 

cated graphics on top of those, then we are drawing beautiful pictures of things that can be pure baloney. 

Senator ERNST. That is a good point. 

Dr. HOLLAND. In the case of what we are doing for a living, that 

becomes extraordinarily dangerous, because we are involving someone’s life in the process. 

So we have been trying within the department to begin the process of just putting together the key environments that we own 

within the department to be able to put the best physics-based 

models together, for example, to see what parts of the flight of an 

airplane, the design of a ground vehicle, the design of the ship, et 

cetera, can be done computationally and how many of those trade 

spaces can we look at long beforehand, again, from the idea of 

being able to play a lot of these what-if games to gain insight long 

before we bend metal. 

Those are where we find our best use of the computational work, 

because it generates insight for us. It still leaves the human in the 

loop. But you must be able to validate them in order to believe 

them. 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely, a multilayered approach. Absolutely. 

Dr. Montgomery? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Models are great. They embody knowledge. 

They capture what you learn and allow you to be able to apply it. 

Developing them to be validatable and accurate, of course, is a 

challenge. 

So sort of extending from the avatar approach, for example, you 

can make physical models of human structures. The skull is a mechanical structure. The brain is elastic material with certain mechanical properties. So by testing those surrogates, you can get to 

understand what are the kind of effects that are going to have consequences for the person. 

So if you have a person who suffers a blast, then there is the initial blast, but there is also the shock that reverberates internal to 

the brain on several iterations as the shockwave penetrates under 

the helmet and around the head. Certain frequencies of that appear to be more damaging to the brain structures, producing traumatic brain injury, than others. 

So by being able to get a physical sense of that, then one can 

then feed that into the model that an avatar carries in a larger 

simulation model, which will then allow you to predict, if I do this 

to protect them, here is what the efficacy is going to be. 

It is critically important. It takes powerful computers. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. I appreciate that. 

Thank you very much. We will move on. If we can get Senator 

Warren, and we can come back to you, Senator Heinrich. 

Senator Warren, go ahead. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will get 

my notes out here. Thank you so much for being with us. 

I appreciate you allowing me to attend this hearing. I am not a 

member of this subcommittee, and I really do appreciate it. 

I asked to be here not only because we have world-class defense 

laboratories in my home State of Massachusetts, like the Natick 

Soldier Research Center, and also the MIT Lincoln Lab, but also 

because I believe that the labs and the research that they do make 

29 

up the backbone of our future military strength. I just think this 

is the heart of it. 

Last year, DOD reported that China is investing heavily in R&D 

[Research and Development], including in, and I will read, ‘‘applied 

physics, material science, high-performance computing, innovative 

electronics and software development, electro-optics, aerospace 

technology, automation, robotics, high-energy physics, and nanoscience, just to name a few.’’ So that kind of covers it. 

So I would like to start by asking Dr. Flagg, would we improve 

our chances of maintaining future superiority over China if we increase our R&D investments in similar advanced technologies? 

Dr. FLAGG. Thank you, Senator. This is a question that has come 

near and dear to my heart. 

Long ago, I ran the Technical Intelligence office, so I spent a lot 

of time focusing on international S&T, and I was overseas with the 

Navy as well. 

One of the things that I think is really interesting about this 

question is that it is not just a dollar question. It is also increasing 

and modernizing our structures and processes and approaches to 

how we do research. We came out of a period post-World War II 

where the leaders had been decimated. We rose in a vacuum, and 

we came to preeminence in S&T. 

We have been really challenged over the last 20 years in a rising 

era of parity. That same list is being supported here, and we need 

to stay in the race. It is like a marathon of two very well-matched 

competitors. 

But what you want to make sure is that you do not have to run 

so long in that evenly matched race that you get tired first. I believe that you have to stay in the race. We have to stay competitive 

and continue investments across those areas or we will erode and 

tunnel under the foundation of our national security, period. 

That is not just DOD funding. My Ph.D. was funded by the National Institutes of Health Fogarty Center. Many people here can 

tell you that their Ph.D.’s were not funded by the Department of 

Defense. They were funded by a broader S&T investment in the 

U.S. Government. 

But I think the second piece of this is to really think about new 

strategies for winning in an era of parity, what success looks like 

in era of parity. 

I think what this means is that we have to send some of our investment back to the first principles. We have to get people to come 

back from purpose-driven vision but not telling them the specific 

question they will answer but having the theorists and experimentalists work together to go back to the beginning and say, if I 

am not trying to be more or better or faster or more trustworthy 

or more resilient in cyber, if I go back to the first exit and I use 

all the information we have learned over the last 20 years and I 

created a fundamentally new network that would be secure, what 

would that look like? 

So while we are running the marathon, somebody needs to invent the train that takes me to the goal so that I do not have to 

keep running. 

So I think it is both the investment in that list, but it is also a 

new investment in processes that let us think bigger. 

30 

Senator WARREN. I totally agree, and I think the point is wellargued. Thank you very much. This is sort of the 6.1, 6.2 investments that we have let fall behind and that are absolutely critical, 

if we are going to have real security in the future. 

Let me get to a couple other questions, because I think this is 

really important. I want to ask about a recent Defense Science 

Board report, which highlighted the age and condition of our laboratory infrastructure. I saw you grimace on this. 

According to the report, the average Army lab is 50 years old. 

The Air Force and Navy labs average 45 and 46 years, respectively. 

The science board says that, ‘‘Most lab directors feel they are unable to maintain their facilities and infrastructure to a reasonable 

standard. They report witnessing leaky roofs, imperiling millions of 

dollars’ worth of specialized and sensitive equipment,’’ as you 

noted, Dr. Montgomery, earlier. 

So I just want to ask the lab directors, just kind of a yes and no. 

Let me start, does that basically fit with your experience? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARREN. Yes. 

Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. It does, yes. I would say, though, that the Air Force 

has done a pretty good job in terms of supporting the lab in the 

locations that we are in. We do have probably some newer facilities. There are some that are very old. 

Senator WARREN. But there are some that are very old. 

Mr. PETERS. Correct. 

Senator WARREN. So let me turn on this, because I have to say, 

this is what I have seen firsthand when I have been to Natick, 

when I have been to Lincoln Labs. We have these world-class scientists doing cutting-edge research in buildings that were constructed in the 1940s and 1950s. 

Can I ask each of you just to say a word about the implications 

of these old buildings, what it means that you are trying to do lab 

work in buildings with infrastructure that is so far rooted in the 

past? 

Whoever would like to start. Dr. Montgomery? Dr. Holland? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. It is an interesting experience that I had 

when Reggie Brothers was in OSD. He was visiting my microelectronics laboratory where we developed spintronics and nanoscience 

devices, the world’s highest powered 220 GHz amplifiers that are 

made by our scientists in our lab, world leading. 

We were walking down the hallway, and there is a thunderstorm 

that occurs. All of a sudden, groundwater comes gushing out of the 

water fountain as we are going by because the drainage system of 

this ancient building had ruptured. 

So what do the scientists do? They patch it up, and they get back 

to work. But when they bring somebody in they want to recruit, 

and they have maybe been to Google or they have been to some 

other facility—— 

Senator WARREN. Do you mean Google has better facilities than 

that? That problem does not happen at Google? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. I am sure they do. 

Senator WARREN. Yes. 

31 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. So this can be both demoralizing for the scientists in the laboratory and discouraging to the individual who is 

coming to interview for a job, that the science may be very attractive, the equipment to do the science is outstanding, the peers with 

whom they work will be extraordinary, but they keep looking at 

these dingy, dreadful surroundings that they are in. 

Yes, it is counterproductive. You can still do world-class science 

in that, but sooner or later—NRL’s average is 60 years. I had 1.8 

million square feet of space that was almost 70. 

So, yes, those are challenges, both from that point of view—you 

can still do the science, but it is challenging to moral and people’s 

desire to stay. 

Senator WARREN. The ability to recruit. It is a really powerful 

point. 

I am out of time, so I am going to yield to my colleagues on this. 

But I take it this is a widely shared view by those who are trying 

to do the work. 

Dr. HOLLAND. Senator, just quickly, if you just get beyond the 

idea of the embarrassment factor in recruitment and retention, just 

think about the inefficiency. 

You are handing over a facility to people who are world-class 

people who invariably are going to be fixing something that should 

be helping them do what they are supposed to be doing. 

Senator WARREN. It is a powerful point, Dr. Holland. I want to 

say, I appreciate all that you do under very challenging circumstances, but we need to be better partners on this, and we need 

to invest so that you have the kind of world-class facilities that 

match the world-class talent that you have. 

So thank you all very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to come in like this. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you for joining us. I appreciate it. 

Senator Heinrich? 

Senator HEINRICH. I want to thank Senator Warren for bringing 

up this issue, because it is endemic across the enterprise. 

I also want to thank our guests for their candid remarks on hiring authority, and we are going to try to capture some of that in 

a letter to Secretary Mattis that I will be sharing with a number 

of my colleagues. 

I wanted to bring up another issue that involves timeliness or 

sometimes the lack thereof that I hear a lot about from small businesses in New Mexico that deal with our labs. 

I have regularly heard about contract delays that sometimes are 

on the order of not months but years. What are some of the fundamental issues there that we need to address that cause it to take 

so long to issue a contract from the time that the lab decides that 

they want to enter into that contract to actually getting ink on 

paper? 

Mr. PETERS. So just a little bit ago, sir, I talked about the success 

of the personnel demonstration project. I just recently looked at 

section 233 and the language that is in that, and if I could be so 

bold to say that I do not think that is bold enough. 

So the personnel system that was built was world-class and built 

by scientists and engineers for scientists and engineers. I think you 

need to have the same kind of contracting demonstration project 

32 

that is put in place. Don’t just beat around the bush about trying 

to make everybody feel good and look for efficiencies and we need 

to try to find ways. I think you need to direct that there is a contracting demonstration project built by scientists and engineers and 

program managers in the laboratory and in the laboratories across 

the services, and bring forward the waivers that need to be brought 

forward to get relief from the FAR. 

You are absolutely right that it is the impact to small businesses. 

I heard it when I was in there. I am experiencing it on the outside 

with other companies today who are doing the small business piece 

of this. It is absolutely critical. 

But let the folks that have to live with this day-to-day bring forward their recommendations and have a contracting person involved with that can say here are the changes and who has the authority to make those changes, rather than just say let’s take a 

look at trying to make business processes better. 

Senator HEINRICH. Dr. Flagg? 

Dr. FLAGG. I just wanted to say that, I mean, I think this is so 

dead on, and I also think empowering those contracting officers to 

be embedded in that team, to have their performance appraisal 

written by the mission, the folks who are leading the mission, not 

by someone back in the Pentagon where I was sitting who is in a 

contracting shop who wants you to do it the same way everyone 

else is doing it, and also giving them a little top cover. 

I was horrified when I sat down with Claire Grady at DPAP and 

learned about the personal criminalization of taking risk in contracting, how they are publicly shamed for taking risk. I think you 

are never going to encourage someone to take risk if you tell them: 

But if you do and somebody sues you, you may wind up on a Web 

site by name, or you might wind up going to jail. 

We have to be very thoughtful about the incentives that we bake 

into the system and have the incentives tied to the outcome of the 

mission, not tied to some statistic PowerPoint chart back at the 

Pentagon. 

Not that I don’t like the Pentagon. I love the Pentagon. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PETERS. Just to give you an example. In the Air Force Research Lab, when I was there, there are 11,000 contracting actions 

a year. So they are doing everything that they are supposed to do, 

and they are living by the intent of the law. We have OTAs, but 

we cannot live just by other transactional authorities. We need a 

whole new contracting system and authorities in the research lab. 

Senator HEINRICH. Any additions, Dr. Montgomery? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Let me comment on that as well. 

When you are buying a piece of equipment that is made by a 

small business outfit, and there are two such suppliers in the 

whole world, and one of them has never provided a functioning 

piece of equipment yet, then it should not take 2 years to buy the 

one. The scientists who realize that should not be accused of inappropriateness for going to that particular activity. 

So if you are going to do something the like of which was never 

done before in the history of humanity, if you do not know what 

the outcome is going to be when you start, it is hard to specify 

deliverables. If you want to do prototyping, where you reach out to 

33 

small business, you reach out to somebody, some activity that has 

an idea that may or may not pan out, and you want to give them 

an opportunity to display what they can do and integrate it in 

some larger system, which may or may not succeed, and do it timely and efficiently, you cannot do it under the existing acquisition 

system, which applies basically ACAT [Acquisition Category] I 

rules to 6.1 type of research. 

You are not going to get across the Valley of Death until you can 

take and bring these things together and demonstrate their military value in prototypes in an operational-like environment so the 

payoff of this particular new approach—it maybe revolutionary and 

never existed before—can be demonstrably clear and unassailable. 

That takes rapid prototyping. 

It takes a new acquisition system tailored for this, and it takes 

the ability to have the fiscal resources to take the risk on prototyping to succeed. 

Absent that, we are at a glacial process where things that we 

need to get done today take decades to achieve. 

Senator HEINRICH. [Presiding.] Exactly. We end up losing capacity in the meantime, because these contractors are taking real 

monetary risk in entering into these arrangements as well. 

I want to thank all of you for coming today. I want to thank you 

for your candor. I think it is very helpful for all of us. I am going 

to gavel us out here, but I hope that this is just the start of the 

conversation, because I think we have a lot to chew on here that 

we can get to work on, and we very much appreciate the input 

from all of you. 

Dr. Montgomery? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Is it possible I could offer one more comment? 

Senator HEINRICH. You bet. 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. The rest of the world is advancing. China is 

already virtually up here in the scientific world with basically 1 

percent less of the publications that we have. So not only do we 

have to do our own science, but we have to harness the rest of the 

world’s science. 

If we are going to do that, we need to have peer-to-peer collaboration across the world to do that. Nobody will collaborate with me. 

I have been off the bench for 30 years. But on the other hand, 

somebody who is a new scientist with new ideas collaborating 

through conferences, through international travel—NRL does about 

1,200 such collaborations during the course of a year, and a couple 

hundred of them overseas. 

Then we ought to also consider, can we take foreign national scientists who came out of one of our great research institutions that 

is of an allied power that was friendly to the U.S., have them renounce their former citizenship, become a U.S. citizen and be 

granted clearance to work in our labs? Because they are culturally 

attuned to their originating country, that would be a powerful tool 

for building world-to-world collaborations. 

Since 2003 to 2013, the percentage of collaborations internationally amongst scientists has gone from 19 percent to about 30 percent worldwide. It is critically important for our future. Thank you 

for your patience. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Dr. Montgomery. 

34 

Thanks to all of you for joining us today. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ