U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

65–109 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–9] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS 

AND CAPABILITIES HEARING 

ON

BUDGET REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

PROGRAMS 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 1, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

CHRIS GIBSON, New York 

BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

KEVIN GATES, Professional Staff Member 

MARK LEWIS, Professional Staff Member 

JEFF CULLEN, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, March 1, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization 

Budget Request for Department of Defense Science and Technology Programs ..................................................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 .......................................................................................... 35 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities ..................... 2 

Thornberry, Hon. Mac, a Representative from Texas, Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities ............................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Carr, Rear Adm. Nevin P., Jr., USN, Chief of Naval Research, U.S. Navy ....... 6 

Dugan, Dr. Regina E., Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 

U.S. Department of Defense ................................................................................ 10 

Freeman, Dr. Marilyn, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research 

and Technology, U.S. Army ................................................................................. 5 

Lemnios, Hon. Zachary J., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering, U.S. Department of Defense ......................................................... 3 

Walker, Dr. Steven H., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 

Science, Technology, and Engineering, Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Acquisition, U.S. Air Force ............................................................................ 8 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Carr, Rear Adm. Nevin P., Jr. ......................................................................... 73 

Dugan, Dr. Regina E. ....................................................................................... 110 

Freeman, Dr. Marilyn ...................................................................................... 60 

Langevin, Hon. James R. ................................................................................. 39 

Lemnios, Hon. Zachary J. ................................................................................ 40 

Walker, Dr. Steven H. ...................................................................................... 89 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Sanchez ...................................................................................................... 145 
Page

IV 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Johnson ...................................................................................................... 157 

Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 151 

Ms. Sanchez ...................................................................................................... 153 

Mr. Thornberry ................................................................................................. 149 
(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES, 

Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 1, 2011. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:05 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mac Thornberry (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAC THORNBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

Mr. THORNBERRY. The hearing will come to order. 

Let me welcome Members and witnesses and guests to this hearing of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee on 

DOD’s [the Department of Defense’s] fiscal year 2012 budget request for science and technology programs. 

We are expected to have some votes shortly. My hope is we can 

at least get all the witness statements in before that time and 

hopefully beyond that. But in light of time constraints, I will certainly be brief. 

I think most of us would agree that the programs that are the 

subject of today’s hearing are the future of the Department of Defense and, in many ways, of our country’s security. And yet, with 

tight budgets, they are always in danger of being squeezed, because 

you often don’t see the consequences of those reductions immediately. And so the temptation is always there to cut our future, 

and that, in my view, would be a dangerous thing. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2012 request for the programs 

before us today is $12.2 billion. I understand if you look across the 

FYDP [Future Years Defense Plan], there is about a 2-percent increase in basic research. But across the FYDP, the rest of the accounts are essentially flat. I have some concerns about that. But 

it is important, I know, for all of us to keep the total budget in perspective. But that is an area we may want to explore more. 

Obviously, all of your written statements will be made part of the 

record. And I appreciate a number of the examples you have given 

us in those written statements. And we will explore more of those 

in questions. 

At this time, I would yield to the ranking member for any comments he would like to make. 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to express my thanks to all of our witnesses here 

today. 

Let me just say that I firmly believe that the continued strength 

of our Nation is reliant upon our ability to continue to lead the 

world in innovation and advanced research and development. From 

GPS [Global Positioning System] to the Internet, we are all aware 

of the benefits that investments in defense science and technology 

have had on our daily lives. But what is sometimes overlooked is 

the remarkable impact these programs have on our national economic and educational competitiveness, as well. 

Now, the goal of these programs is to invest in emerging science 

that will become the backbone of tomorrow’s fighting force. To do 

this, however, the United States must maintain a strong research 

and development capability housed inside and outside of government by partnering with industry and academia. 

For example, 60 percent of the Department’s basic research in- vestment, $1.2 billion, goes directly to local universities to promote 

projects advancing knowledge and understanding across a wide 

array of fields, from advanced mathematics to environmental 

sciences. These programs not only have a vital national security 

benefit, but are a critical source of funding to keep the U.S. leading 

in the world in academic research and development. Similarly, the 

Department devotes the majority of its remaining science and technology budget to support defense laboratories and industry research efforts, as well. 

While much of these funds goes to support larger contractors and 

corporations, the Department also makes targeted investments in 

small businesses that specialize in specific high-technology research and development efforts. These smaller partners provide 

critical technology that is often too narrow and highly specialized 

for larger companies to consider. 

Because of their size, small high-tech companies can often complete specific research and development projects faster and more efficiently than larger contractors positioned to handle major largescale programs. Now, these small businesses are excellent tools in 

achieving great efficiencies in the Department’s science and technology efforts, and I certainly commend the Department for recognizing their importance. 

I have, however, been troubled that our efforts in Congress to authorize initiatives like the Small Business Innovation Research, or 

SBIR, Program and the Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program have fallen, in 

many ways, by the wayside. With that in mind, I hope that our 

panel will address specific efforts to increase outreach and partner 

with academia and small businesses. 

With that, I would certainly look forward to hearing your testimony, and I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Langevin can be found in the Appendix on page 39.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman. 
3 

We will now turn to our witnesses. We have the Honorable 

Zachary Lemnios, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering; we have Dr. Marilyn Freeman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology; Rear Admiral 

Nevin Carr, Chief of Naval Research; Dr. Stephen Walker, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and 

Engineering; and Dr. Regina Dugan, Director of Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA. 

Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ZACHARY J. LEMNIOS, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Good afternoon, Chairman Thornberry, 

Ranking Member Langevin, and committee members. 

I ask that my written testimony be entered into the record. 

Before I outline our plans for next year, it is important that I 

comment on the effects of the year-long continuing resolution or a 

reduction in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. To echo Secretary 

Gates, either of these scenarios would create a crisis in the Department, including the research and engineering enterprise. 

We need the funds in the fiscal year 2011 request for existing 

and planned programs to develop the capabilities our troops have 

simply asked for and to ensure that many of our small businesses 

who develop those capabilities in fact stay in business. Operating 

under a long CR [continuing resolution] or well below the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request puts both at risk and results 

in both the loss of valuable time and the ability to support our 

troops. 

As the Department’s chief technology officer, I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to tell you about the important work that the 

dedicated men and women in the Department of Defense research 

and engineering enterprise perform every day to support our Nation’s security. 

This enterprise encompasses a remarkable pool of talent and resources. Our footprint includes 67 Department laboratories dispersed across 22 States, with a total workforce of 60,000 employees, 36,400 of which are degreed scientists and engineers who publish thousands of papers in peer-reviewed journals and keep the 

Department at the forefront of technology. 

We operate 10 federally funded research and development centers, 13 university-affiliated research centers, and 10 information 

analysis centers across critical disciplines for the Department, supporting the combatant commanders in all disciplines. 

Their successes would not have been possible without Congress’ 

help, and you have my heartfelt thanks for your steadfast support 

of our programs. 

We are in a period of remarkable change. Innovation, speed, and 

agility have taken on greater importance to our efforts, given 

globalized access to knowledge and to the rapid pace of technology 

development. 

In this environment, it is critical that we first operate with urgency to meet the immediate needs of our warfighters; that we prepare for the future by establishing the technical foundations for in-
4 

novative, new capabilities for the operational missions described in 

the Quadrennial Defense Review and remain on a constant lookout 

for opportunities to create and avoid technology surprise; and to assure that we have the supply of science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics capabilities across the Department. 

We are strategically shaping this enterprise to address these 

challenges. The Department’s science and technology investments 

are well-coordinated, they are focused on high-quality research efforts, and they are responsive to the current and future warfighter 

needs. 

The Department’s research and engineering enterprise is structured around the following four imperatives: 

First, to accelerate the delivery of technical capabilities to win 

the current fight. We remain responsive to the urgent operational 

needs of our combatant commanders. For example, in Afghanistan, 

the Army’s Research, Engineering, and Development Command 

leverages a network of science and technology teams and advisors 

to collect and distribute firsthand knowledge of warfighter needs 

across the Department. I have seen this, and I will tell you the result is remarkable. 

Second, we need to prepare for an uncertain future. In 2010, we 

established the Department’s Science and Technology Executive 

Committee, which I chair, which includes all of my colleagues here 

today. This committee identified seven priority areas for investments that would provide dominant technical advantage across the 

mission space for the near- and far-term needs of the Department. 

Our programs in basic research and technology watch have been 

restructured to ensure our scientists are involved early in potentially shaping disruptive emerging science areas to great advantage 

to the Department and to the Nation. 

Our third imperative is to reduce the cost, the acquisition time, 

and the risk of our major defense acquisition systems. Last year, 

the Department implemented new systems engineering policy and 

guidance to drive better technical performance for the Department’s acquisition programs. This included the trusted defense system strategy to streamline, to update, and to apply program protection and supply-chain risk-management policy guidance and methods. 

And our fourth imperative is to develop world-class science, technology, engineering, and mathematics capabilities for the Department and for the Nation. We realize that our technical goals are 

only achievable with exceptional research and engineering talent. 

And our STEM programs have provided the resources and the 

strategy to train and recruit the workforce we need in the future. 

We continue to foster a strong relationship with future scientists 

and engineers. Our STEM efforts have reached out to over 180,000 

students, 8,000 teachers across the country. Our Science, Mathematics, and Research to Transformation, or our SMART Program, 

funds 670 undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students in 19 

DOD-relevant fields of study. 

This is the Department’s research and engineering enterprise 

and our focus. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

present these remarks. With congressional support for the President’s budget, the research and engineering enterprise will have 
5 

the resources it needs to ensure a strong technical base to enhance 

the Nation’s security. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Lemnios can be found in 

the Appendix on page 40.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Dr. Freeman. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARILYN FREEMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. ARMY 

Dr. FREEMAN. Chairman Thornberry and the distinguished members of this subcommittee, I want to thank you for your steadfast 

support of our soldiers who are now at war and for your support 

of Army S&T [science and technology] investments that will continue to assure technological preeminence for our soldiers in the future. Your continued advocacy is essential for our success. 

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2012 Army 

Science and Technology Program and the significant role that 

Army S&T has in supporting our warfighters. I have submitted a 

written statement and request it be accepted for the record. 

I assumed the role of Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Research and Technology in July of 2010. I came to this job with 

over 30 years of experience in various positions in Army S&T and 

in DARPA. 

I am privileged to represent a cadre of over 12,000 scientists and 

engineers who are dedicated and are highly skilled in their jobs, 

who comprise the Army S&T community. My mission is to revitalize Army S&T, to foster better discovery, invention, innovation, 

and demonstration of technologies, both for the current and the future. 

We are ever mindful that our technologies and systems are tools 

that we provide the men and women who voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way for our country. As a result of the past 10 

years of war, the Army has rediscovered the fundamental precept 

that the soldier, operating as part of a small team or combat unit, 

is our decisive weapon. 

This has led us to consider a different approach to S&T, in which 

our focus is shifting from big platforms and large systems to more 

soldier-centric solutions. We must provide technology-enabled capabilities that empower, unburden, and protect our soldiers. 

While Army S&T has always provided new capabilities and enhancements to our existing capabilities, it is time that we step up 

our game and focus on results that will get the most needed advanced capabilities to our soldiers more quickly and more 

affordably than ever before. I believe that the fiscal year 2012 S&T 

budget we have submitted will enable us to accomplish this task. 

I am convinced that in a fast-paced, complex global economy, 

Army S&T needs to be better focused, more accountable, and more 

transparent than ever before. To that end, I have already begun to 

reshape my headquarters organization to better serve the needs of 

the soldier and to ensure that Army S&T is the go-to place for 

Army senior leadership on all S&T and engineering issues. 
6 

I am also reorganizing the management of our investments to 

allow for better oversight and a more holistic perspective across all 

of our lines. We are organizing our program into four portfolios: 

soldier; ground; air; and command, control, and communications. 

Now, included in these are all of the items and areas with which 

you are familiar, including lethality, survivability, medical research, training, and manufacturing technology. 

By organizing our enterprise in this way, we are able to manage 

each portfolio in terms of far-term, basic research; midterm, applied research; and near-term, advanced technology development. 

My written testimony provides some specific details on the efforts 

in each portfolio. 

Especially in this constrained budget environment, Army S&T 

must better synchronize our programs and major efforts with fiscal 

processes and timelines determined by the needs of the warfighter. 

In the coming months, I will be working with the Army senior leadership, our partners in TRADOC [Training and Doctrine Command], the program executive offices, and the leaders in our S&T 

labs and centers to develop a list of top-priority issues or problems 

that require S&T to close gaps. 

This list will be used to shape our S&T programs with quantified 

objectives for the near term and will help us better focus our applied and basic research efforts, as well. This set of clear priorities 

will help us to be more effective in reaching out to industry, to 

other services, to academia, and other government agencies to identify partnership and leveraging opportunities. 

The health and long-term viability of our labs will be one of our 

major challenges in the years to come. We have long worked to 

make improvements at the margins, and, where possible, we have 

used the BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure] process to modernize facilities and infrastructures. But this not a long-term solution. Over the coming year, I intend to take an in-depth look and 

look forward to working with you to help fix this problem. 

In closing, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee and for your support to Army science 

and technology. I look forward to working with you and am happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Freeman can be found in the Appendix on page 60.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

And I appreciate both of you all keeping your oral comments 

pretty close to 5 minutes. With the number of witnesses and Members we have, that is a challenge, and I appreciate that very much. 

Admiral, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. NEVIN P. CARR, JR., USN, CHIEF 

OF NAVAL RESEARCH, U.S. NAVY 

Admiral CARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am joined today by my deputy, Marine Corps Brigadier General 

Bob Hedelund, who is right behind me. 

It is an honor to report on science and technology efforts within 

the Department of the Navy and to discuss how the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request supports the Navy and the Marine 

Corps. 
7 

The Office of Naval Research works closely with the Secretary, 

Chief of Naval Operations, and Commandant of the Marine Corps 

to address critical challenges to ensure that we focus on S&T areas 

that provide the biggest payoff for the future, embrace innovative 

thinking and business processes, and maximize transition of S&T 

products into acquisition programs and commercial use. 

We do this in the most efficient and effective manner possible to 

strike that right balance between responsive, near-term technology 

insertion and unfettered, long-term, innovative basic research. It is 

that latter category that holds the greatest potential to provide the 

underpinnings for game-changing disruptive technologies like GPS, 

electromagnetic railgun, and free-electron laser. 

There are many Navy S&T products in use today, with many 

more on the way. They may not always be highly visible, but they 

are there, from better paint to lifesaving medical advances and energy-saving technologies. 

Among our greatest challenges is helping ensure students pursue 

and succeed in science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines. This is critical to the future quality of our S&T workforce 

and our global competitiveness. The United States is the world’s 

technology leader, but we must continue to support a strong S&T 

base if we are to maintain that position, especially in the face of 

current global trends. 

As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, testified recently, one of the ways you protect against the unknowns is to 

make sure that S&T and pure R&D [research and development] 

budgets are both comprehensive and broad. You need that innovation. You need the investment for capabilities of the future that 

starts there. 

The country’s R&D effort is being driven increasingly by industrial and commercial demand. In 1960, 75 percent of all U.S. R&D 

was government-funded. Today, that proportion has dropped to 25 

percent. And contained within that decreasing 25 percent is the 

higher-risk basic research that may not provide the ROI [return on 

investment] that industry demands. This further underscores the 

importance of our S&T portfolio and especially that portion dedicated to basic research. This is our seed corn. 

As a measure of research quality, the Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers, the IEEE, recently ranked the U.S. Navy’s 

patent portfolio as the strongest of any government organization in 

the world. Quality is important, but so is depth. 

Transition of S&T products to warfighters is our critical metric, 

and we track every single product to ensure we maximize that 

transition. We understand and correct the causes of failure when 

it does occur. Strong S&T investment is about managing risk. If 

every product transitions easily, we are not out there far enough 

pushing the edge of technology. 

At about 75 percent, our current transition rate represents a 

good balance between risk and payoff. Even so, many transitioning 

technologies wouldn’t be ready today without those basic research 

investments that were made 20 to 30 years ago. 

We focus much of our investment on industry and academia 

within this country and around the world in order to tap the full 

measure of innovation, to push for technologies that have commer-
8 

cial application, where possible. For example, algorithms developed 

for sonar signal processing are now helping to reduce breast cancer 

detection rates. And our active Small Business Innovation Research partnerships generate new jobs across the country while increasing innovation and competition. 

The President’s 2012 budget request will help the Navy and Marine Corps benefit from carefully considered technology investment 

and build on strong partnerships among the services, OSD [the Office of the Secretary of Defense], and throughout government and 

partner countries. I believe the state of our S&T investments is 

sound, represents good stewardship of taxpayers’ dollars, and enhances significantly the safety and performance of our warfighters 

today and well into the future. 

Thank you again for your support, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Carr can be found in the Appendix on page 73.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Admiral. 

Dr. Walker. 

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN H. WALKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR ACQUISITION, U.S. AIR FORCE 

Dr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and 

staff, I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony on 

the fiscal year 2012 Air Force Science and Technology Program. 

The Air Force fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request for 

S&T is approximately $2.3 billion, which includes an increase of 

$95 million, or 2.8 percent real growth, from the fiscal year 2011 

budget. This increase reflects the Air Force leadership’s steadfast 

support for its S&T program even in the face of a very challenging 

fiscal environment. 

A lot has happened since I testified here about a year ago as the 

brand-new S&T executive for the Air Force. I have enjoyed this 

new role and the many challenges and opportunities it has provided. It has been busy, but we have gotten a lot done. 

I am pleased to say that, this past year, the Air Force has developed and published an S&T strategy, the first of its kind since 

2004; created a collaborative S&T planning process that maintains 

a balanced technology push from the laboratory and a technology 

pull from the warfighter. 

The Air Force S&T Program provides the foundation for the majority of the Air Force’s strategic priorities. These strategic priorities, along with the input from the warfighter, our S&T vision as 

articulated in Technology Horizons, and our S&T strategy inform 

our new S&T planning effort to help shape our future investments. 

The S&T planning process, which was created over the past year 

with extensive participation from across the Air Force, provides a 

framework for the major commands, the product centers, and the 

Air Force Research Laboratory to work collaboratively to identify 

and understand both technology needs and potential solutions. 
9 

The Air Force’s S&T fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request 

supports four overarching priorities detailed in the strategy. I 

would like to discuss those with you briefly. 

Priority 1 is to support the current fight while advancing breakthrough S&T for tomorrow’s dominant warfighting capabilities. We 

must invest in S&T that will enable the Air Force to operate effectively and achieve desired results in all domains and operations, 

both today and in the future. 

The Air Force Rapid Reaction and Innovation Process, known as 

Core Process 3, is designed to tightly integrate S&T knowledge 

with operator knowledge to deliver solutions to the warfighter in 

12 months or less. In the past year, we have developed several 

quick reaction solutions, one recently to Air Mobility Command, 

single-pass airdrop capability for Air Mobility Command. 

It is also important to note that we also create technology options for the future. We have increased basic research funding by $18 

million to focus on far-term priorities, as well. For example, efforts 

are under way in our Robust Scramjet program that will support 

future long-range strike and operationally responsive space access 

solutions. 

Priority 2 is to execute a balanced, integrated S&T program that 

is responsive to the Air Force service core functions. This priority 

essentially speaks to where we will invest our next S&T dollar. 

We have established a program element for sustainment that is 

dedicated to developing and demonstrating technologies to address 

operational sustainment issues in existing systems as well as supporting new systems. We are investing resources toward emerging 

warfighter concepts; supporting the needs of the nuclear enterprise; 

reducing our vulnerabilities to cyber attack; evolving our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability; demonstrating 

long-range strike technologies; and investing in a diverse energy 

technology portfolio. 

We are also tapping innovative ideas from small business to help 

us in all these efforts. 

Priority 3 is to retain and shape the critical competencies needed 

to address the full range of S&T product and support capabilities. 

Said another way, we must have a dedicated, educated, and highly 

skilled workforce of scientists and engineers. And toward that end, 

we are actively seeking to improve our intramural basic research 

program and increase our organic cyber workforce. 

We are also supporting Air Force science, technology, engineering, and mathematics initiatives to develop and optimally manage 

the S&E [science and engineering] workforce of the future. ‘‘Bright 

Horizons,’’ an Air Force STEM [science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics] strategic roadmap for shaping the way the Air 

Force manages its mission-critical STEM capabilities, is currently 

in coordination and is expected to be signed this spring. 

Finally, Priority 4 is to ensure the Air Force S&T Program addresses the highest-priority capability needs of the Air Force. And 

as part of that, we established this S&T planning process and created something called the ‘‘flagship capability concept.’’ These are 

Air Force-led demonstrations of capability. 

The Vice Chief has recently endorsed three: a high-velocity penetrating weapon, a reusable space access program, and a cyber pro-
10 

gram that I can talk about later. These three programs will be at 

the forefront of where the Air Force Research Laboratory goes in 

demonstrating new capability for the warfighter. 

In conclusion, the Air Force S&T Program is balanced to address 

warfighting needs, both near-term and far-term. By focusing on the 

S&T priorities documented in the recent strategy and utilizing the 

new Air Force planning process to listen and respond to the 

warfighter, the Air Force S&T Program will continue to provide the 

technological edge needed to win today’s fight and prepare for tomorrow’s challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

today, and thank you for your continued support of the Air Force 

S&T program. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Walker can be found in the Appendix on page 89.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Dr. Dugan. 

STATEMENT OF DR. REGINA E. DUGAN, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Dr. DUGAN. It is said that vision without execution is daydreaming. There is a time and a place for daydreaming, but it is 

not at DARPA. DARPA is a place of doing. For 50 years, our doing 

has been the creation and prevention of strategic surprise. 

Today I would like to focus on a few examples that characterize 

the breadth of activities at the Agency. They are intended to open 

the door for an ongoing exchange. 

Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin, members of 

the subcommittee, my name is Regina Dugan. I am the director of 

DARPA, and I am honored to be here. 

Submitted for the record in support of our budget request is the 

Agency’s full testimony. 

If I am able to leave you with only three key takeaways, this is 

what I would like you to know: 

First, strategic surprise does not conform to a predetermined 

timeline. Sometimes it requires 5 to 10 years, sometimes only 90 

days. 

This spectrum is revealed most vividly in our support to operations in Afghanistan. Within 90 days, a Skunk Works® [Lockheed 

Martin Advanced Development Programs] effort yielded advances 

in computational techniques; an analysis cell went to ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] Headquarters 3 weeks later. 

We stood up a forward operating cell. Three months later, a widearea LIDAR [light detection and ranging] system 5 years in the 

making was providing 3D [three-dimensional] maps to users. At 

full operational capacity, the HALOE [High Altitude LIDAR Operations Experiment] system can map 50 percent of Afghanistan in 

90 days, whereas previous systems would have required 3 years. 

Second, efficiency is, of course, the ratio of output to input. Speed 

and leanness are important to the input. Choosing among ideas is 

the challenge for output. And, frankly, that is the hard part. 

Speed is part of the vibrancy of innovation, and the absence of 

bureaucracy is a brand attribute of DARPA. In the last year, our 
11 

contracting time has been reduced by 20 percent. And, by September, improved execution had put 600 million more to work for 

defense and in the economy than in any of the 5 years prior. We 

have had the same number of program managers since 1992. 

The output side is governed by how we choose. The real challenge at DARPA is not generating ideas, it is choosing among 

them. To address this challenge, we have developed several deeply 

quantitative analytic frameworks. Through them, we ask: Where 

are the opportunities to effect changes not in the margins but in 

big, bold strokes? 

As an example, the time required to design, test, and build complex defense systems has grown from 2 years to more than 10. We 

simply must improve our ability to make things. Our Adaptive 

Make program seeks to bring manufacturing advances like those 

realized in semiconductor, software, and protein production to defense systems. The goal? Compress the time to field military 

ground vehicles by a factor of five. 

There is no issue more fundamental to the Nation’s defense and 

competitiveness than this because to innovate, we must make, and 

to protect, we must produce. 

Finally, current approaches to cybersecurity are necessary, but 

they are divergent with an evolving threat. This calls for aggressive 

R&D, and we are stepping up to the challenge. 

Over the last 20 years, security software has increased from 

thousands of lines of code to over 10 million lines of code. By contrast, malware has remained at a near-constant average of 125 

lines of code. Ten million versus 125. It is like being in the ocean 

and treading water; you must, but if that is all you do, eventually 

you will drown. We need new options. So we recruited an expert 

team, increased our investment, and launched several new initiatives. 

Three key takeaways then: DARPA’s singular mission is the creation and prevention of strategic surprise, which can happen over 

a decade or in 90 days. Choosing among alternatives is where we 

realize big payoffs in effectiveness. This is highlighted by our need 

to improve manufacturing, because to innovate, we must make, and 

to protect, we must produce. And finally, current approaches to cybersecurity are divergent with an evolving threat. We need new options. 

This past year was one of vision paired with execution. Chairman 

Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin, and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for your support, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dugan can be found in the Appendix on page 110.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Doctor. 

And let me thank you all again for condensing down. I know you 

have a lot to say, and I know it is hard to do that in a five-minute 

period, but I am grateful, for the reasons I have indicated. 

It also occurs to me, as I survey the table there and read up on 

your credentials, your experience, the country is very fortunate to 

have each of you in the positions you are. Each of you could be 

making a whole lot more money doing other things, and we are 
12 

grateful that you and the folks who work with you are doing what 

you are doing. 

I am going to yield my 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, to go first. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate all of you being here today. And I agree with 

what the chairman said. A lot of firepower, brain power out there, 

and we certainly appreciate what you do for our Nation. 

First, Dr. Dugan, you made the comment, you have had the same 

number of project managers since 1992. Is that accurate? 

Dr. DUGAN. That is correct. 

Mr. SHUSTER. How have you been able to do that? You are probably the only department in the Federal Government that is able 

to make that claim. 

Dr. DUGAN. Yeah. 

Mr. SHUSTER. How have you been able to do that? Is it innovation? I mean, what goes on over there that keeps you at that level 

and keeps you continuing to produce a high level of work? 

Dr. DUGAN. Program managers at DARPA come for a tour that 

lasts about three to five years. They run projects at the Agency 

with a similar time period. And so, many scientists and engineers 

view their time at DARPA as their service to country. And, as a 

result, we have a constant influx of new ideas, new expertise, and 

so on. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I guess that is something we can learn 

throughout the government, how to do that. So I appreciate that. 

Mr. Lemnios, you and I have discussed before a program that is 

out there, FirstLink, that works with the Department’s science and 

technology efforts, its research activities, working with all 

branches, including the Defense Office of Technology, Air Force Research, the Navy, the Army Research Laboratory. And their mission is to accelerate the rate that technologies from the Pentagon 

laboratories are transitioned into commercially viable application 

for you and for first responders. 

And we had the discussion, and I wanted to know what the status of that program—they have done a great job of moving those 

technologies forward and giving back money to the Department of 

Defense, so they are working at no cost. So I wondered what is 

going on with those programs and what do you view the future of 

that type of program. 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Well, Representative, that program is not in 

the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget, but we have looked broader 

at how we could incorporate those concepts as part of the Small 

Business Programs, and we are doing just that. In fact, the Innovative Research Program that was in the authorization bill—the 

funding, actually, doesn’t track it yet—is part of that thinking. 

And what we have done broadly across the SBIR program is look 

at how we can pull ideas out of that community, couple those with 

the warfighter and with the service needs, and do that more effectively. In fact, just this last month, we looked at our Phase I and 

Phase II efforts that were currently funded. We have identified a 

number of projects, and we are looking at how we could accelerate 

those to the next phase. 
13 

So we are trying to take what came out of the FirstLink effort 

and really broaden it across the Department in some other efforts. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And I am not sure I understand that thinking, at 

this point in time, when, you know, we are looking at budgets, we 

are looking at ways to save money. 

When you have a program that has returned $6.5 million back 

to the Department of Defense, why are we cutting it out at this 

time? Why wouldn’t we be looking at these? And there are other 

companies out there that are doing the same sorts of things. Why 

are we doing that? 

And that is why I started off my first question to Dr. Dugan, 

about how they are able to perform at such a high level with the 

same numbers. It just seems to me that this administration wants 

to bring things in-house that doesn’t always have a positive outcome when it comes to the bottom line, when it comes to producing 

things quickly. 

So how does that logic work in this case? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Well, I can tell you that, with regard to our 

small-business community that we care deeply about, that the ingredient there is to be more informative with that community in 

terms of what our Department needs are and to try to couple those 

efforts earlier on into that process. 

And, in fact, last year, at this hearing, I took a question from 

Congresswoman Sanchez on exactly that topic, in terms of how do 

we more effectively couple that. I think I sent you a note just recently in terms of how we would do that with regard to the 

FedBizOpps [Federal Business Opportunities] portal. 

So we are looking at the broad issues of how do we couple the 

small-business community into this enterprise. We looked across 

our budget and our programs. And as part of that, we think that 

there is a broader way to address that issue. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So, $6.5 million over the past couple years, you 

have decided that has not been a good return for you on it. And, 

again, I talk to the small-business community all the time and am 

involved in an effort right now where the small-business community across DOD feels as though they are not getting a fair shake. 

And that is where many of these ideas come from. So it just seems 

to me, cutting out something like this that has had a good return 

is going about it in the wrong way, especially when we are looking 

at reducing budgets or finding savings in the Department of Defense. 

I see my time is ready to expire. So I will be watching closely, 

and I am sure we will be communicating to see what happens here. 

And I have great doubts that we are going to see this kind of success by moving it into the—by the Department. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Obviously, they just called votes, but I will 

yield to the ranking member to ask his questions, and then we will 

come back immediately after the last vote. 

Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, thanks to our panel for your testimony today. 

Let me start with Secretary Lemnios. 
14 

Secretary, in the Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Authorization Act 

that passed the House and the Senate earlier this year, the committees directed the Secretary of Defense to establish a competitive, merit-based rapid innovation program to accelerate the 

transitioning of promising technologies into actual defense acquisition programs. The funding of this initiative was included in the 

continuing resolution we sent to the Senate, but obviously hasn’t 

passed into law just yet. 

The language in the bill provides large leeway for the Department to select promising projects under this program, from SBIR 

Phase II, defense laboratories, and other innovative initiatives. 

I think everyone on the committee would be interested in hearing 

how the Department plans on administering the program once it 

is funded. 

And I believe that funding for this program was appropriated for 

each of the services, as well, so I would welcome, of course, the 

comment from the other witnesses on this topic. 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

That was exactly the program that I referred to earlier. In fact, we 

have gone through and looked at our SBIR programs to identify 

those that have a direct connection to combatant needs. Over the 

course of the last several months—in fact, we started this process 

last August, when we had our first discussions on this topic. 

We have identified a number of Phase I and Phase II efforts that 

are far enough into the process that we ought to be transitioning 

those to end-user needs. And we are looking at how we might do 

that within our existing authorities and existing budget, short of 

an H.R. 1 passing. 

So I would agree with you that there are some low-hanging fruit. 

We have identified a few of those. And we will be working over the 

next several months, responsive to the statute, to come back with 

a plan that supports this broadly across the Department. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

Other witnesses’ comment on this? 

Admiral CARR. I would just add that we get great leverage out 

of the SBIR program and we rely it. We have about a little over 

a thousand relationships with industry, in terms of our basic and 

applied research, and over 800 of those are with small business. 

Not all of those are through SBIR, but we very rely heavily on 

small business and want to do what we can to keep the relationship strong. 

Dr. WALKER. On the Air Force side, we are interested in getting 

more money into sustainment. And so we have thought about using 

some of the money in that fund for small business to participate 

in answering needs from our air logistics centers. Because we 

would like to get—and I think the opportunities to transition and 

commercialize small-business activities on the sustainment side is 

huge, and we haven’t taken great advantage of that, up to this 

point. So I would use some of that money for that. 

Dr. FREEMAN. And on the Army side, you know, we also have lots 

and lots of experience and good results coming out of both Phase 

I and Phase II, about $475 million in the Army in this program. 

And we remain committed to execute this program. 
15 

And part of what I am looking at for the Army is for the Army 

SBIRs, how to streamline the process a little bit better in the way 

we actually select the programs and actually go forward with selecting programs. And part of that process, I want to look at those 

that are Phase II and match them up with, as I talked about, some 

of those big ideas and big Army challenges that we have, closing 

gaps, and be able to identify those that are really high payoff, big 

promising, to fill some of those gaps. 

And I would use the money to be able to accelerate those and get 

those into, essentially, Phase III and transition those programs either into National Stock Number-type items or into acquisition programs of record. 

Dr. DUGAN. I will just comment on our engagement with small 

businesses generally. 

So, above our approximately 2.8 percent mandate in SBIR, the 

Agency funds approximately threefold that amount to small businesses. Our engagement with them is focused not only on getting 

them resources but also increasing our speed to get them under 

contract, because speed is so important to small businesses, and, 

as well, simplifying our approach. 

So, as I mentioned earlier, our contracting time is down by over 

20 percent, at this point, with small businesses. We have reduced 

our contract vehicle from approximately a 50-page contract to a 10- 

page contract. And we have conducted, over the last year, two industry summits. We have had more than 200 companies in; 70 percent of those companies were small businesses. They represent 16 

different segments from 30 different States. 

So our engagement with the small-business community from 

DARPA is very robust, both in terms of the ideas that they bring 

and, as well, their performance in our portfolio. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

My time has expired, but let me just say that there are so many 

incredible small businesses out there that have these innovative 

products to offer and, as you pointed out, have been effective at 

making sure that some of them have been brought to the 

warfighter very effectively that otherwise might have been ignored 

by big business. And we need to do more. I haven’t been satisfied 

that SBIR has functioned as it really was intended and hasn’t been 

as robust as it could be. 

But we need to rededicate ourselves to these kinds of tech programs that will support ultimately the technologies and ultimately 

protecting and helping the warfighter. 

So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman. 

It looks like we have three votes. We have just about 9 minutes 

remaining in this vote. My guess is, that is probably going to mean 

25 to 30 minutes, probably, before we are back. 

You all make yourself as comfortable as you can. We will be back 

as soon as we can. 

The hearing will be in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. The subcommittee will come back to order. 

Thank you all for your patience. 
16 

And I will recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate everybody being here today. 

Mr. Lemnios, I am told that you have devolved several of your 

projects out of your team on to the various services under the guise 

of efficiencies and possible cost-cutting to save dollars, and yet the 

requests in the programs don’t seem to have been—the dollars still 

seem to be the same. 

Can you walk us through how the mechanics on these efficiencies 

are going to work? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Congressman, absolutely. We, in fact, as part 

of the Secretary’s efficiencies initiative, moved several projects from 

management out of the Office of the Secretary of Defense down to 

the services where those would be more impactful. 

One of those is the work that we have with the historically black 

colleges and universities. That was devolved to the Army. In fact, 

the budget request is identical. The savings to the Department is 

the savings in, essentially, overhead, if we could call it that, and 

latency, latency of execution. 

There were other projects, as well, across the Department that 

were moved to the services where they could be more efficiently executed without compromising the intent of those programs. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Are you going to able to quantify that there are, 

in fact, savings? I mean, it is one thing to be intuitive about it, but 

it is something else if you can actually show where that has happened. 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Well, I will tell you that the Secretary and, 

certainly, Dr. Carter is challenging us to quantify every one of the 

efficiencies—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

Secretary LEMNIOS [continuing]. Transfers that we have had 

made. And we are in the middle of doing just that. 

Mr. CONAWAY. A question for all of you in the time remaining. 

The acquisitions panel that Rob Andrews and I worked on had 

extensive testimony that prototypes used earlier in the system 

would, in fact, save money and/or avoid cost overruns or cost—or 

challenges that happen by delaying that. 

Have you been able to push prototyping further up, earlier into 

the food chain or the stream to any advantage, at this point? 

And if any of you could answer. 

Dr. FREEMAN. Yeah, let me take it first. 

We actually are doing something, and, in our request, there is a 

$10 million increase in Army S&T. We have established a 6.4 funding line that I will manage out of Army S&T specifically to try to 

get competitive prototyping and taking technologies that are relatively immature, high-payoff-type technologies, and taking them 

to a higher technology readiness level. 

And what this does is, we intend to increase this line over time, 

so this is sort of a beginning of that process of moving that prototyping earlier and earlier. And we are starting with $10 million. 

We are going to probably do a couple of programs this year, and 

then we will transition those over to acquisition programs. And 
17 

then we will increase that line over time, where we can do more 

and more of that kind of prototyping. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

Admiral CARR. We have a similar initiative too, although the 6.4, 

at this point, has not been given directly over to me. I have been 

asked to put programs forward that would benefit from the application of 6.4; we call it speed to fleet. 

About 30 percent of my budget is our Future Naval Capabilities, 

and these develop 5- to 7-year time horizon component technologies 

that go into programs of record. And so, aligning those prototypes 

with the program of record and making it so that the prototype can 

flow into the program of record with lower risk and lower cost, that 

is that lubrication we are looking for. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

Admiral CARR. At a higher end, we have what we call our Innovative Naval Prototypes. These are the high-risk, high-payoff, like 

free-electron laser and electromagnetic railgun. These will deliver 

working prototypes that won’t necessarily fall under a program of 

record but are disruptive technologies. So it is a slightly different 

application. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

Dr. WALKER. Sir, part of our planning process I talked about was 

to generate these flagship capability concepts—these are largescale, integrated demonstrations of technology—and connect those 

with development planning efforts to, as the admiral said, feed into 

programs of record the Air Force is thinking about. 

So the three we picked this year all have development planning 

efforts and potential future programs of record that the Air Force 

is lining up. So the ability to connect S&T with the new program 

of record is what we are after. 

Dr. DUGAN. We have a very aggressive manufacturing initiative 

at DARPA precisely to deal with some of the concerns that the 

Members here have raised. 

The deputy director and I both come from private industry. We 

have both been engaged in the design, test, build, and fielding of 

original, new equipment. One of the things that we observed is 

that, every time we hit a seam in that process, when we go from 

design to prototype, from prototype to first production run, from 

first production run to full production run, every time we hit a 

seam, we encounter problems. 

Now, when we examined the timeline to develop and field complex defense systems, we noted this increase from 2 years to 10 

years. And then we sought existence proofs, essentially, of other industries where they weren’t realizing that significant growth. And 

we observed them in the semiconductor industry, in software, and 

in pharmaceutical protein production. 

And in each case, it is true that when you can improve the quality of your design tools such that you have a correct by construction 

type design, you improve the fluidity of your manufacture, you can 

begin to erase these seams. And it is with that very aggressive perspective that we are pursuing advances in manufacturing. 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 
18 

Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the panel for coming today. I appreciate your testimony 

and the tremendous work you are doing on behalf of all of our service men and women. 

I have a series of questions. We will see how far we get on them. 

If not, I will submit them for the record. 

The first has to do with brain injury and post-traumatic stress 

disorder. And I am interested to know the scope, where research 

is being done, and a summary of preliminary observations. 

I guess I will point that toward Dr. Freeman and Admiral Carr, 

although I would be willing to hear from anybody that has anything on that score. 

Dr. FREEMAN. Yeah, thank you for that question, because, you 

know, that is something that we are absolutely, positively working 

very, very hard on. And it is very frustrating for us as well as for 

the families and for the servicemembers themselves who are suffering, whether it is with traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic 

stress disorders, that we are trying to really understand that. 

We are doing several things. We put a lot of money, a couple of 

years ago, into the medical research in this area. And what that 

did is that seeded a lot of research efforts, sort of, across the board 

to get that understanding of what is going on. 

We are now in the process of taking that medical research and 

focusing it under several efforts and initiatives and under this soldier portfolio that I was talking about and pulling that research together to really make a huge difference. And a lot of that research 

is going on in universities, a lot of that research is going on in our 

medical centers. 

And what we are trying to do, at this point—and I am sorry to 

say we don’t have an answer today of, you know, being able to stop 

and/or totally treat and/or basically restore everybody’s capability 

here, but we are working very hard across the board in both the 

medical and nonmedical areas to understand this problem. And we 

have a significant amount of our budget in the medical and in the 

nonmedical work to address that. 

Admiral CARR. Thank you, also, for the question. 

At the Naval Research Lab, right here down the river, we have 

done a lot of modeling on understanding the dynamics of traumatic 

brain injury, what goes on in the brain as it moves back and forth 

and overpressure. We have actually got mathematical models and 

physical models to try and understand that phenomenon better, 

and, from that, to try to understand a better helmet design, for example, how you might make sure the helmet is not part of the 

problem. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yeah. 

Admiral CARR. We are looking at additional technologies to try 

and inoculate the soldier or the Marine from that environment 

through training, through immersive training, multimode training, 

that can be very effective, as the Marines like to say, ‘‘so the first 

firefight is no worse than the last simulation’’; and, finally, to find 

and identify markers that might give us insight into people that 

are at greater risk for suffering post-traumatic stress disorder. 
19 

And if I may just take a second and ask my deputy, General 

Hedelund, if he has anything to add about the training or the subject. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you. 

General HEDELUND. Thank you, sir. 

Many of the Members may have visited the IIT [Infantry Immersion Trainer] facility out at Camp Pendleton. And, as the admiral 

mentioned, the technology that we are putting into that facility is 

aiding commanders, small-unit leaders, and individual Marines in 

getting exposed to what we are now beginning to call resiliency and 

to be able to make that a building block to a higher resiliency in 

our Marines. 

Now, brain injury is brain injury. That is a topic, and we have 

heard already from the panel on how difficult that is. But the posttraumatic stress piece may be preventable, at least to a degree, by 

some of the resiliency work that we are doing. So the IIT helps us 

there, and there are a number of efforts in that realm. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBSON. I appreciate the updates, and it is encouraging. And 

I look forward to continuing to stay in touch with that as we go 

forward. 

Dr. DUGAN. I can add to that, because we have had a role in TBI 

[traumatic brain injury] and also PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]. 

The TBI work was foundational for us. It characterized the levels 

of blast that would result in damage that could be recovered, damage that needed to be treated, and damage that was catastrophic. 

That work was then fed into our efforts to develop a low-cost blast 

dosimeter. They work hand-in-glove. 

And both are part of an overall combat casualty care ethic at 

DARPA. We have six program managers devoted to combat casualty care. They have activities ranging from revolutionizing prosthetics all the way through to TBI. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, thank you very much. And I appreciate that. 

Ms. Dugan, one last thing before I hand it back to the chairman. 

Have you been to the College of Nanoscale in Albany, New York, 

yet? 

Dr. DUGAN. I have not personally been, no, sir. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, great. I would love to invite you on a trip. 

Some exciting research is going on up there, and I would like to 

introduce you to some of the folks up there, if you have time. 

Dr. DUGAN. Thank you for your invitation. 

Mr. GIBSON. And I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. West. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; also, Mr. Ranking Member. 

Dr. Freeman, as a career Army combat arms officer, I am pretty 

aware that many of our ground-pounders have available to them an 

array of technologies that can greatly enhance their mission performance and probability of survivability. But they are unable to, 

you know, carry a lot of this stuff, as far as the full advantages of 

counter, sniper, IED [Improvised Explosive Device], UAV [Un-
20 

manned Aerial Vehicle], and communications platforms, and other 

technologies. 

I had some people talk to me about a platform out there, a system, and I would like to know, have you heard about this thing 

called the Jake? And if you have, can you tell me what stage we 

are in, as far as assessing the Jake? And if we see that it does have 

any merit, I mean, what is the way ahead, and, of course, how can 

this committee help you? 

Dr. FREEMAN. Yeah, that is—what you refer to is obviously, you 

know, part of what we have rediscovered, as I said, about focusing 

on the soldier as the decisive weapon, and the idea that we have 

basically been adding things like ornaments on a Christmas tree to 

give them more capability, but also then we end up burdening 

them, both cognitively and physically, as well as protecting them. 

And so we are really trying to understand—first of all, let me tell 

you that we are starting an effort that is—we put an additional 

$10 million in to study soldier load and to really get our arms 

around all of the things that can help us for soldiers and small 

units to balance that load and to get that load off of the soldier, 

to reduce it down to acceptable levels, as opposed to the 130 

pounds that many folks carry today that you are well aware of. 

I do know about the Jake mobility. The way I look at Jake is, 

it is an individual mobility-type platform. It falls, in my mind, into 

the arena of being a way to offload some of the weight because it 

can carry certain things that the soldier doesn’t have to carry. But 

it also gets the soldier to the battle perhaps less fatigued. 

Now, having said that, there are a number of different concepts 

like that out there. And what I have offered to do and we are pursuing this year and I am trying to get it done in the springtime 

here, maybe June-type timeframe, is do what we call a mobility 

war game, where we are going to bring people from across the 

Army together with, first of all, soldiers who have experience. We 

are going to have a vignette that we play or a scenario that we play 

that is really looking at how the small combat units would use 

equipment like Jake and other kinds of mobility or offloading-type 

technologies. We then compare the results of these tabletop war 

games and try to figure out, you know, okay, what did the soldiers 

like about it, what didn’t they like about it, how successful was it. 

Depending on the outcome of that game, then we can figure out 

where we want to go, if we want to go with Jake or any of these 

other kinds of systems. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you. 

And one other question I had: Last week, the AUSA [Association 

of the United States Army] went to a symposium that was down 

in our district in south Florida. And one of the—dovetailing off of 

what Representative Gibson talked about—BAE Systems has a helmet out there which has a brain sensor in it which can help with 

the evaluative protocols in near-time. 

Are we looking to see how we can develop that helmet system? 

Dr. FREEMAN. Yes, actually, Representative, we really have been 

working that. In fact, I have been working ever since I was up at 

Natick. We had a CRADA [cooperative research and development 

agreement] with BAE. And BAE has been looking on their IR&D 

[industrial research and development], by the way, at these kinds 
21 

of load and different equipment that will help unburden the soldier. And they did look at and we have looked at their helmet design. 

We are taking those kinds of things—because there are a number 

of helmet designs. We are working with the Natick folks, and we 

are working with the medical folks, as well as the PEO [Program 

Executive Office], to look at new helmet designs. And that will be 

included in how we look at where we are going. This would be beyond ACH [Advanced Combat Helmet]. 

Mr. WEST. Well, thank you very much, panel. 

And I yield back to the chairman. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Chairman. 

And thank you, again, to all of you. And I just want to reiterate 

how proud we are of you and your work and service to our United 

States. I have had the pleasure of working with several of you personally, and you are top-notch people. 

I have a couple of questions that I want, one that is very specific 

to a particular program that I have for the panel, and then the second would be about our labs. As you know, we have several great 

ones in California. 

The first one is about the Medical Free Electron Laser program. 

And it is peer-reviewed. It is competitive grant funding. And in 

partnership with the military’s medical laboratories, centers selected for funding under this program have had an impressive 

record of technology innovation and invention. 

The Department has judged this program as being important to 

meeting the joint force’s health protection capability gaps requiring 

medical R&D in the Department’s assessment report, ‘‘Guidance for 

Development of the Force, Fiscal Years 2010–2015.’’ 

So in fiscal year 2010, the Military Photomedicine Program was 

placed under the wing of the Defense Health Program, DHP, and 

was funded with an allocation of $5 million from the GDF [Guidance for the Development of the Force] enhancement funding. But 

in the fiscal year 2012, the President’s request has cut that line 

item by $125 million less than the program before, which means 

that this Military Photomedicine Program is a program that is 

well-liked, has great results, but there doesn’t seem to be any funding for it in the fiscal year 2012 budget. 

So I would like to know specifically what your ideas are on where 

the funding is going to come to continue to do that program. 

Sorry for getting technical, but I think you know where I am 

headed. 

Dr. FREEMAN. I will take that one on. 

The fact is that, you know, that is a program that I have very 

little familiarity with in specifics. What I would like to do is, I 

would like to take that for the record and get an answer back to 

you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 145.] 

Dr. FREEMAN. Because I really need to go to work with the commander of the MRMC, Medical Research and Materiel Command, 

and get an answer to that. Because that would be under his realm 
22 

of responsibility, and he has authority over that DHP program, 

where I do not. But we work together very closely, and I will get 

an answer for you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Great. Well, obviously, some of my funding in my 

district is directly—you know, they keep changing where they get 

the money from, and they don’t know. And, as you know, stability 

and understanding where moneys are coming from, or if they are 

even coming, is important, as these technically very professional 

people, just as you would, you know, put their lives on hold to go 

and do something for the government, and they don’t know if they 

are going to have a job tomorrow. So it is about jobs, jobs, jobs. 

Okay, the other question that I have is about facilities. I think 

that this committee has invested a lot in the people between the 

walls. I mean, we have been working very hard and we have put 

the money in. But I am very concerned about this new technology 

innovation/creation that you all are in charge of sitting in outdated 

labs or labs of the 20th century, if you will. 

And how can we help you? And do you need help in that arena? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Well, Congresswoman Sanchez, let me start, 

and, certainly, the service S&T executives can respond specifically 

with regard to their service. 

Having come from a federally funded research and development 

center and having worked in a building that was built the same 

date as the Pentagon was built, I know the issues very well. We 

had a facility at MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] that 

was absolutely first-rate because of its people, because of its mission, but, in fact, we had facilities that were 50 years old or even 

older. And that wasn’t part of any budget authority that would 

allow us to update those. And that is really your question, how do 

we do that. 

I will simply point out that there are three things that we need 

in our laboratories. We have two of them. The first is a mission, 

a clear direction in terms of what problem are the laboratories addressing that has significance to our Nation and to our Department. We have that. 

The second is first-rate people. And I have visited many of the 

laboratories. In fact, we have absolutely first-rate people. But if we 

don’t have the facilities, that third piece just isn’t there, and that 

is really a cohesive piece. 

As I have visited the Air Force Research Laboratory in Dayton, 

as I have visited the Naval Research Laboratory not too far from 

here, certainly Aberdeen and other facilities are a big issue, and 

that is an authority that we probably need your help with. 

The services can talk specifically to their areas, but I will simply 

say that, as we have looked across the S&T enterprise, the science 

and technology enterprise, we have been clear about what our S&T 

priorities are. And that provides us a challenge to work with the 

laboratories to really make sure we fit those laboratories with the 

resources they need to work in those areas. 

I think it is going to look very different 5, 10 years from now as 

compared with today. The commercial sector’s laboratories look 

very different today as they did 10 years ago. So I don’t think it 

is just a matter of rebuilding the bricks and mortar that we have 

in place today, and I don’t think it is even quite the same footprint. 
23 

I am not sure what the footprint actually looks like. And I think 

we really need to go back and look at that in light of how the commercial sector does their basic research, how academia does its, 

and how the Department should do our basic research efforts. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I saw that you gaveled me, so—I mean, I would 

love to hear anybody else’s response if they have a particular request of this committee to push. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. THORNBERRY. If there is a brief additional response, since we 

have fewer Members than before. 

Admiral CARR. I would just add that the Naval Research Lab 

was authorized and appropriated in 1916, and some of the buildings look like it. We do our best to try and keep up with facilities 

modernization, but, particularly in a day like this, it is just very 

difficult for labs and shore infrastructure to compete with piers and 

runways and the other kinds of infrastructure that directly support 

the mission. 

So it is a real challenge for us. We are trying to modernize what 

we have. We do have one MILCON [Military Construction] in 

progress right now; it is an autonomy lab at NRL [the Naval Research Lab]. But MILCON, in particular, is very difficult. 

And I would just like to add, thank you. You are absolutely right. 

The support for the people programs that the committee has put 

in place have been very, very helpful. Because part of the challenge 

isn’t just the facilities but, as you said, hanging on to the people 

that have to work in those buildings, and they look around at other 

opportunities. So some of the other inducements and flexibilities 

that the committee has given us to do that are very helpful. Thank 

you. 

Dr. WALKER. I would just add that AFRL [the Air Force Research 

Laboratory] is not in bad shape because we have the 2005 BRAC. 

And so, a lot of that movement has come with money to build 

buildings. Section 219 has also helped us build new laboratory 

space, and so that has been very helpful. 

Dr. FREEMAN. And just add, for the Army, you know, BRAC is 

helping us, with Aberdeen in particular. But all of the other laboratories have serious issues. And what I am looking at is taking a 

look at it across the board. Instead of them being lab directors leaving them to just look at their problem on their own or in their command, I want to take that up to a higher level and work to try to 

figure out what our priorities should be across the laboratories in 

the Army. And then I look forward to working with you all to figure out what kind of authorities we can have to use funding to 

solve those problems. 

Dr. DUGAN. And I will just add, so as not to be noticeably absent, 

we have no captive labs at DARPA. And we rely on the health of 

the laboratories in the service organizations as part of our performer base. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the gentlelady raising the issue. 

I think it is interesting, and it is something that we can also keep 

our eye on, as we serve on more than one subcommittee, and try 

to work it out. 

Let me ask about a few things. 
24 

Mr. Secretary, as I am listening to Members ask you all a wide 

variety of questions, the question occurs to me about setting priorities within this wide portfolio. 

The intelligence community has a priorities framework, kind of 

a matrix on what is more important for collection purposes and 

what is less important for collection purposes, to help prioritize. 

When somebody comes up with a suggestion, you see where it is 

on the matrix and how high a priority it may be. 

Is there something like that that you use or that the S&T community uses to help prioritize where money goes? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Chairman, let me start by outlining the very 

first priority, and that is support to our troops in harm’s way. And 

there is no ambiguity there at all. We look to our joint urgent operational needs. We hear directly from the combatant commanders. 

We visit theater. We have a direct signal from those in-theater to 

give us a clear indication of what is needed. 

And that is absolutely the first set of topics that we address. Dr. 

Dugan has spoken of that. My co-panelists have, as well. We have 

all had the opportunity to engage in that discussion and engage in 

those deliveries. That is job one. 

Beyond that, we have a responsibility to set the long-term future 

for the Department and for the Nation, make those bets in people 

and ideas. And, again, I will point to DARPA as one example. The 

service laboratories are another example of places where we make 

investments in people and ideas to serve our Nation’s future. 

In that second case, in sort of the S&T piece, we have worked 

collectively over the past 6 or so months to identify our science and 

technology priorities. Those are in my testimony. And we have 

done that by looking at the future mission needs of the Department, taking those mission needs, creating a set of architectures; 

from each of those architectures, outlining what are the critical capabilities that we need as a department; and for each of those critical capabilities, what are the foundational technologies that support those needs. 

That allows us, then, to have a discussion with industry, with 

academia, and certainly with the services in terms of how we will 

transition those concepts. 

Now, that is an ongoing thing. There are clearly near-term needs 

that we are addressing, but we have to have the ability to make 

bets with high risk that have enormous payoff, and we are doing 

that across the board. Roughly 10 percent of our budget is in that 

very high-risk area, where not all those bets will pay off, but the 

ones that do will have a big impact. And I think you have seen examples of each of those. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. But it would be too difficult, I take it, to put 

a number, a metric, on kind of those longer-range bets that are not 

the immediate warfighter needs. 

Secretary LEMNIOS. I have had a challenge when people ask me, 

what is the return on investment on your S&T, your long-term 

bets. We have all been in that discussion. I don’t know what the 

ROI was when Steve Jobs first proposed the iPad, but I know what 

it is now for that corporation. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Yeah. I am not really thinking of return on investment. I am thinking of the priorities or the problems you face. 
25 

And that is an arbitrary number. I mean, that is the way it works 

in the intelligence community. It is an arbitrary number about the 

nature of the threats, but, still, they get a number assigned to 

them. And you can argue right or wrong, but it just helps—and 

that is why it occurs to me. Because it just seems to me a massive—a very difficult job. 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Let me just make one last comment to that. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Sure. 

Secretary LEMNIOS. There are, sort of, two ways that we are 

doing this. 

One is, sort of, across the Department we have identified a set 

of science and technology priorities. There are seven of those. And 

we are tracking progress in each of those. We are roadmapping the 

technical progress, where we see the performer base and where we 

see transition of those ideas to theater and to the capabilities set. 

But we also have, beyond that, the services and certainly 

DARPA, as the engine of innovation, challenging that thinking. 

And we should challenge that thinking. There are ideas that we 

have that are part of the mainstream that we clearly have to implement, but we need a channel that, sort of, disrupts all of that. 

And that starts with the computational framework that Dr. 

Dugan talked about. It then goes toward a discussion with the 

services and with industry in terms of what those ideas are. And 

it reaches into our academic environment to really challenge the 

disciplines and the training that we have for future leaders in that 

S&T community. 

So I think we are actually doing that. The challenge is, it is not 

a simple, bounded problem. And the interesting problems are the 

ones that, in fact, aren’t simple and bounded. And we are in that 

space in many ways. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, and I think, from my point of view at 

least, we want to encourage you to take some of those long bets, 

and we want to encourage that unconventional thinking and approach that comes. That is very important. 

I have a number of other questions, but let me yield to other 

Members. 

The gentleman from Rhode Island. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we noted in our first subcommittee hearing only just 2 weeks 

ago, cybersecurity is quickly becoming a major challenge for our 

military and our Nation. 

Dr. Dugan, you and I have spoken about this in my office. And, 

certainly, I appreciated your comments in your opening statement 

about our efforts to stop cyber attacks, which are divergent from 

the threat and are taking us on a path of spending that is 

unsustainable in the long term. And, obviously, this challenge requires a new way of thinking about cybersecurity and learning to 

look at risks to our government. 

So I would like to begin with you, Dr. Dugan, if I could, but then 

open up the question to our panel, and ask, what work is being 

done to change how we think about cybersecurity? And what is 

being done to better identify and mitigate our risks? 

And if I could—and then I will have another question, if I could, 

on some other issues. But let’s start with that, if I could. 
26 

Dr. DUGAN. Okay. So I would like to describe three programs 

that I think characterize how far we are reaching with respect to 

our cyber activities. The first is a program named PROCEED. 

About 11⁄2 years ago, a researcher named Craig Gentry produced 

what we call a theoretical construction for fully homomorphic 

encryption. Now, what does that mean? Homomorphic encryption is 

the ability to compute on encrypted data without decrypting it. 

Now, were we to be successful in this, it would tremendously 

change the risk profile of how we conduct computations in areas 

where we have untrusted systems or systems of unknown provenance. That is the good news; we have a theoretical construction. 

The bad news is that it is not yet practical. 

So, in the first instantiation of fully homomorphic encryption, researchers performed a simple ‘‘and’’ function. And that simple 

‘‘and’’ function took about 30 minutes. Using conventional systems, 

that same function would take a fraction of a nanosecond. So we 

are 14 orders of magnitude away in terms of our speed. 

The PROCEED program at DARPA is devoted to changing that 

timeline. It is a very big reach, from a research perspective. 

Another example is a program called CRASH, which seeks to develop cybersecurity technologies that rethink the basic hardware 

and software designs. It is modeled after the human immune system, which has two components: an innate system, which is fast 

and deadly against a series of known pathogens; and an adaptive 

system, which is slower and recognizes novel pathogens. The result 

for us as humans is resiliency and survivability as a species. 

And if we are able to achieve comparable types of effects in computer designs, then we can radically change this attack profile for 

the adversary. Essentially, what we are doing then is flipping the 

asymmetry by making each computer look a little different, just as 

our immune systems are a little different, and therefore much more 

difficult to attack. What we are doing under CRASH is trying to 

create survival of the cyber species. 

The last example I would like to leave you with is a program 

called CINDER, which is focused on the insider threat. It is based 

on a mission profile rather than the detection of a series of events, 

single intrusion detections. The idea there is that, when an insider 

means harm to a system, they conduct a series of events that are 

strung together in a mission, and that, by looking for those mission 

profiles, we might better be able to detect them with a lower false 

alarm. 

Our overall cyber program is 100 percent increased over fiscal 

year 2011. And, as many of you know, we have additional funds 

coming in through the budget request over the FYDP to the tune 

of about $500 million, starting with $50 million and increasing $25 

million each year thereafter. 

We have recruited an expert team. They come from the ‘‘white 

hat’’ hacker community, they come from industry, they come from 

a variety of sources. And we are serious about the big reach for us 

in cyber. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Very good. Thank you, Dr. Dugan. 

Others, comment on this issue? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Let me extend Dr. Dugan’s comments. 
27 

From a Department perspective, one of the seven S&T priority 

areas is, in fact, the cyber science and technology. It is one that we 

recognized and we tied directly to the existing and the future missions of the Department. In fact, that is a key element of the architectures that we have done the analysis on. 

Over the FYDP, in the President’s budget request fiscal year 2012 and out, that is about a $1.6 billion investment request in 6.1 

through 6.3. So it is not small. 

But the real issue is, where are the ideas and where are the people, and how do we test those ideas? And so, a good part of our 

work currently is to look broadly at, what are the architectural constructs? How do we think about how do we evaluate and test the 

insider threat, which is the most vicious of all? And how would we 

transition those concepts to operational use? 

I will tell you that, in the last six months, I have been out at 

Pacific Command—in fact, I will be there this weekend—for testing 

that is going on right there in a testbed that they have put in place 

to not only test new concepts but understand how those concepts 

apply to Pacific Fleet and to the operational command, how would 

we actually use these concepts to protect our networks and our 

communication portals in real-time. 

Access to testbeds like that that allow the contractor community 

to see real data and to work in a combatant commander’s environment without compromising the operational needs but working 

real-time with a user to evaluate new concepts is absolutely critical. 

So, in fact, there is an architectural piece to this that is absolutely important. There is the disruptive piece that is being funded 

out of DARPA that is absolutely essential. And then there is, how 

do we protect the existing networks and existing concepts that we 

have in place. 

Secretary Lynn, in fact, in his Foreign Affairs article late last 

year, outlined a five-tier strategy for that, and I would point you 

in that direction. 

But this is a place where the Department’s investments in 

science and technology we have ramped up. The budget request is 

certainly reflective of that. And that is something that has to be 

in place over the next several years. 

Admiral CARR. Cyber is a high priority for all the services, of 

course. I would just add that, in the Navy, we are careful not to 

take it in isolation. We have to consider it in the context of the 

other dimensions of warfare. We really can’t think just about having a cyber game or a cyber solution; how do we fight across the 

dimensions of kinetic, hyperspectral, and cyber. 

We have recently stood up—the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] 

has designated a deputy CNO for information dominance, Admiral 

Dorsett. And we have stood up the 10th Fleet. Those are our primary customers for resources, requirements, and operations. 

And I would just add that, when it comes to the epidemiological 

model, there may be some application there, of course, but you 

have to remember these are like bugs that have brains. They are 

thinking adversaries. So they are not just bacteria. And so, we are 

working on how maybe better to model that, working with some 

FFRDCs [Federally Funded Research and Development Centers]. 
28 

And there is some particularly good capability up at Carnegie-Mellon, has been very forward-leaning. 

Dr. WALKER. On the Air Force S&T side, we are looking at something we call cyber agility, which is having the network or the system of networks move, not being at an IP [internet protocol] address longer than a fraction of a second, so it is very hard for the 

attacker to find out where you are. 

We are also working cybersecurity issues for cloud computing, as 

we move into that world. You know, how do we secure our data in 

the cloud. 

And I will just mention, many of our projects are joint with 

DARPA up at Rome, New York, where our AFRL information directorate is located. 

Dr. FREEMAN. And, you know, I came out—one of my previous 

lives, I worked in the old nuclear community. And one of the things 

that we did when we were working in that community was, if you 

designed something, you also did what we called the countermeasures and then the counter-countermeasures and then the 

counter-counter-countermeasures, which was, you figured out in 

the design what you needed to do in order to be ahead of whoever 

was going to be tampering with whatever it was that you were designing. 

And one of the things that I am trying to do is, as we look at 

our C3 [command, control, and communications] portfolio, I am 

going to be challenging our science and engineers to do a lot more 

of that kind of thinking, as opposed to just designing things and 

then, you know, kind of saying, ‘‘Okay, here it is,’’ and then let 

somebody else go figure out and not know how easy or difficult it 

might be to attack. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Very good. 

I want to thank you all for your input on this topic. Obviously, 

it is a growing challenge to our national security. And the cyber 

threat obviously is, as you well recognize and we talked about, is 

an evolving threat. It is very challenging to stay one step ahead of 

the bad guys. I am glad to hear that you are all thinking outside 

the box, which is exactly what we expect you will do. And it sounds 

like you are on some very interesting work. And I look forward to 

continuing to monitor it and to work with you on the subject. 

With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I will have 

some other questions for the record, by the way, but time constraints. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his 

questions. 

Mr. Gibson, do you have other questions? 

Mr. GIBSON. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

For Admiral Carr, is the Navy doing anything on research for 

nuclear reprocessing? 

Admiral CARR. The Navy’s organization that handles all things 

nuclear is NAVSEA 08, under a four-star admiral who is doublehatted in the Department of Energy. So it is a very old, tried, 

trusted structure. So we don’t touch things nuclear, with the exception of looking at peripheral technologies that might help. 

So the short answer is, no, sir. We are not doing anything in that 

area. 
29 

Mr. GIBSON. How about for anybody on the panel on that? 

Okay, thanks. 

I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Ms. Sanchez, do you have other questions? 

Mr. West. 

Mr. WEST. Yes, I just had one other follow-up question. 

Last week, I had the opportunity to go down and get an ops intel 

briefing from U.S. Southern Command. And one of the things, 

when we talk about emerging threats, are these mini-submersibles 

that are very, very hard to detect. 

And are we looking at, you know, new technologies to understand 

who may be developing these and how we come up with countermeasures as far as tracking them? Because right now, the ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] platforms we have, 

you know, it is very difficult for them to track these systems. 

Thank you. 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Congressman, we have been following that 

activity from the semi-submersibles to the recent incident about 2 

weeks ago. We have a program through our Rapid Reaction Technology Office that has both evaluated the threat, has postulated 

where that might go, and is starting to put in place, I will just say, 

concepts to track future threats. 

We have worked closely—I have been down at SOCOM [Special 

Operations Command] twice. I have been down at JIATF [Joint 

Interagency Task Force]–South twice and, in fact, worked with the 

commander there to understand what the future of that AOR [area 

of responsibility] looks like. 

We have put in place, in fact, a test campaign that started two 

years ago in Key West—and we have now done two of these—to 

both collect littoral data and share that with the contractor community to build detection schemes and discrimination schemes to 

allow us to more rapidly detect threats like that. 

So we are absolutely on top of that. In fact, not only at SOCOM, 

but—not only at SOUTHCOM [United States Southern Command], 

but also as part of JIATF–South and SOCOM, we are exploring 

that. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you very much, sir. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Gibson’s question raises a question in my mind. This morning, we had Secretary of the Navy, CNO in front of the full committee; lots of questions about alternative energy sources and so 

forth. 

Mr. Secretary, using that as an example, I am sure all of the 

services, and certainly DARPA, are doing research into alternative 

energy, because of its obvious importance that we all know. How 

do you coordinate something like that? 

Because it would seem to me, the temptation would be for everybody to be pursuing these various alternatives, but, yet, you know, 

part of the sensitivity—story today about how many duplicative 

Federal programs there are in a whole variety of domestic areas. 

It is good to have competing ideas pursuing research, and yet the 

budget that we face—so you understand the gives and takes here 

that we are, kind of, looking at. And so, using energy as an exam-
30 

ple, how do you figure out what is duplicative, what is needed, and 

so forth? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Chairman, let me echo, as well, that duplicative research is actually not a bad thing. Competing research is actually a very good thing, because it challenges our thinking. 

Duplicative procurement is something quite different. So, on the 

S&T piece, getting competing concepts on the table in a fair-game 

exchange in a shootout for what works and what doesn’t and understanding what that trade space is is the game that you see in 

front of you. And we are in that space, in many areas. 

It is interesting that the energy issue came up this morning. In 

fact, I was at ARPA–E [Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy] yesterday giving a talk. And Secretary Mabus will be there 

on Wednesday announcing a collaboration that the Department of 

Defense and the Department of Energy has to develop concepts 

really across the board. 

I would sort of answer the question, though, in terms of how do 

we structure our investments in two areas. There are S&T concepts 

that are sort of unitary concepts, and we have a number of those 

that you have seen. Many of those have paid great dividends, and 

they are starting to find their way into the acquisition system. Batteries are just one example. High-efficiency solar cells are yet another example—a terrific opportunity for the private sector to actually drive in an area where the Department needs that capability. 

But there is, in fact, a much bigger issue, and that is the system 

implementation of how do we go from storage to use and really the 

full concept of how we would implement an energy-efficient, endto-end solution. 

Much of the alternative fuel program is now centered not so 

much on the ideas but on getting the price down of a producible 

alternative fuel system that could be brought to market. In fact, 

those programs are pretty far along. They are very far along technically, but it is now the issue of how do we build a business case 

and work with the private sector to commercialize the early S&T 

concepts. 

So I think you are seeing lots of cases where the Department has 

recognized the need for alternative fuels and reduction in power 

and energy storage to meet our needs. Ground combat vehicles are 

a great example of this. The Navy’s fleets are another good example of this. And it goes on and on. But, at this point, it really is 

sort of driving the cost down from first use to implementation. 

Admiral CARR. I would just add, very quickly, that we do collaborate, and particularly with the Air Force and working with aircraft 

technologies to get fuel efficiency up. We are collaborating on the 

development of an engine that is a high/low bypass engine. It used 

to be, you could either go supersonic efficiently or slow like an airliner efficiently. We would like to develop an engine that does both. 

Higher temperature, of course, means more efficiency, so we are 

collaborating on some turbine blade coatings and development. 

There are things that are uniquely naval. Particularly, underwater UUV [unmanned underwater vehicle] technology is sort of a 

niche. But I think we try hard to collaborate where it makes sense 

and look within for those special niches where we have them. 
31 

For Marines, power and energy just means make me lighter; give 

me juice, but don’t make me carry so much weight—lighter batteries, photovoltaics, things that will generate power. And you can 

recover energy just from walking. 

So I think we are a little unique because we have aircraft, 

ground-pounders, and ships and vehicles. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Okay. Good. 

Dr. Dugan, let me ask this, with Mr. Langevin’s questions on 

cyber, and you talked about several of the initiatives that DARPA 

has in cyber. I suspect that Dell and HP [Hewlett-Packard] are also 

working, kind of, next-generation computing that could be more secure because that would be a product that they could sell. 

My question is, in making your decisions on which products to 

pursue, how do you factor in what private industry is doing on its 

own and ensure that you are supplemental rather than something 

that in some way distorts the market or replaces what they are 

doing on their own? 

Dr. DUGAN. Yeah, it is a very good question. I would tell you that 

the program managers at DARPA are experts in their field. They 

are very often very closely coupled with their colleagues and experts in private industry and in other—and in academe, as an example. 

The clean-slate initiatives that we are investigating are perhaps 

the ones that touch most closely on your question. So the traditional impediment for investigating clean-slate initiatives, new designs, whole new designs for operating systems or computing systems, is often limited by challenges against the feasibility of employing them economically. 

So one of the things that we began to look at is exactly the opportunity for insertion for new technology, such as clean-slate design as articulated under CRASH. And what we observed is that, 

by 2012, the purchase of smart phones, as an example, will exceed 

the purchase of laptop and desktop computers combined. Therein 

lies an opportunity to insert new technology that is consistent with 

the business models and the economic aims of many of those in private industry. 

We are actively engaged with them. They are part of our research projects. And so I feel that that close coupling is healthy at 

DARPA. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Secretary, let me broaden the question a 

little bit. How do you maintain visibility in what the private sector 

is doing, in order to integrate not only across those of you who are 

there but into those efforts? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Well, first of all, many of us came from the 

private sector and we have a remarkable Rolodex. The hours and 

the salary changed, but the Rolodex didn’t. And so, in fact, it is 

critically important that we maintain that coupling. 

I think you would find, every one of us spends a lot of time engaging with industry, whether it is conferences, whether it is on a 

study panel. I know that in cyber, for example, early last year 

when we wanted to sort of get ground truth of what was happening 

in the private sector, we brought people in. We convened a study 

that included leading universities and leading companies to come 

in and tell us, what are your leading ideas that you are supporting? 
32 

So it really is a full-time engagement. And this is really across 

our—I would echo Dr. Dugan’s point that her program managers 

are best in class. We pull them from industry. After a few years, 

you send them back, and they have made a great contribution to 

the Nation. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. What effect, if any, does the lack of a longterm reauthorization on the Small Business Innovative Research 

Program have on your ability to do strategic planning and integration of those efforts into core S&T programs? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Chairman, let me start with that. As you 

and I have talked, that is a particular concern of ours, of mine. We 

deal with the small-business community all the time. 

And I will give you one specific example. There is a program that 

we are funding in the LA [Los Angeles] area to build an airship, 

and we are working with a small company, and we are simply metering out payments to this company. It is a 30-member company, 

and they are sort of hanging by a thread. So we can’t do long-range 

planning without a budget in place, and it puts those companies at 

risk. 

The same was true with a small company that I saw on the eastern shore of Maryland that is building force protection equipment 

for our troops. It is simply a matter of scaling it out. It is like 

building a house, and instead of building it on the cost and architect’s budget and timeline that you would like, you sort of stretch 

it out, and it is going to cost more. 

So there is an unpaid bill that is a result of this, and it is adding 

enormous risk to our small-business community. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Dr. Freeman, this may not be fair, but I have 

the idea that a lot of medical research that is done at the Department of Defense has a tenuous connection to the warfighter or even 

our service people. A lot of it has been foisted upon the Department 

by Congress. 

Now, I don’t know if that is—but it does occur to me that, as 

budgets tighten and as we have these extremely serious, urgent 

issues like Mr. Gibson was asking about, that we might have to adjust our priorities a little bit. And some of these things in the field 

of medical research that the Department has been doing may need 

to take a lower priority. 

Do you have any comment about that? 

Dr. FREEMAN. You bring up a tremendously important issue for 

us, you know, and it has several aspects, right? I mean, one of 

them is the Medical Research Command has gotten a tremendous 

amount of adds over the years, earmarks over the years. And, in 

fact, they had to stand up—in order to handle the very large volume of those, they had to stand up an organization basically to 

handle all of that. 

And, of course, we have some issues as we remain on a continuing resolution, if we do, that basically, you know, in 2011 we 

are okay because we are continuing to operate those particular programs and execute those programs from past adds. However, as we 

move to 2012, we are going to have to seriously consider what we 

do there. 
33 

So one of them is the infrastructure that that has caused in our 

medical community, and so we have to deal with that. But we are 

dealing with that, and the commander and I are dealing with that. 

The second issue that you bring, however, is the, you know, what 

I would call, kind of, just a huge smattering of a variety of topics 

that have been funded over time, some in the program but mostly 

in the non-core budget. And I have mixed feelings about those. I 

really do. 

The first thing is that, you know, a lot of those things that don’t 

seem, maybe, on the surface to be really, really beneficial to our 

service men and women actually are. Breast cancer is a huge issue 

for not only the women of this country—I am a breast cancer survivor, so I am very glad all that research was there—but also for 

our females in the military. And so, you know, even though that 

may not have been intended entirely for the military, it has had 

a great benefit, as have many of those kinds of efforts. 

On the other hand, you are absolutely right. We are going to 

have to tighten our belt, take a look—and you mentioned the word 

‘‘priorities.’’ I mentioned the word ‘‘priorities’’ in my testimony. And 

I think we are going to have to look at that, and we are going to 

have to look at that hard. 

What I will tell you is that we do have to maintain a very broad 

look at all of the different kinds of medical research that need to 

be done. And so, as we look at what we are doing, we have to look 

in many different ways. We have to look at treatment, we have to 

look at prevention, we have to look at vaccines. We have to look 

at an awful lot of those things which do really help our service men 

and women. Some of those historic things will go away, as we take 

a hard look at those things. Some of those things we will have to 

continue. 

One of the big issues that we have by not being able to move 

things out of the medical research in a very fast manner is the approval process for drugs and so on and so forth, which, of course, 

stymies an awful lot of—as we go through—and we want to be sure 

we are absolutely doing the right thing, but that takes it a long 

time to get the things that can be beneficial out to our warfighters. 

So I think you bring up a really good point, and I would love to 

discuss it further with you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, I guess—yeah. I would, too. And I appreciate the points you make, but we can’t duplicate NIH [the National Institutes of Health] at DOD, so—I appreciate it. 

Dr. Walker, you mentioned in your statement some upgrade, 

kind of, research on missiles and so forth. I am thinking about our 

strategic triad and so forth. Do you all have anything going on, 

though, as far as—and maybe this would not be S&T in these accounts—but as far as replacements? 

What sort of work is the Air Force doing as far as missile technology goes? You look around the world, and there are lots of missiles that a lot of people have. Are we doing the kind of research 

we need to understand that and possibly have our own improved 

systems if we choose to? 

Dr. WALKER. Great question. We are heavily invested in the Air 

Force S&T Program in propulsion and guidance technologies for 

Minuteman III-type replacement strategic systems. We, in par-
34 

ticular, are looking at advanced inertial measurement unit guidance packages for denied GPS environments and applying those to 

strategic systems, as well as looking at solid propellant S&T work 

out at our Edwards facility to, among other things, maintain that 

industrial base that is so critical to the Nation and look at nextgeneration-type ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] systems. 

It is interesting you ask the question. I came from DARPA, actually, as well. And DARPA and the Air Force are working a program 

looking at conventional strategic systems, a technology program. 

And the Air Force piece of that is looking at the DARPA design for 

that boost-glide vehicle system and looking at how we would use 

that to strike targets from a strategic standpoint. So, actually, we 

are tied at the hip on that program. 

And, you know, conventional strike, at this point, it is a technology look, but it is important, I think, for future options in our 

strategic systems. 

Thank you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I think so, too. I think it is important to have 

future options beyond our current system. 

Mr. Langevin, do you have other questions? 

Mr. LANGEVIN. No, thank you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Gibson, do you have other questions? 

Mr. GIBSON. No. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, I think you all wore us out. 

I suspect there will be other questions that we would submit for 

the record. 

But, again, I appreciate each of you being here today. I appreciate your patience while we had votes, and appreciate the work 

that you and your organizations do. 

With that, the hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 1, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 1, 2011 

(39) 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 1, 2011 

(145) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. SANCHEZ 

Dr. FREEMAN. The Military Photomedicine Program (formerly the Medical Free 

Electron Laser program) is currently funded out of the Defense Health Program line 

0602115HP, and executed by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. I understand the President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2012 includes $4.8 million for 

this effort. [See page 21.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 1, 2011 

(149) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. THORNBERRY 

Mr. THORNBERRY. As the Department’s Chief Technology Officer it is imperative 

that your office understand not only of the technological capabilities and challenges 

across the Department but those capabilities and challenges in the private sector 

that directly impact the DOD and warfighter. What methods, specifically, does your 

office utilize to build awareness of and assess the security & integrity of critical 

technologies in the private sector? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. As outlined in DOD Directive 5134.3, the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense (Research and Engineering) (ASD(R&E)) serves as the Chief Technology 

Officer for the Department of Defense and is responsible for ‘‘developing strategies 

and supporting plans that exploit technology and prototypes to respond to the needs 

of the Department of Defense and ensure U.S. technological superiority.’’ Key to this 

responsibility is understanding the capabilities that reside in the private sector and 

how those could be accessed and leveraged to directly support the Department and 

warfighter. 

At the technology level, the Department engages broadly with industry through 

the Small Business Innovation Research Program, contracted research programs, 

service laboratory engagements and participation in subject matter conferences. 

At the systems level, the Department’s Trusted Defense Systems Strategy, delivered to Congress in January 2010, outlines a strategic interaction with industry as 

one of the four major tenets of this strategy. These include: 

• Object Management Group’s (OMG) Software Assurance Special Interest Group 

(SwA SIG), which extended the Knowledge Data Model (KDM) to software assurance; 

• DHS Software Assurance Program, which works with the private sector, academia, and federal entities, including my office, to encourage and enable software developers to focus on quality and security throughout the development 

lifecycle; 

• National Defense Industrial Association’s (NDIA) System Assurance Committee, 

which developed the ‘‘Engineering for System Assurance Guidebook; 

• The Open Group’s Trusted Technology Forum, which is releasing a global 

framework, guidelines, procurement strategies and related resources to enable 

the technology industry to ‘‘build with integrity’’ and enable customers to ‘‘buy 

with confidence’’; 

• Information Communication Technology—Supply Chain Risk Management 

(ICT–SCRM) Ad-Hoc Working Group, under the American National Standards 

Institute’s (ANSI) CyberSecurity-1 (CS1), is leveraging a wide range of industry 

participants’ inputs on SCRM-related ‘‘commercially acceptable global sourcing 

standards’’ to form national positions in support of the International Standards 

Organization community; and 

• International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) System Security Engineering Working Group, which is developing design concepts, system engineering processes, standards, and community awareness for next generation system 

security. 

The Department’s Science and Technology Executive Committee (S&T EXCOM), 

chaired by ASD(R&E), provides a forum to integrate awareness of emerging private 

sector technical capabilities across the Department and accelerate their connection 

to the Department’s needs. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. As you are aware, over the past two decades several critical defense technologies have moved off-shore leaving the Department of Defense dependent on foreign competitors for key defense components and systems. What technological capabilities and/or specific technology areas are you most concerned about 

losing to off-shore interests over the next five to ten years? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Technology globalization has enabled many nations to access 

leading-edge technologies where the United States historically has enjoyed a dominant role. The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 provides authority to reduce 

U.S. dependency on foreign sources for critical materials and technologies essential 

for national defense. 
150 

In the last 10 years, the DPA has funded domestic investments in 46 essential 

defense technologies including gallium nitride semiconductors, carbon nanotube fibers, continuous filament boron fiber and high-purity beryllium. The total investment over the past 10 years has been $677.22 million. 

In particular, the DPA, Title III effort is focused on establishing production capabilities that are self-sustaining. Contractors are encouraged to focus on business 

planning, marketing and improvements in production capabilities. The combination 

of strengthened production capabilities and increased marketing efforts helps ensure 

the financial viability of critical industrial capabilities. 

Looking ahead, I am most concerned that international markets are driving leading edge semiconductors, advanced materials, high efficiency battery technology and 

manufacturing tools off shore. In each of these areas, the Department is working 

across the Government to assess the national security impact, identify the enabling 

technical concepts, and outline a viable business model for Defense Production Act 

investment. 

One of the tools available to the Government to assess the risk to these critical 

industrial sectors and recommend mitigation measures is the Defense Production 

Act Committee (DPAC). The 2009 amendments to the DPA created the DPAC, and 

comprises approximately 14 federal agencies. The role of the DPAC is to conduct assessments of the U.S. industrial base to identify risks within supply-chains deemed 

essential to U.S. national security and critical infrastructure, and prescribe means 

for mitigating the risks identified. The DPAC utilizes an inter-agency process, which 

conducts assessments to identify manufacturing activities requiring support. These 

assessments include analysis of supply-chains; emerging technology developments/ 

applications; components’ criticality, importance/reliability of sources; and appropriate access to capital to support urgent national requirements. The assessments 

also include recommendations for mitigating risks identified in the course of those 

assessments. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. What specific steps are you undertaking to provide timely due 

diligence for determining if a private sector company has resident key defense technology and what steps are you undertaking to ensure that these technologies stay 

in country and available for DOD programs? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. In DOD, the primary responsibility for ensuring that domestically-created technologies are appropriately export-controlled lies with the Defense 

Technology Security Administration (DTSA). DTSA administers the development 

and implementation of DOD technology security policies on international transfers 

of defense-related goods, services, and technologies. It ensures that critical U.S. 

military technological advantages are preserved. DTSA operates in close coordination with the Department of State, which has lead responsibility in the U.S. Government for licensing export of defense articles and defense services. 

In addition, my office works closely with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy) to analyze potential mergers and 

acquisitions of U.S. firms by foreign interests. These analyses are provided to the 

Treasury Department-chaired Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 

States, which determines whether the transition of private sector companies and 

their technologies to foreign ownership would impair the national security of the 

United States. Each year, my office typically provides technical assessments for several dozen such cases. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. In addition to activities that were devolved to the Services, 

what other contributions did the S&T community make, if any, to the Secretary’s 

efficiency initiative? 

Secretary LEMNIOS and Dr. DUGAN. In response to the Department’s direction to 

identify efficiencies, DARPA identified the first four items listed below. In addition, 

we were directed, per the 14 Mar, 2011 Secretary of Defense Memo Titled, ‘‘Track 

Four Efficiency Initiatives Decisions’’, to implement item five below. 

1. Reduce contractor service support in Information Technology and administration from 7.5% of overall budget to less than 5.4% by FY13. This recommendation 

has no estimated savings in personnel and an estimated FYDP savings of 

$58,300,000. 

2. Reduce advisory studies and boards funding by 25%, by FY12 and develop a 

schedule to periodically review those technology advisory boards, studies, and councils that are established for specific functions to determine if they have served their 

purpose and, if so, disband them as early as possible. This recommendation has no 

estimated savings in personnel and an estimated savings of $1,300,000 FYDP savings. 

3. Automate historically cumbersome and manual administrative processes to improve productivity, quality, and create efficiencies. There is an estimated FY12 savings of $295,000. 
151 

4. Expand use of the Savannah classified network workstation. Expanding Savannah to support DARPA’s multiple network processing of classified information and 

supporting network connectivity via a single workstation will eliminate the need for 

multiple classified systems and minimize requirements for the physical handling of 

classified material. There are no estimated savings in personnel and an estimated 

FY12 savings of $4,400,000. 

5. Reduce DARPA Total Obligation Authority across the FYDP by 5% to better 

align its budget with obligation rate targets. DARPA’s five-year average annual obligation rate of 63%, with an improved FY10 annual obligation rate of 84% still allows a 5% reduction with minimal impact to overall quality of effort and mission 

execution. Annual rescissions have been common and have influenced annual obligation rates in a positive direction; without rescissions, DARPA’s obligation rates 

would have been measurably lower, further mitigating the risk of a 5% reduction. 

There are no estimated savings in personnel and an estimated FY12 savings of 

$153,000,000. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. In addition to activities that were devolved to the Services, 

what other contributions did the S&T community make, if any, to the Secretary’s 

efficiency initiative? 

Dr. FREEMAN. As part of the Secretary of Defense’s efficiency initiative, Army 

S&T funding was increased by $65 million for Indirect Fire Protection Capability 

research in Fiscal Years (FY) 2012–2014 and reduced by $79 million in FY 2014– 

2016 for contractor and manpower efficiencies. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. In addition to activities that were devolved to the Services, 

what other contributions did the S&T community make, if any, to the Secretary’s 

efficiency initiative? 

Admiral CARR. The science and technology (S&T) community complied with the 

Secretary of Defense’s direction to reduce reliance on service contractor support by 

30 percent over three years. The savings identified by this efficiency reduction were 

then realigned from contractor support to true S&T investment, also in accordance 

with the secretary’s direction. Additional S&T efficiencies were identified, some of 

which were tied to in-sourcing contractors and detailees to government civilian positions. The non-S&T portion of the Office of Naval Research’s portfolio sustained 

similar efficiency reductions, including reducing civilian manpower levels back to 

the Fiscal Year 2010 levels. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. In addition to activities that were devolved to the Services, 

what other contributions did the S&T community make, if any, to the Secretary’s 

efficiency initiative? 

Dr. WALKER. In response to the Secretary’s efficiency initiative, the Air Force Research Laboratory was tasked to identify almost $150 million in efficiencies from 

within the Air Force S&T Program starting in Fiscal Year 2013 and spanning the 

Future Years Defense Program. The resultant savings are to be reinvested back into 

S&T program content. Examples of efficiencies may include reductions in headquarters staff, travel, and laboratory logistics costs, as well as integration of core 

technical competencies and strategic planning functions across some technical directorates. The plan is for savings to be reinvested into S&T efforts supporting Flagship Capability Concepts, Technology Horizons, and other priorities. In addition, efficiency savings garnered from the Basic Research program are to be reinvested 

back into Basic Research efforts. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Like the health of the technology workforce, the health of the DOD 

laboratories and research centers is a critical concern for the acquisition community. 

These facilities provide key research capabilities for the DOD, both in terms of concentrations of skilled technicians as well as necessary instrumentation. Labs also 

serve as a key indicator for the technology workforce that can be used to attract 

high quality researchers. Unfortunately, the poor state of much of the lab infrastructure in DOD can also serve to dispel many of the technology workforce that DOD 

would most like to attract into the technical staff of the labs. 

1. How well do you think DOD labs compare to academic or industrial labs, in 

terms of the quality of their output and the quality of their infrastructure? 

2. Do you believe that the DOD labs are aligned to meet the future technology 

needs of the Department? 

3. What value do the labs provide for the DOD? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. 1. I have personally visited many of the Department’s laboratories and have found an extremely diversified mixture of superb talent, world-class 

facilities hampered by obsolete buildings and equipment. The Department’s labora-
152 

tories are an important part of the Department’s Science and Technology (S&T) enterprise, which in addition to its laboratories, comprises industry, academia, federally funded research and development centers, and university affiliated research 

centers. 

The Department’s laboratories represent a unique conduit with industry to transfer the knowledge gained from our basic research investments into capabilities for 

our warfighters. Given the dynamic global and domestic research and development 

landscape that exists today, we are undertaking a systematic assessment to ensure 

the Department’s laboratories are successful in the future in three areas: 

a. Recruitment of top talent not only for traditional S&T areas but also in emerging new science areas which hold the potential for important new capabilities. 

b. Access to suitable facilities which support the Department’s core critical capabilities. 

c. Development of effective and efficient business processes that provide value to 

the Department’s missions and priorities, including processes to accelerate capabilities for the current war and prepare for an uncertain future. 

2. We are working diligently to better align the capabilities and projects in the 

Department’s laboratories to the future technology needs of the Department. The 

first important step in this process was outlining the Department’s S&T emphasis 

areas which provide warfighters cross-cutting capabilities for the missions identified 

in the Quadrennial Defense Review. We have also identified emerging science areas 

that hold the promise for fundamentally new capabilities in the future. 

3. The Department’s laboratories provide captive technical depth in critical areas 

for the Department and a conduit to the emerging technical concepts in academia 

and industry. In many cases, our laboratory programs lead industry in critical areas 

that are too high risk for industry investment (advanced materials, dynamic propulsion, energetic). In other areas, our laboratories couple industry concepts to the 

needs of the warfighter (blast protection and intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR)). The laboratories’ subject matter experts in mission critical areas provide the Department with early access to emerging concepts and rapid adaptability 

to the field. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. The 2010 Joint Operating Environment Report from Joint Forces 

Command warns that a global energy crunch driven by ‘‘Peak Oil,’’ the point at 

which global oil production enters terminal decline and demand therefore more rapidly outstrips supply, may cause international conflict, force deep cuts in U.S. defense spending, and undermine our economic growth. Do you concur with this assessment? 

Secretary LEMNIOS and Dr. DUGAN. DARPA defers to ASD (R&E) to discuss ‘‘Peak 

Oil’’ because of their broad S&T perspective to include the Services. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Dr. Walker I wanted to ask about the high energy laser program 

that Secretary Lemnios recently moved to the Air Force’s jurisdiction. How does the 

Department plan on executing the program? 

Dr. WALKER. The three High Energy Laser (HEL) Joint Technology Office (JTO) 

program elements were devolved to the Air Force in Fiscal Year 2004. After the 

devolvement, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed between the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Services, and relevant Defense 

Agency Science and Technology (S&T) Executives. This MOA defines the HEL JTO 

management structure and the specific roles/responsibilities of OSD, the Military 

Services, and Defense Agencies. The HEL Technology Council, made up of these 

S&T Executives, provides technical oversight of the program executed by the HEL 

JTO. The Air Force provides administrative support to the program including development of the descriptive summaries and funds management. No HEL programs 

have been moved to the Air Force since 2004. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Do you see any potential challenges with this move? 

Dr. WALKER. No. The management structure for the three High Energy Laser 

(HEL) Joint Technology Office (JTO) programs has been in place since these programs were devolved to the Air Force in Fiscal Year 2004 and is working well. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Recent news articles have reported that DARPA was in the initial 

stages of considering a militarized stand alone cloud architecture along with the establishment of mobile wireless hotspots to beam data to/from troops in difficult to 

access areas. 

Dr. DUGAN. DARPA is investing in research and development of technologies that 

will bring secure high-data-rate capabilities to troops in difficult areas. 

One potential technology is using optical beams as a transmission medium. This 

potentially counters the adversary’s ability to intercept, spoof, or exploit data transmitted from one warfighter to another. In addition, Millimeter Wave (MMV) or secure Radio Frequency waveforms may provide additional secure transmission capabilities in unsecure and rapidly-changing environments. 
153 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SANCHEZ 

Ms. SANCHEZ. As you know, this committee has been very active with pushing the 

Department to improve its efforts to rapidly transition innovative technology. On 

page two of your written testimony, you state that the Department operates 10 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, 13 University Affiliated Research Centers and 10 Information Analysis Centers that provide innovative paths 

for rapid prototyping. Could you briefly explain how the UARCs and IACs each provide paths for accelerating technologies? Please list and describe recent examples of 

technologies that were accelerated into fielding, a program of record, or commercial 

markets as a direct result of their efforts? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. Our University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC) drive 

mission-specific research with deep connections to the academic community. These 

centers provide the Department with focused technical depth in critical mission 

areas. The Department’s UARCs are as follows: 

1. University of California at Santa Barbara: Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies 

2. University of Southern California: Institute for Creative Technologies 

3. Georgia Institute of Technology: Georgia Tech Research Institute 

4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies 

5. University of Texas at Austin: Institute for Advanced Technology 

6. Utah State University: Space Dynamics Laboratory 

7. Johns Hopkins University: Applied Physics Laboratory 

8. Pennsylvania State University: Applied Research Laboratory 

9. University of Texas at Austin: Applied Research Laboratories 

10. University of Washington: Applied Physics Laboratory 

11. University of Hawaii at Manoa: Applied Research Laboratory 

12. University of Maryland, College Park: Center for Advanced Study of Language 

13. Stevens Institute of Technology: Systems Engineering Research Center 

UARCs provide capability to fill the intersection between universities and defense 

labs in specific narrowly defined areas. The following provide examples of technologies that were accelerated into fielding through two of our UARCs. 

• A high resolution imaging sonar developed by the University of Texas at Austin 

Applied Research Laboratories UARC to provide enhanced capability for diver 

reconnaissance in shallow water and harbor environments. The SEAL Handheld 

Sonar is part of the program of record for U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Naval Special Warfare, and it is incorporated in the Underwater Imaging System and the Hydro Reconnaissance and Littoral Mine Detection System. 

• The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) was proposed in the 1980s by 

the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU APL) UARC, 

and subsequently developed by JHU APL and industry in the 1990s and beyond 

as a program of record. CEC allows naval battle groups to engage targets that 

are at greatly extended ranges beyond a ship’s radar horizon and targets that 

were previously considered difficult to detect and track. CEC serves as a major 

enabler of a single integrated air picture and provides the fleet with the defensive flexibility required to confront the evolving threat of anti-ship cruise and 

theater ballistic missiles. 

Our Information Analysis Centers (IACs) provide tactical relevance through direct 

connection to the Warfighter, and strategic value through long term trend analysis 

and recommendations. They answer an immediate need, driven by the requirements 

of the Warfighter and acquisition community. Products such as State-of-the-Art Reports provide a detailed analysis of immediate, critical challenges, while technical 

inquiry services offer a direct connection to a vast network of Subject Matter Experts from across government, industry and academia. IACs meet the customers on 

their ground, maintaining involvement in technical communities and working with 

senior executives to solve the challenges of the day, while anticipating and preparing for those of tomorrow. The Department’s IACs are as follows: 

1. Advanced Materials, Manufacturing, and Testing Information Analysis Center 

(AMMTIAC) 

2. Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense Information Analysis 

Center (CBRNIAC) 

3. Chemical Propulsion Information Analysis Center (CPIAC) 

4. Data & Analysis Center for Software (DACS) 

5. Information Assurance Technology Analysis Center (IATAC) 

6. Modeling and Simulation Information Analysis Center (MSIAC) 

7. Reliability Information Analysis Center (RIAC) 

8. Military Sensing Information Analysis Center (SENSIAC) 
154 

9. Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center (SURVIAC) 

10. Weapon Systems Technology Information Analysis Center (WSTIAC), 

IACs do not conduct research but rather focus information analysis and results 

in specific domains. IACs facilitate transition by being on-call capabilities to focus 

information support-specific transition efforts as a tangible resource. These analysis 

centers are part of the Department’s comprehensive information portal that is 

hosted at the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). As a measure of effectiveness, the ten analysis centers answered over 7,000 requests in Fiscal Year 2010 

from across the Department on time critical issues ranging from assessing the risk 

of chemical terrorism to engineering resilient systems (supporting our Systems 2020 

effort). 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What is the recapitalization rate for your defense laboratory infrastructures? 

Dr. FREEMAN. While we do not have the specific recapitalization rate for Army 

labs and RDECs, the laboratory recap rate for the Department of Defense Labs is 

approximately 70 years. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Where do the labs fall in priority with the rest of defense MILCON 

needs? 

Dr. FREEMAN. The Services prioritize their MILCON needs against all current requirements with the laboratory recapitalization being considered along with the 

needs for airfields, barracks, hospitals, etc. Laboratory requests usually end up 

below the cut line. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What efforts would you recommend implementing to begin to meet 

lab MILCON needs in a fiscally responsible manner? 

Dr. FREEMAN. As I mentioned, I am undertaking a comprehensive review of the 

state of the Army labs and Research, Development and Engineering Centers, both 

in terms of physical infrastructure and human capital. Once that review is complete, 

I intend to take the results and prioritize our needs across the entire Army lab complex. 

Additionally, the Defense Laboratory Office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) is developing a two 

part metric which will measure building quality and building functionality for DOD 

laboratories. These metrics can be incorporated into our review to help us further 

understand our needs and how to address them in a fiscally responsible way. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. How do your lab recap rates and investment levels for lab facilities 

and equipment compare with the DOE labs, private sector labs, and major university labs? 

Dr. FREEMAN. Army S&T has no comparative data on any other facilities. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What are the potential negative impacts to lab mission and 

warfighter support of the deterioration of our lab infrastructure? 

Dr. FREEMAN. Operations and Maintenance costs will continue to increase for certain older facilities which are needed to execute programs. Deterioration of infrastructure is an impediment to conducting world-class scientific research and engineering. Recruiting of new talent could be impacted as young Scientists and Engineers might prefer to work in a well maintained and equipped facility rather than 

one that is deteriorating. Repair and upkeep tasks are distractions to the workforce 

and prevent them concentrating on their scientific and technical work. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What is the recapitalization rate for your defense laboratory infrastructures? 

Admiral CARR. The rate at which the facilities of the Naval Research Laboratory 

(NRL) are being replaced by new MILCON is about 700 years, a significant increase 

from the pre-1990’s rate of about 100 years. This greatly exceeds the DON/DOD target of 67 years. 

In the 10 years prior to the realignment of the MILCON process in 1993, five 

ONR/NRL MILCON projects were programmed. In the 18 years since 1993, three 

projects have been programmed. 

The average age of NRL–DC facilities is 57 years. Declining annual MILCON investments are driving this situation: $12.1 M in the 1960’s down to $1.0 M in the 

2000’s. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Where do the labs fall in priority with the rest of defense MILCON 

needs? 

Admiral CARR. The needs of research and development do not fare well in direct 

competition with operational requirements, especially under a period of conflict that 

imposes heavy burden on the shore infrastructure that directly supports warfighting 

(piers, runways, etc). There are no Naval Research Lab MILCON projects remaining 

in the President’s Budget Request for the fiscal year 2012 Future Years Defense 

Plan. 
155 

1DOD Defense Management Review, ‘‘Report of the Laboratory Demonstration Program Facilities Working Group on the DOD R&D Activity Facilities Modernization Requirements,’’ 4 

May 1990. 

Of the twelve objective shore capability areas in the Navy MILCON scoring 

model, RDT&E is ninth on the list, behind Waterfront Ops, Airfield Ops, Utilities, 

and Training, and above Sailor and Family Readiness, Base Support, and Logistics 

& Supply. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What efforts would you recommend implementing to begin to meet 

lab MILCON needs in a fiscally responsible manner? 

Admiral CARR. In 2008, the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) completed a Corporate Facilities Investment Plan that provides strategic direction for the expenditure of laboratory overhead and MILCON funds to renovate spaces to meet evolving 

R&D needs in the 10–15 year time frame. Primarily through its investment of overhead funds, NRL has been able to maintain its status as a world-class laboratory. 

This approach cannot be sustained in the long term. The following two proposals 

are offered: 

(1) Establish a separate budget line to fund R&D MILCON needs. 

Funding levels should sustain a rate of replacement that meets the needs of naval 

research so that Naval Research can best meet the needs of the Navy and Marine 

Corps. This can be done by establishing a separate budget line for RDT&E projects. 

This would prevent continued deferment of RDT&E projects while maintaining competition between the RDT&E projects each year to ensure that only valid and welljustified projects are funded. 

(2) Allow Working Capital Fund laboratories to manage their own Capital Investment Program (CIP) for infrastructure revitalization. 

The CIP allows the use of ‘‘internal’’ (vice specific appropriated) funds to revitalize 

infrastructure. However, CIP authority is subject to administrative, budgetary, and 

statutory limitation for the purposes of dollar amount and fiscal year of availability. 

Legislation would be required to change this situation, but there are precedents for 

doing so. For example, the Postal Service and St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation use similar (or overhead) funds generated from sales to acquire, construct, and maintain their own facilities and property. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. How do your lab recap rates and investment levels for lab facilities 

and equipment compare with the DOE labs, private sector labs, and major university labs? 

Admiral CARR. Recent information allowing comparisons across these different 

communities is scarce. However, a DOD study in 1990 (prior to the change in the 

Navy’s MILCON process) found the average age of DOD laboratory buildings was 

33 years, compared to 22 years for all Government buildings and 17 for industrial 

R&D centers. In addition, 55 percent of all DOD R&D facilities were more than 40 

years old, and the replacement cycle for the DOD R&D physical plant was over 100 

years compared with 18 years for industrial R&D facilities.1

Now, 21 years later, the average age of NRL–DC facilities is 57 years. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What are the potential negative impacts to lab mission and 

warfighter support of the deterioration of our lab infrastructure? 

Admiral CARR. The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) conducts some of the most 

advanced research in the world, which depends on state-of-the-art, costly, high-precision equipment and facilities. Deterioration of facilities hinders the recruitment 

and retention of a high quality workforce, causes millions of dollars in damage to 

laboratories and equipment, and results in many months of delays to critical research projects while laboratories are restored. At a certain point, this deterioration 

of infrastructure can jeopardize the viability of NRL, which would in turn bear high 

costs to national security by limiting, degrading, or preventing the conduct of research and development required to meet the needs of the warfighter—NRL’s core 

mission responsibility. 

State-of-the-art facilities have been a major factor in forging NRL’s record of 

achievement. In 2005, the Navy League’s New York Council awarded NRL the Roosevelt’s Gold Medal for Science, noting that, ‘‘NRL has helped make the U.S. Fleet 

the most formidable naval fighting force in the world’’ and calling it ‘‘the Government’s premier defense research laboratory.’’ In observing NRL’s 75th anniversary 

in 1998, Norman Augustine said, ‘‘I know from experience that there are few other 

institutions—public or private—which have had a greater impact on American life 

in the 20th century, both in terms of military needs and civilian uses.’’ And John 

Galvin said, ‘‘NRL is the equivalent of the most significant technology jewel in our 

country.’’ 

However, the needs of long-term research do not fare well in direct competition 

with operational requirements. In short, they are considered deferrable, especially 
156 

in a time of financial constraints. Successful innovation can save money and reduce 

total ownership cost. For example, NRL’s corrosion control coatings reduced a threecoat painting process to a single-coat process and reduced total production time by 

more than 80%. The Navy estimates this will save $1.8 B over a 20-year period. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What is the recapitalization rate for your defense laboratory infrastructures? 

Dr. WALKER. Recapitalization rates are no longer applicable for defense laboratory 

infrastructure to include the Air Force Research Laboratory. In Fiscal Year 2010, 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) changed from calculating recapitalization rates in years to calculating this as a percent investment against the OSD Facility Modernization Model done only at the Service level (i.e., recapitalization rates 

are no longer calculated for Major Commands, installations, or separate agencies). 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Where do the labs fall in priority with the rest of defense Military 

Construction (MILCON) needs? 

Dr. WALKER. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) inputs for MILCON funding 

are vetted each year and prioritized in conjunction with other Air Force requirements. In Fiscal Year 2007, AFRL’s parent Major Command, the Air Force Materiel 

Command, implemented a new planning prioritization process for laboratory 

MILCON requirements. This process provides the AFRL Commander the ability to 

submit laboratory MILCON requests directly to the Command MILCON Panel. Previously, AFRL MILCON requests were submitted through the individual bases or 

centers where AFRL tenant facilities were located. As direct inputs under this new 

process, AFRL MILCON requirements have received higher prioritization leading to 

a greater likelihood for approval and funding than when previously prioritized 

against other base or center needs. This, coupled with the advantages and synergy 

of AFRL operating as a single laboratory, enables AFRL to better manage its infrastructure to include being a stronger advocate for its MILCON requirements. For 

those inputs not currently funded, AFRL will continue to clarify requirements to enable projects to better compete in future deliberations. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What efforts would you recommend implementing to begin to meet 

lab Military Construction (MILCON) needs in a fiscally responsible manner? 

Dr. WALKER. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) currently utilizes 

MILCON authorities provided by Congress in Title 10, United States Code, Section 

2804, Contingency Construction, and Section 2805, Unspecified Minor Construction. 

In the case of Section 2805, this authority is currently set to expire on September 

30, 2012. Extension of this authority is recommended as it enables AFRL to construct needed facilities in support of emerging technologies and to correct deficiencies that could be life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. How do your lab recap rates and investment levels for lab facilities 

and equipment compare with the Department of Energy (DOE) labs, private sector 

labs, and major university labs? 

Dr. WALKER. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) does not track or generally have access to the recapitalization rates and facilities/equipment investment 

levels for DOE, private sector, and major university labs. In addition, as of Fiscal 

Year 2010, recapitalization rates are no longer applicable for defense laboratory infrastructure to include AFRL. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What are the potential negative impacts to lab mission and 

warfighter support of the deterioration of our lab infrastructure? 

Dr. WALKER. Existing Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) infrastructure is basically sound and there are no significant barriers that disproportionally impact 

Science and Technology (S&T) facilities on any given base. In those cases where limited installation Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization funds are not available for laboratory requirements due to other competing priorities, S&T funding can 

be and is used to fund these requirements if the impact of not funding them is 

deemed significant. S&T funds will only be used if the work is in direct support of 

the S&T mission in accordance with guidance established in Air Force Instruction 

65–601, Volume 1, dated March 3, 2005, Section 13B—Funding to Acquire Research 

and Development (R&D) Facilities and Install R&D Equipment. In those cases 

where new or unique laboratory facilities requiring Military Construction (MILCON) 

funding might be needed, the development of new technologies to support the 

warfighter could potentially be delayed if these facilities are not funded. However, 

this factor is taken into account as AFRL needs are prioritized against other Air 

Force needs during the MILCON prioritization process. 
157 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHNSON 

Mr. JOHNSON. Please explain why the OSD HBCU/MI Program was devolved to 

the Army and how that change promotes efficiency if the budget request is unchanged? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. The Secretary’s Fiscal Year 2012–2016 efficiency initiatives 

focused on a reform agenda to improve the Department’s business operations. Specifically, the Secretary directed a series of initiatives designed to reduce duplication, 

overhead, and excess, and instill a culture of savings and restraint across the Department of Defense. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) Program was devolved to the Army 

as an efficiency measure and to streamline program execution currently being performed by the Army. OSD Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering) will continue to provide strategic leadership of the HBCU/MI program. This 

devolvement will reduce transaction costs for the daily financial management and 

administration of the HBCU/MI budget. While the anticipated annual savings to the 

Department is $75,000 which is modest, this will align the program execution to the 

Military Department that is performing the work. 

This action met the intent of the Secretary’s efficiency objectives for identifying 

a more cost effective and streamlined business processes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Please explain how devolving this program and other programs devolved from OSD under the FY 2012 budget request saves dollars for the Department and why these programs were selected for devolution versus other programs 

in ASD(R&E) that were not devolved and remain in OSD? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. The Secretary’s FY 12–16 efficiency initiatives focused on a 

reform agenda to improve the Department’s business operations. Specifically, the 

Secretary directed a series of initiatives designed to reduce duplication, overhead, 

and excess, and instill a culture of savings and restraint across the Department of 

Defense. 

The OSD Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions 

(HBCU/MI) Program was devolved to the Army as an efficiency measure and to 

streamline program execution currently being performed by the Army. OSD 

ASD(R&E) will continue to provide strategic leadership of the HBCU/MI program. 

This devolvement will reduce transaction costs for the daily financial management 

and administration of the HBCU/MI budget. While the anticipated annual savings 

to the Department is $75,000 which is modest, this will align the program execution 

to the Military Department that is performing the work. 

The criteria used to select devolved programs, to include the OSD HBCU/MI program, consisted of: 

1) Programs where OSD ASD(R&E) transfers full program funding (via sub-allocation) directly to a Component for program execution, 

2) Identifying areas for improving and streamlining the financial management 

and administration processes of select programs, and 

3) Identifying potential cost savings associated with streamlined business processes of select programs. 

This action met the intent of the Secretary’s efficiency objectives for identifying 

a more cost effective and streamlined business processes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. In your written testimony you mention that your strategy for 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) outreach includes developing a diverse talent base. Divesting yourself of the leadership responsibility for 

the HBCU/MI funding stream seems counter to that objective. What were your selection criteria or justification in transferring the OSD HBCU/MI Program and divesting yourself of the leadership responsibility, commitment, and visibility that is 

the OSD ASD(R&E) role under 10 U.S.C. 2362? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. The Secretary’s FY 12–16 efficiency initiatives focused on a 

reform agenda to improve the Department’s business operations. Specifically, the 

Secretary directed a series of initiatives designed to reduce duplication, overhead, 

and excess, and instill a culture of savings and restraint across the Department of 

Defense. 

The OSD HBCU/MI Program was devolved to the Army as an efficiency measure 

and to streamline program execution currently being performed by the Army. OSD 

ASD(R&E) will continue to provide strategic leadership of the HBCU/MI program. 

This devolvement will reduce transaction costs for the daily financial management 

and administration of the HBCU/MI budget. While the anticipated annual savings 

to the Department is $75,000 which is modest, this will align the program execution 

to the Military Department that is performing the work. 
158 

The criteria used to select devolved programs, to include the OSD HBCU/MI program, consisted of: 

4) Programs where OSD ASD(R&E) transfers full program funding (via sub-allocation) directly to a Component for program execution, 

5) Identifying areas for improving and streamlining the financial management 

and administration processes of select programs, and 

6) Identifying potential cost savings associated with streamlined business processes of select programs. 

The OSD ASD(R&E) and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research 

and Technology are both committed to ensure the HBCU/MI strategic program goals 

and objectives are achieved. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Can you assure the committee that no funds for the HBCU/MI in 

the Future Years Defense Program will be reprogrammed or transferred for other 

purposes? 

Secretary LEMNIOS. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and 

Technology and I are both committed to ensure the HBCU/MI program’s strategic 

goals and objectives are achieved. Funds available for the HBCU/MI program will 

be executed with this intent. We are committed to preserving the HBCU/MI program funding identified in the Department’s Future Years Defense Program. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As consumers of the Test and Evaluation (T&E) within the DOD, 

do you see the T&E infrastructure keep up with the demands of S&T? Are there 

capability gaps in the T&E community, in terms of infrastructure and trained personnel that hinder the ability of the S&T community to transition programs? 

Dr. FREEMAN. S&T does not generally require extensive use of T&E infrastructure 

or personnel in its efforts and as such I am not aware of any capability gaps that 

currently exist, nor am I aware of any current issues with T&E infrastructure shortfalls hindering S&T transitions. It is possible that future integrated technology demonstrations may require selective upgrades of T&E infrastructure and equipment, 

but that would have to be determined on a case by case basis. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As consumers of the Test and Evaluation (T&E) within the DOD, 

do you see the T&E infrastructure keep up with the demands of S&T? Are there 

capability gaps in the T&E community, in terms of infrastructure and trained personnel that hinder the ability of the S&T community to transition programs? 

Admiral CARR. As part of the Department of Defense Reliance Process, the T&E 

community engages the science and technology community to identify evolving technologies and the capability to test them using existing infrastructure, or to indentify 

gaps that require investment to allow adequate transition of those technologies. 

Currently there are no identified gaps requiring near term investment, but there 

are technologies such as lasers, hypersonic and autonomous vehicles that are being 

evaluated to assess current T&E infrastructure to test these technologies. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As consumers of the Test and Evaluation (T&E) within the DOD, 

do you see the T&E infrastructure keeping up with the demands of Science and 

Technology (S&T)? Are there capability gaps in the T&E community, in terms of infrastructure and trained personnel that hinder the ability of the S&T community 

to transition programs? 

Dr. WALKER. Generally, T&E infrastructure, including trained T&E personnel, 

meets the demands of S&T. For example, our wind tunnel testing infrastructure is 

sufficient to meet the demands of emerging ‘‘technology-enabled capabilities.’’ One 

exception to this in the future may be in the area of hypersonics. Our ability to test 

hypersonic propulsion systems is barely adequate. Specifically, we cannot test full 

mission profiles in a single test facility with correct dynamic pressures and temperatures at this time. However, we are planning to develop a full mission profile capability over the next several years. Similarly, our ability to perform broad electromagnetic, full system testing on our national flight test ranges, to include testing 

of net-centric operations, is currently constrained. This is mainly due to encroachment of surrounding communities on our national test ranges, constraining our ability test our full performance capabilities in flight. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As consumers of the Test and Evaluation (T&E) within the DOD, 

do you see the T&E infrastructure keep up with the demands of S&T? Are there 

capability gaps in the T&E community, in terms of infrastructure and trained personnel that hinder the ability of the S&T community to transition programs? 

Dr. DUGAN. DARPA finds that the infrastructure and experience of the personnel 

generally are sufficient to meet our T&E requirements. 

While transitioning programs have not been severely limited by T&E capabilities, 

there are some capability gaps that concern us. The courses of action or implications 

for addressing these gaps have been evaluated against other priorities or means for 

achieving the desired outcome. 
159 

1. Hypersonic Test Facilities. DOD T&E and NASA leadership have indicated that 

the wind tunnel complex at White Oak, MD and similar NASA hypersonic test facilities are scheduled to be mothballed as part of efficiency and cost saving measures. Similarly, our other existing test range facilities are in large part antiquated 

and not suited for long range hypersonic testing. 

2. Urban Operations. The evaluation of Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR) and other types of surveillance technologies in an urban environment 

is hampered by the lack of an existing facility. 

3. Integrated airspace for Unmanned Air Systems testing. Unmanned Air Systems 

(UAS) require coordination and approval from the Federal Aviation Administration 

to operate outside of protected airspace. With the growth in UAS across the DOD, 

scheduling time to perform T&E within protected airspace is becoming more challenging. 

4. Cyber Testing. The ability to test cyber technologies is limited in that for any 

specific test, significant resources are required to build out, configure, and restore 

a range that can properly emulate the desired operational environment and security 

classification level(s) for that test. 

Æ