    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 110-41]

                                    HEARING

                                       ON

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                      AND

                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

    TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

                                       ON

       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COUNTERPROLIFERATION, COUNTERTERRORISM, AND
                       SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                 MARCH 21, 2007

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    44-487                    WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

        TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE

                        ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman
    MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
    ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey           ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                KEN CALVERT, California
    JIM MARSHALL, Georgia                JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
    MARK UDALL, Colorado                 THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
    BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana              K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
    KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York      JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida
                     Tim McClees, Professional Staff Member
                   Jenness Simler, Professional Staff Member
                         Andrew Tabler, Staff Assistant

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                         CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
                                      2007

                                                                       Page

    Hearing:

    Wednesday, March 21, 2007, Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense
      Authorization Act--Budget Request on the Department of Defense
      Counterproliferation, Counterterrorism, and Science and
      Technology Priorities..........................................     1

    Appendix:

    Wednesday, March 21, 2007........................................    35
                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007
    FISCAL YEAR 2008 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST ON
     THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COUNTERPROLIFERATION, COUNTERTERRORISM, AND
                       SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman,
      Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee     1
    Thornberry, Hon. Mac, a Representative from Texas, Ranking
      Member, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities
      Subcommittee...................................................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Jaggers, Terry J., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
      for Science, Technology and Engineering, Office of the
      Assistant Secretary for Acquisition............................    23
    Killion, Dr. Thomas H., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
      for Research and Technology....................................    20
    Landay, Rear Adm. William III, USN, Chief of Naval Research, U.S.
      Navy...........................................................    22
    Tegnelia, Dr. James, Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency...     5
    Tether, Dr. Anthony J., Director, Defense Advanced Research
      Projects Agency................................................     3
    Young, Hon. John J., Jr., Director, Defense Research and
      Engineering, U.S. Department of Defense........................ 2, 18

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Jaggers, Terry J.............................................   153
        Killion, Dr. Thomas H........................................   122
        Landay, Rear Adm. William III................................   135
        Tegnelia, Dr. James..........................................   104
        Tether, Dr. Anthony J........................................    67
        Young, Hon. John J., Jr......................................    39

    Documents Submitted for the Record:
        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record:
        [There were no Questions submitted.]

    FISCAL YEAR 2008 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST ON
     THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COUNTERPROLIFERATION, COUNTERTERRORISM, AND
                       SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
            Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities
                                                  Subcommittee,
                             Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 21, 2007.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:50 p.m. in
    room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
      WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND
                       CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE

        Mr. Smith. We will go ahead and get started. I apologize
    for running late. Everybody here knows how that works. We are
    allegedly going to have some more votes here in an hour to 2
    hours, so I wanted to get started quickly. I will just make a
    couple brief comments, recognize Mr. Thornberry and move
    forward. We have two panels of witnesses today to discuss the
    science and technology (S&T) budget within Department of
    Defense (DOD) and science and technology projects focussing
    particularly on efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction.
        I will introduce the first panel, and we have with us the
    Honorable John Young, who is Director of the Defense Research
    and Engineering (DDRE) Department, the DOD; Dr. James Tegnelia,
    Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and also the
    Director for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, U.S.
    Strategic Command (STRATCOM); and Dr. Anthony Tether, who is
    the Director of DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency. We are very interested in your testimony, science and
    technology becoming an increasingly important component of our
    ability to defend ourselves and also properly arm our military.
    I am very interested in the projects that you have going and
    how we can help make the proper investments in research,
    engineering and development and also how we can take that
    research, engineering and development and as quickly as
    possible, translate it into equipment for our soldiers in the
    field, amongst other topics.
        And with that, I will turn it over to the ranking member of
    the committee, Mr. Thornberry, for any opening comments he may
    have.

    STATEMENT OF HON. MAC THORNBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS,
         RANKING MEMBER, TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND
                       CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE

        Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the
    witnesses. I agree with you on the importance of the topic, and
    I am concerned about the Administration's request as far as
    dollar values. Congress significantly increased this area last
    year and yet the budget request this year seems to be back down
    again. I know in your testimony, a number of you tried to put
    the best face you could on that. Looks still hard to justify to
    me, but I look forward to hearing your testimony as well as
    hearing about some of the specific programs.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. And with that, we will turn
    it over to Mr. Young.

        STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. YOUNG, JR., DIRECTOR, DEFENSE
          RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

        Mr. Young. Chairman Smith, distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, I appreciate the chance to appear before you on
    the panel to discuss the Defense Department's fiscal year 2008
    research and engineering efforts on the efforts of
    counterproliferation and counterterrorism. I will reserve my
    comments on the broader DOD science and technology program for
    the second panel discussion. I would ask that my written
    statement appear at the appropriate place in your formal
    record. During my past year as the Director of Defense Research
    and Engineering, the entire science and technology team has
    actively worked to address many of the conclusions of the
    Defense Department's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). As
    you are doing with this hearing, the QDR counterproliferation
    (CP) and counterterrorism (CT). The QDR described the shift of
    the United States's strategic environment over the last two
    decades.
        The threat has evolved from a few nation state threats to
    decentralized network threats from nonstate entities, from
    single-focus threats to multiple complex challenges, from one-
    size-fits-all deterrents to tailored deterrents for rogue
    powers, terrorists networks and near-term competitors. The DOD
    science and technology program should change in response to
    this new environment and the associated demand for new
    capabilities. Countering the proliferation of weapons of mass
    destruction and the capabilities of terrorist networks requires
    totally new and enhanced capabilities in the broader area of
    censors, persistent surveillance, network management,
    information mining, cultural understanding, tagging tracking
    and locating, biometrics and other areas.
        We are making adjustments to the DOD S&T portfolio to meet
    this changing threat. I am pleased to be with the directors of
    the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Defense Advanced
    Research Projects Agency, the two organization playing a
    primary role in developing the technologies to address
    proliferation and terrorism. I am sure they will outline
    specific CP and CT efforts within their respective agencies.
        In addition to DTRA and DARPA, the individual services
    through their respective S&T programs are making significant
    contributions to counterterrorism and counterproliferation
    capabilities, and those should come up in the second panel. I
    want to highlight some key Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD)
    programs which Congress has supported because they are vital
    tools for the war on terrorism and counterproliferation. Our
    adversaries in these areas are extremely agile, highly adaptive
    and use any and all available technology. Thus, we have seen a
    much greater need to develop, adapt and harvest technology as
    fast as possible. Congress's support of our rapid reaction
    programs is critical to allowing the Defense Department to work
    with agility and short timelines.
        The S&T efforts are the rapid action technology office and
    the quick reaction fund are essential to our warfighters who
    are daily engaged in the war on terrorism. These programs
    complement each other with each focussing on a specific part of
    this challenge. In the global war on terror, our adversaries
    are learning and adapting quickly as this Nation employs our
    best technology, weapons systems tools and tactics. This
    reality adds new importance and urgency to the work of every
    member of the Nation's defense technology and acquisition team.
        I am grateful for Congress's support of the budgets and
    programs which allow this team to deliver results for our
    warfighters.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young can be found in the
    Appendix on page 39.]
        Mr. Smith. Dr. Tether.

    STATEMENT OF DR. ANTHONY J. TETHER, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ADVANCED
                        RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY

        Dr. Tether. Thank you for inviting me today to testify
    about DARPA's efforts. My written testimony summarizes our
    plans and activities across all our strategic thrusts, and I
    submit it for the record. As requested, my remarks today will
    focus on what we are doing in the areas of counterproliferation
    and counterterrorism. With respect to counterproliferation and
    our strategic thrusts in the ``Detection, Characterization and
    Assessment of Underground Structures'' in part of ``Urban Area
    Operations'' is very much on point. Our adversaries are well
    aware of our Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR)
    capabilities and global reach, so we should expect them to
    continue to build facilities, underground and above ground to
    hide and protect certain activities, including weapons of mass
    destruction (WMD).
        In response, DARPA is developing a variety of sensor
    technologies and systems, seismic, acoustic, electromagnetic,
    optical, and chemical to find, characterize and conduct pre and
    post-strike assessments of these structures.
        While much of our work in this area is classified, I can
    tell you that we are developing sensor systems with orders-of-
    magnitude better performance, emphasizing clutter rejection in
    very complex environments. With respect to counterterrorism,
    our strategic thrust in urban operations is developing
    technical solutions to finding and countering adversaries in
    urban clutter which are often applicable to the problem of
    finding terrorists in the clutter of everyday living.
        For example, our Advanced Soldier Sensor Information System
    and Technology program, ASSIST, is currently improving the
    intelligence gathered and used by our ground troops. It will
    allow patrols to refer to and add to the collective experience
    of other patrols and specific neighborhoods. Such cop-on-the-
    beat intelligence is very useful when you are looking for a
    terrorist. Our Wasp micro air vehicle, from our Advanced Manned
    and Unmanned Systems thrust, is a small, quiet, reliable and
    portable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) designed for front line
    reconnaissance and surveillance. In fact, I have one with me,
    if you could bring that up. Wasp is ideal for small unit
    operations, both in cities and open terrain, and is an in
    operational tests overseas today.
        Now, that is a vehicle that has been in combat. That has
    flown in Iraq. It was actually--if you notice, you will see a
    little bullet hole. It was sent back to us I guess for depot
    repair. I wasn't quite sure what the Marines wanted to do with
    it. But it was shot at and then continued flying and doing its
    mission. Those vehicles--there are 200 of them in Iraq today
    with Marines in the Fallujah and Ramadi area. And at last
    count, we have over a thousand sorties, those vehicles being
    used.
        Our Tactical Language and Cultural Training systems are
    designed to teach every soldier a bit of the language and
    culture needed to interact with the local population. Such
    knowledge is key to a smooth relationship with the locals,
    which is crucial to counterterrorism. And we have to get the
    locals to have confidence enough to tell us what is going on.
        We have a very aggressive program to vastly improve machine
    language translation. Our TRANSTAC program has demonstrated the
    first two-way speech translation in Baghdad, Arabic. While
    conversations are limited to certain subjects like checkpoints,
    this technology is pointing the way to greatly easing and
    improving our work with local populations. Our Global
    Autonomous Language Exploitation, GALE program, is designed to
    translate and distill foreign language material such as TV
    shows in near real-time, and it is already accurate enough that
    translators edit GALE's output rather than retranslate the
    original material. These translation devices will greatly
    improve the speed and depth of our understanding of local
    people and their political media environment. This
    understanding will be a powerful tool in fighting terrorists
    because we will be better prepared to understand the local
    situation in real-time and to communicate our intentions to the
    local population.
        However, our flagship work in counterterrorism is
    biological warfare defense, which started at DARPA in the mid
    1990's and led to a broader strategic thrust that we call the
    Bio-Revolution. Our current drive is toward a portfolio of
    technologies needed to reduced the development time needed for
    new drugs from years to weeks. More specifically, to shorten
    the time needed from an emergence of a zero day or new pathogen
    to millions of doses of a therapy to only 16 weeks. Once we
    know what we need, we still need to manufacture millions of
    doses of it quickly. Our goal is 12 weeks instead of years at
    pennies per dose. To do this, we are looking at leveraging the
    large-scale industrial fermentation processes used in making
    enzymes as well as techniques for farming mushrooms, plants and
    shrimps for specific proteins.
        But at the end of the day, DARPA's main thrust is still
    core technology. While I have mentioned many systems today, the
    real DARPA contributions are the advanced components that come
    from investments in core technology such as materials,
    electronics, photonics, micro-systems and information
    technology.
        DARPA has a robust portfolio of programs in core
    technology, and I have no doubt they will lead to even more
    innovative and effective counterproliferation and
    counterterrorism capabilities.
        Congressman Smith, Mr. Chairman, I came to DARPA about two
    months ago and received about four hours of briefings on our
    efforts. Even then I only saw a small part of what DARPA is
    doing to keep our forces the most potent in the world. I invite
    all of you to come to DARPA to receive more detailed briefings
    if you can. But until then, I urge you all to at least scan our
    strategic plan, of which you all have a copy in front of you on
    your desk, which will give you a better sense of the breadth of
    our plans and our ambitions. And with that, I will be glad to
    answer your questions.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Tether can be found in the
    Appendix on page 67.]
        Mr. Smith. Dr. Tegnelia.

       STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES TEGNELIA, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE THREAT
                            REDUCTION AGENCY

        Dr. Tegnelia. Chairman Smith, members of the subcommittee,
    it is a pleasure to introduce to you today the research and
    development program for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. I
    would like to cover very briefly three topics. The first topic
    is the mission of the agency and the unique capability--or the
    unique interaction that we have with the strategic Congressman.
    That is topic one. Topic two, I would like to talk to you about
    the research & development (R&D) challenges that we face in
    combating weapons of mass destruction. And then finally, I was
    asked to talk about a piece of legislation which you chartered
    in 1994 called the Counterproliferation Review Committee
    (CPRC), which allows us to report our R&D and technology and
    development activities to the Congress as we make progress and
    answer challenges in this counterproliferation area.
        Those are the three topics I would like to cover. First
    topic is let me talk about the mission of the Defense Threat
    Reduction Agency. It is a combat support agency with the sole
    purpose of combating weapons of mass destruction. Let me start
    with combat support. That means we support all of the regional
    combatant commanders in their worldwide responsibilities for
    combating weapons of mass destruction.
        In 2005, Secretary Rumsfeld appointed the strategic command
    as the lead combatant command in the war on combating weapons
    of mass destruction. That means he has the responsibility to
    develop for the regional commanders, to field for the regional
    commanders and to exercise their toolkit for fighting weapons
    of mass destruction. He has asked DTRA to support him in that
    role and we have a unit of STRATCOM in our facility at Fort
    Belvoir to perform that function. I mentioned that we combat
    weapons of mass destruction. We interpret that to mean the
    nexus of weapons of mass destruction with both terrorists and
    rogue nations and to make sure that we have the tools necessary
    to prevent the use of those weapons.
        DTRA is an organization of 2,000 people, 1,500 of them are
    Fort Belvoir, the other 500 people are in liaison offices and
    field offices in just about every time zone in the northern
    hemisphere. Those field offices mostly support our cooperative
    threat reduction activity. We have a budget of $2.7 billion,
    Mr. Thornberry, down slightly from last year. About $1 billion
    of that $2.7 billion is research and development.
        And what I would like to do is turn to my second topic,
    which are what are the challenges the agency faces particularly
    in R&D. In my testimony, which you have for the record, we
    address six challenges. Three of those challenges are what I
    would refer to as operational, and three of them are focused
    mainly on research and development. Let me just list the
    operational ones. There is more detail in the prepared
    statement. Situational awareness is an operational issue. We
    work with the intelligence community to make sure that we
    understand the threats to our forces. WMD materiel control. How
    do we work with our allies that would like to cooperate with us
    in eliminating or reducing the threat of weapons of mass
    destruction? In particular, the Nunn-Lugar program addresses
    that particular issue. And the final operational one is
    associated with supporting our Northern Command as it does its
    homeland defense responsibility. We do a lot of exercises and a
    lot of training and the like for both the National Guard and
    the Northern Command in their homeland defense-related
    activities. Those are the operational challenges.
        But I would like to do is talk about the three research and
    development challenges. The first research and development
    challenge is preventing nuclear terrorism. We addressed three
    issues associated with that nuclear terrorism threat. The first
    issue, which we work with the Department of Homeland Security
    and the Department of Energy, is in detection of nuclear
    material. How can you find a nuclear weapon? Today, our sensors
    are approximately 100 meters capability to be able to find
    something with nuclear material in it. We are looking for
    orders of magnitude increase in that capability, and we have
    some ideas related to that. The second thing that we are trying
    to do is build a national capability associated with forensics.
    If someone were to use a nuclear device, how would we determine
    where that device came from? What would we do to make sure one
    event wasn't followed immediately by other events? That is the
    subject of nuclear forensics. That responsibility also is with
    the domestic nuclear detection office in homeland security. We
    provide some important services related to that mission for
    them.
        And then, the last issue is how do you render safe a
    nuclear weapon? If you were actually to get hold of a terrorist
    device, how would you make sure that that terrorist was not
    able to initiate that device, that we could, in fact,
    demilitarize it so it was no longer a nuclear weapon? Those are
    the R&D challenges associated with combating nuclear terrorism.
    The second R&D challenge is protecting the warfighter against
    weapons of mass destruction. The particular issue that we work
    there is chemical and biological defense activity. How do you
    detect the use of a biological weapon, the chemical weapon? How
    is it that you provide therapeutics and prophylaxis to the
    individual soldier so that that person is not infected by a
    biological weapon or that you can, in fact, defeat that weapon
    or cure that disease before it kills a soldier. Those are the
    challenges that we work with on protecting the warfighter.
        In particular, we are now moving on, is it possible to
    provide radio radiological therapeutics to the individual
    soldier to help him in a nuclear environment? The last R&D
    challenge that we are associated with is helping General
    Cartwright in transforming the nuclear deterrent. We work on
    two elements of that nuclear deterrent. The first thing we do
    is provide him with hard and deeply buried target capability
    making use of conventional forces. In that regard, we work with
    DARPA to develop both categorization techniques for underground
    facilities. We also work with the Defense Intelligence Agency
    (DIA) to characterize those facilities, and we work on both
    kinetic and nonkinetic weapons for the defeat of hard and
    deeply buried targets, again, for General Cartwright.
        The second research challenge we do with regard to the
    triad is in the area of nuclear effects. The Congress has been
    very much interested in the subject of EMP, electromagnetic
    pulse. We support the committee that the Congress has chartered
    to look at the electromagnetic pulse problem. We do inspections
    of our equipment to make sure that they are in the best
    condition they can to withstand electromagnetic pulse, and we
    also have a program that we work with both the DDR&E and with
    DARPA related to hardening electronics to make sure that they
    can survive in that difficult environment.
        We just fielded one generation of hardened electronics and
    are now working together to get to the next generation of
    hardened electronics. That completes the R&D challenge. The
    last topic that I would like to address with you is, is your
    legislation associated with the counterproliferation review
    committee? That legislation was provided as part of the 1994
    authorization bill, and it set up a review committee of the
    Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence
    Agency (CIA), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
    the Secretary of the Department of Energy aimed at reviewing
    and establishing both the progress that we are making on
    counterproliferation technology and the challenges that remain
    ahead of us.
        If I would presume to make a recommendation to you, Mr.
    Chairman, that language has not been updated since 1994. Since
    that time and since 9/11, there are significant organizational
    changes which have occurred in the executive branch to address
    this particular problem.
        As you know, the Department of Homeland Security, my
    agency, works a lot with the new Office of the Director of
    National Intelligence, CP, Counterproliferation, the National
    Counterproliferation Center, NCPC and NCTC National
    Counterterrorism Center and their activity should be part of
    this coordination mechanism. We also now have Northern Command,
    which is a very important element in establishing what the
    priorities are for our developments of our research and
    development activity.
        We would recommend that the language be updated to be able
    to reflect the existence of these new organizations. I also
    would like to recommend--we now report on our findings once a
    year. Should we expand the membership of the CPRC to include
    those new organizations? We would request that you ask us to
    report on a biannual basis because of the scope of the effort
    that would be associated with that review. Mr. Chairman, with
    that remark, I will complete my remarks, thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Tegnelia can be found in the
    Appendix on page 104.]
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, gentlemen. A couple
    questions, and I will turn to my colleagues. First of all, I am
    curious about the level of coordination. There is a number of
    different agencies that have an interest in WMD, countering
    WMD, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy,
    Department of State. And I know they have efforts ongoing in
    those areas. How well do you coordinate? And does the strategic
    command sort of take the lead in all of that and make sure that
    we are maximizing our resources as well as our plan? If I can
    start with you, Dr. Tegnelia and Mr. Young, if you have
    comments.
        Dr. Tegnelia. Let me start off with the fact that we do an
    extensive amount of coordination, and I would suggest to you
    that it is broken up into two general areas. The first
    coordination activity is associated with a programmatic
    coordination. We spent a lot of time with the Department of
    Energy, the Department of Homeland Security. I will give you a
    specific example in just a second, and the Department of State.
    The Department of State provides us requirements with regard to
    our cooperative activities overseas.
        You may be aware of the fact that the Department of State
    has a new initiative called the Global Initiative on the
    Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism. We support them in their
    overseas-related activities and have presented to their plenary
    activities and perform activities with them. With the Domestic
    Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), just to give you an example,
    the DNDO has members from across the executive branch of the
    Department, and DTRA is the organization that is responsible
    for making sure that the Department of Defense people are in
    the DNDO to make sure that the Department of Defense's
    requirements are, in fact, established.
        I have a personal interest in that since the top three
    people in DNDO are ex-DTRA people. And I guess I am happy about
    that, but you hate to lose the talent like that. So we do an
    extensive amount of coordination. I personally am from the
    Department of Energy on detail for the Department of Defense to
    show how that exchange goes. One last comment, we do a lot of
    exercising together. We, very oftentimes, at least once a year,
    do a series of exercises called top-off which involve all of
    the departments of the government that you mentioned in trying
    to make sure that we understand the capabilities of one another
    and we know how to work together.
        General Cartwright plays a large role in that. We just this
    week, yesterday, came off of the latest exercise which had a
    significant amount of interagency play associated with it,
    primarily related to the interdiction mission PSI, prevention
    security initiative that the Department of State operates. So
    there is an extreme amount of--I believe there is a large
    amount of interaction and coordination for that activity. Just
    as a coincidence, we have a meeting after this is over with the
    Under Secretary of State, General Cartwright and Ambassador
    Brill from NCPC and myself to try to make sure that the
    coordination keeps going. So it is a very active activity with
    it.
        Mr. Smith. Dr. Tether.
        Dr. Tether. From a research viewpoint, we have a joint
    program which is closely coordinated with DTRA. We have a
    formal memorandum of agreement (MOA) between us that kind of
    outlines cooperation, not that Jimmy and I really need the MOA,
    but it is good for everybody else that reads it to know it is
    okay to cooperate with each other. Generally, once DARPA takes
    the technological excuse off the table that something can be
    done, that is usually where we end. DTRA goes the rest of the
    way and does the intermediate development required to pass it
    on for final development to the acquisition program Joint
    Program Executive Officer for Chemical & Biological Defense
    (JPEO CB) which is under Major General Steve Reeves. There have
    been many transitions to DTRA, most notably in DARPA's work in
    very broad spectrum pathogen countermeasures which went
    directly from DARPA into DTRA's TMTI, the Transformational
    Medical Technologies Initiative.
        Our program managers regularly interact so there is more
    interaction going on, I think, than we really know, and I think
    a lot of it is, quite frankly, is one, DTRA does our
    contracting for us in this area, and quite frankly, Jimmy and I
    are good friends from 25 years. So the people know----
        Mr. Smith. That always helps.
        Dr. Tether. It always help. It is unfortunate that that has
    to be part of the chemistry, but I don't know of any other way
    sometimes for that to happen. But we participate in his
    reviews. He participates in ours. You know what, I think the
    coordination between DARPA and DTRA in this area in particular
    is very good.
        Mr. Smith. If I could, I had two other quick--I think that
    answers my question. Two other quick questions I want to get to
    before I move on to my colleagues. And specifically for you,
    Dr. Tether, on your research efforts. You talk about your
    mission being short, mid and long range in terms of doing the
    research. I am just wondering if that has changed at all, you
    know, given the pace of operations right now in the military in
    Iraq and Afghanistan, the more immediate needs, we see things
    in the field, we need them quickly, if you shifted funds toward
    more near or mid term research and away from the long term?
        Dr. Tether. I don't believe so. I have been asked that
    question. I guess we are about well balanced because I can find
    50 percent. I can put people in a room and half of them would
    say we did, and half of them would say we didn't. Whatever we
    are doing I think it is balanced.
        Mr. Smith. It would make a certain amount of sense for me,
    I mean, the question may have came out wrong, to do that,
    actually, given the short-term needs.
        Dr. Tether. Well, we definitely have gone back--first of
    all, DARPA in the early 1990's, mid 1990's was looking at--at
    that time what was called the transnational threat, the threat
    without a country, which has currently become known as a
    terrorist. And we realized at that time that there were a
    couple things, one, that the transnational threat or the
    terrorist was going to be small groups of people, that it
    wouldn't be a force-on-force fight, it wouldn't be tanks
    against tanks. And we started developing technologies in the
    90's. We also started our bio program at that time because in
    looking at the transnational threat, you say they don't have
    any infrastructure. So what kind of major WMD, if you will,
    could they bring forth? And obviously biology is one that
    doesn't take much infrastructure. So we started our bio
    program. Whether it was serendipity or just luck in some sense
    when the war started, we had already developed many
    technologies, which quite frankly were put on the shelf,
    because we got them to the point where we took the technical
    excuse off the table, but there was no urgency by anybody to go
    the rest of the way.
        So what we did do when the war started is we went back and
    we harvested those technologies. Now we did spend money, but
    the big money was spent in the 1990's. Now, let me just give
    you a couple examples. We had developed in the 1990's a
    technique to detect people being shot at, on vehicles or just
    being shot at. And we had developed it very well. It turns out
    that there is no formal requirement in the Army to know that
    you are being shot at. Still can't believe that.
        Mr. Smith. Some of the folks behind you--there is an
    informal requirement, but yes.
        Dr. Tether. But that is kind of what stopped it. When it
    came time to put the money down, there was no formal
    requirement, and that stopped it. In 2002, General Keith
    Alexander, who knew about the program and called up the office
    and said look, my guys are coming home with their vehicles all
    shot up. They didn't even know they were being shot at. I do
    remember this program that you had in the 1990's, and can you
    do something about it? And we did go and find the contractor
    and gave him some money, but compared to the development costs,
    really very small, to bring that technology, it is called
    boomerang. It is now in Iraq. It is now in Iraq and it is both
    for moving vehicles and both for stationary vehicles.
        And in fact, there is now an order that came from the Army
    to BBN, who is the contractor for 600 boomerangs, 400 of them
    being decoys just to stock because they have learned--the word
    is out that don't shoot at that vehicle or facility that has
    that boomerang because they will shoot back at you. But that is
    really what we have been doing for the most part. Yes, it has
    been a little bit extra money, but in terms of percentages, it
    really has been very small.
        Mr. Smith. And Mr. Young, as far as DDR&E is concerned,
    short, mid term, have you changed your equation at all in light
    of the Iraq War and other short-term demands?
        Mr. Young. I don't--I would probably agree with Dr.
    Tether's assessment. I think we find ourselves putting more
    money in these areas in general, but a balance between some of
    the programs I mentioned in the beginning, the Iraq reaction
    programs, seek to field technologies in 12 to 18-month cycles,
    and I could cite to you several examples that are well
    partnered with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or Bureau
    of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) or Homeland Security,
    and then some initiatives that are in the budget before you
    that are really on 5 to 10-year cycles to deliver new tools in
    the space of human social cultural behavioral modeling and
    others.
        So we continue to have balance. We are working harder at
    harvesting and that sometimes takes supplemental moneys and
    other moneys, but in the core budget I think we maintain
    balance in near term and far term development efforts.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Thornberry.
        Mr. Thornberry. Thank you. Mr. Young, I would just like to
    ask you to briefly tell us where we are in efforts to make sure
    that all of the S&T money we spend across the Department of
    Defense is not only coordinated, but spent strategically so
    that it is not individual organizations' priorities that are
    driving the train, but the needs of the department as a whole.
        Mr. Young. It is a great question and a great opportunity
    to tell you we worked that process pretty hard, and there was a
    process called Reliance that had some benefits but produced a
    lot of paper and a lot of meetings, and we have changed that to
    what I believe is a more streamlined and efficient process we
    call Reliance 21, but it leads the DDR&E team to work with the
    services, but it leads the services and the agencies to work
    together.
        A few weeks ago we had a three-day strategic review with
    virtually all the witnesses you will have today presenting
    their programs, hearing other services and agency programs, and
    then within those areas, we are setting up technology focus
    teams, some of those teams look at traditional areas like
    materials to make sure we are well coordinating in getting
    taxpayer value without duplication in those areas. Some are in
    these areas like counterproliferation, where we need new
    technologies, we want to push but we want to push in a
    coordinated way. Those focus teams are going to go through the
    efforts in more detail than you can in that three-day effort,
    and then make potential recommendations for adjustment as part
    of our 2009 budget process as well as execution year changes in
    the program.
        So I could talk to you much longer but I want to tell you I
    think we are working that process very hard with a
    consciousness that we need to get maximum value for taxpayer
    dollars. We don't want to do anything twice, and we want to
    coordinate the efforts across the whole of the enterprise.
        Mr. Thornberry. So how close are we to where we need to be?
        Mr. Young. I would tell you--well, the best way to answer
    that question is to tell you, for a $10 billion science and
    technology effort, I would love to have a database that would
    let--aside from senior people have briefings--a researcher at
    any lab in DOD go in and look in a topic area and see somebody
    else has done something similar, have a discussion and see
    whether that effort needs to continue with a harvesting of the
    knowledge previously. I don't have that database. We have made
    two runs at it.
        This year's run at it has produced better data. I am
    dependent on the services and the agencies to provide that data
    set. In some cases, they have their own tools, and we are
    trying to use those tools as is, but do what you often probably
    hear about, sir, is middle wear to bridge that to a common
    system. But that is one of my highest priorities is to get a
    better database tool to ensure collaboration at the working
    level beyond high-level meetings and technology focus teams in
    certain technology areas.
        Mr. Thornberry. Makes sense. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Smith. Ms. Castor.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen,
    with the rapid development of the Internet and our reliance on
    information technology, another asymmetric threat is that of a
    concerted attack on our information systems and networks,
    whether we are talking about banking, finance, transportation,
    communication. Could you address the--in your opinion, the
    likelihood of a widespread attack on some of the information
    systems, be they military, our own military or in the finance
    world in this country, and are any of your programs focused on
    cyber security? And are any of your programs focused on
    countering the emergence of the online terrorist movement?
        Dr. Tether. Yes. We have a major part of our program
    looking at that. Some people consider our information warfare
    as another form of WMD, and I guess it is not quite technically
    pure, but if you let it be called a weapon of mass disruption,
    then it clearly qualifies you know as an WMD weapon. We are not
    trying to necessarily save the world on the Internet, but we
    are trying to make sure that the DOD systems are protected and
    that no one can get in and basically disrupt them at the wrong
    time. And in that, we have several efforts. A lot of them are
    in that document you have there, our bridging the gap document.
    But we have found out how to handle worms, we have found out
    how to handle basically cyber attacks on ad hoc mobile systems.
    We are doing quite a bit. Unfortunately the real threats are
    not those threats. Those are the noisy threats. Those are the
    guys who come in and they want to be known. You know, they are
    the hackers and they love nothing more than bringing down
    systems. But they are almost doing it for publicity. The
    threats that are really the insidious threats are the ones that
    come into your system and don't let you know they are there,
    and those are the very difficult threats.
        And while every detail on that probably is going to be
    classified, and I would love to give you a classified briefing
    on it, let me tell you, we have major programs in trying to
    work that threat, which is the one that we worry about the
    most, you know, the enemy amongst us type----
        Ms. Castor. Can I ask a follow-up question?
        Mr. Smith. Sure.
        Ms. Castor. Is there an adequate talent pool coming out of
    our colleges and universities that are being attracted to these
    kind of positions from our engineering schools and----
        Dr. Tether. There is a----
        Ms. Castor [continuing]. To work for us? To work for you?
        Dr. Tether. I understand. And that is really the problem.
    The question, I think you are asking is, are there U.S.
    citizens? Because we have a lot of people coming out of
    colleges who are in computer science and networking but many of
    them are not U.S. citizens. They are here in the United States
    going to school. And we really worry about that. We have
    programs trying to address that shortfall. And I believe--
    people will tell you that the problem is a lack of money, and I
    don't think that is the case.
        I mean, I think it is just--we just haven't come up with
    reasons, challenges to make this field exciting for kids. You
    know, to give them something that they really want to go and
    do. So we are trying hard by hiring young professors, associate
    professors. Young is not necessarily an age, young from the
    time they went and became a professor. With the whole purpose
    of trying to come up with ways to attract young people. Many
    studies have shown that the number of freshmen going into
    colleges 1999 to the year 2003 when asked what they wanted to
    do, it dropped by a factor of four for those who said they
    wanted to go into computer science. Now that is really a major
    worry.
        So we are trying hard to overcome that by coming up with
    challenge problems, and I don't think it is money. I think it
    is just imagination that we just need to come up with the
    problems that these people will be willing to come and work on.
    So far--to answer your specific question though, so far I
    haven't had a problem, but I am worried about the future.
        Mr. Young. Maybe I could add a couple comments to that. We
    have with the Congress's support a National Defense Education
    Program where we provide fellowships, graduate study
    assistance-ships to undergraduate and graduate students. We
    have been able to award 50-plus and a few more each year and
    continue those. The first 10 are now working for us. Each year
    of support comes with a year of service requirement, and we are
    growing that program. It is a modest but a role DOD plays in
    growing that talent pool.
        We put before you a new initiative to do some of the things
    that Dr. Tether mentioned, provide larger research grants to
    some of the premiere young faculty members with a bias toward
    those faculty members and have those grants last for a three-
    to five-year period, so they can train students and do work. We
    ask that all that work be--the people who work on the work be
    capable of getting security clearance and the work be
    classified if necessary.
        So it is a boost to our research program. It is a boost to
    the research opportunities for people in the academic community
    and frankly, it will be a boost to our basic research knowledge
    base. And that initiative, I think, is very important to us and
    very important to addressing the challenge you raise. It is a
    mix of things, as Tony pointed out, having good work for these
    students to do, giving them incentives to pursue the technical
    education careers and in working with them to become part of
    our team once they finish that education.
        Mr. Smith. I realize this is sort of outside of your area,
    but the other thing we need to do is on the K-12 level doing a
    better job in math, science, computer engineering. Back in my
    district, we did a career fair and exactly did that with intel,
    because a lot of it is by the time you get to the college
    level, you have lost so many of them. I think we have a good
    program. The ones that are coming out of college are the ones
    who get interested in this.
        I think we have still got some just fabulous students
    coming out, but it is too small a percentage that is going in
    in the front end, not that you are in front charge of K-12
    education, but----
        Mr. Young. If I could finish one point on the National
    Defense Education Program this year, for what we think it will
    be, depending on the size, 50 to 75 awards. We had 1,900
    applicants and 880 in the end, that turned in final complete
    full applications. So there is a pool out there. To your point,
    sir, we have a program right now, a modest initiative called
    Materials World Modules where we seek where a DOD lab or entity
    is partnered with a local community school to give them
    training materials that try to bring sports into technical
    perspective, you know, composites--use of composites for
    support materials and get them interested in that regard, and
    we have also included in this budget a shift and an expansion
    of that program, again, to try to get people at the earliest
    levels.
        I mean, DOD can play a modest role here, but I wouldn't
    tell you we are driving the train, but we do feel a need to
    play a role in attracting those students at the earliest
    possible age.
        Mr. Smith. It seems to me, if a bunch of fifth and sixth
    graders went over to DARPA and saw what you guys were doing, I
    think they would say, I want to do that. Because you are doing
    some really, really interesting stuff.
        Dr. Tether. For one thing, the last part of my written
    testimony describes some projects that really are after, just
    that we have an effort where we have, again, young professors
    that we brought in to come up with ideas. However, the
    evaluation of their ideas was not done by us. We made them go
    to high schools and brief high schools on those ideas because
    we wanted to find out what ideas were exciting to high schools.
        Mr. Smith. That is a very good idea.
        Dr. Tether. They actually came up with some really neat
    ideas, and some really strange ones, like some material that
    changes to a car when you say I want a car. Actually there is
    no reason why it can't be done. The programming is hard. But
    they are under contract, and what they have to do every quarter
    is go to a different high school in the country and explain
    what they are doing. I mean, just for that purpose.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Saxton.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. First of all, let me
    welcome Mr. Young and Dr. Tether and Dr. Tegnelia back. We have
    been working together for many years, and it has been
    productive, not so much on our part, but for the warfighters
    that you serve and for the safety concerns that you always have
    in the front of your mind for the American people. We
    appreciate that very much, and we know that our country has
    benefited very much from the work you do.
        So thank you for what you do. And I would also like to
    thank and welcome back our old friend, Jean Reed, who I haven't
    seen here in some months since he left the Hill. You look right
    at home, Jean, and I hope you feel that way.
        Mr. Chairman and Ms. Castor, I would like to chime in where
    you left off on this high school secondary ed issue that has to
    do with developing scientists and computer scientists and
    engineers. I think this is really an important subject. And I
    came across something a year or two ago which I thought was
    quite exciting. I happen to be in New York City, and I ran
    across a couple fairly wealthy guys who were able to put $12.5
    million into a program each year, their personal money, and the
    program worked like this, it said, why is it that kids aren't
    getting involved in computer science and science and
    engineering interests in high school?
        And they concluded it is probably because teachers were
    maybe not quite as exciting in those areas as they might be. So
    they took their $25 million and each year they go to find--they
    find some college graduates who are excited about science and
    technology, and they say to them, look, if you will be a
    teacher, we will pay for your masters degree in education. You
    are already excited about science. We will pay for your degree
    in education. And we will give you a stipend while you are
    going to school so you can live.
        And then when you graduate with your master's degree, if
    you go and teach in a high school, we will give you a stipend--
    I am just going to use a figure of $20,000 on top of your
    teaching salary as long as you are teaching science and math.
    And they have had great success in New York City with that
    program. An so while trying to build on their success while the
    Republicans controlled the House, I introduced a bill that
    created a national demonstration program, if you will. I
    couldn't get my Republican colleagues too interested in it, but
    maybe now we could explore it again, because it is a program
    that has shown some great results, and I think--I believe in
    it, and I believe it has been successful, and I think maybe we
    can look at it again.
        Anyway, Dr. Tegnelia, I understand the process that DTRA is
    using to pursue technologies under Transformational Medical
    Technologies Initiatives, good program.
        Dr. Tegnelia. Yes.
        Mr. Saxton. Can you tell me a little bit more about how the
    chem biodefense program would pursue emerging scientific
    breakthroughs that are happening outside the TMTI program? How
    do you keep pace with medical breakthroughs when you are
    required to use transitional acquisition procedures?
        Dr. Tegnelia. Sir, first of all, we have put a lot of
    effort into getting the TMTI program off and running. And we
    now are at the point where we have got 70-something contracts
    underway and going in that particular program. Every year we go
    back out with a broad area announcement (BAA) to relook at the
    base to make sure that if there are new ideas there, we are
    prepared to go out and fund those new ideas under the TMTI
    program.
        So we continue to keep the pipeline open for new and
    interesting ideas. The other thing that we have done because we
    are concerned about the issue that you are concerned about is
    we started a basic research program. That basic research
    program is concerned with not only therapeutics and prophylaxis
    and genetics and genomics associated with that kind of program.
    It is also into the detection business. So we brought in 26
    universities who have new ideas and new people who are in the
    process of looking at biological sciences.
        So we think that by working with the universities, by
    working with the new startup companies who are generating a lot
    of these new ideas and having continual programs which review
    that, and then working with PhRMA, as they move to put some of
    these new drugs into the market, we have a good cross-section
    of the people participating with DTRA to do that program. Jean,
    maybe you would like to comment on that as well.
        Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. If I could for just a moment----
        Mr. Smith. For the purpose of our record, if you would make
    sure you are on the mike there, and identify yourself before
    you offer the testimony.
        Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. I am Jean Reed. I am the Special
    Assistant for Chemical Biological Defense and Chemical
    Demilitarization Programs in the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense, and I have oversight for the assistant to the
    Secretary of Defense for nuclear, chemical and biological
    programs for that functional area. Reinforcing Dr. Tegnelia's
    comment, we make a great deal of use of the broad area
    announcements announcing, you know, a particular focus area
    both with the Transformational Medical Technologies Initiative,
    but also in the broader area of the totality of the core--of
    the core thrusts and the chemical biological and defense
    program to invite really the brightest and the best to
    participate in that program.
        One of the major contributions that the Congress has made
    to that program is the use of the chemical biological defense
    initiative in which money is added to the program by the
    Congress but without any fetters, if you will, in terms of
    saying to the Department, pick out those technologies that
    appear to have great technical promise and to contribute to the
    overall operational capability of the force and pursue those
    technologies as opposed to pursuing what might be a specific
    earmarked program.
        That program has contributed--that the Congress originated
    has done a great deal of good for the overall program. But
    basically, sir, we are, with the overall program strategy, then
    laying out through the broad area announcement process the
    ability to, if you will, mind what is out there.
        Mr. Saxton. So if something came along outside of the
    normal process and it looked like it was promising, it is
    something that you might be able to take a look at even though
    it doesn't fit within the construct of timelines, et cetera.
        Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. There are loads of good ideas out
    there, and we are open to hearing those ideas.
        Dr. Tegnelia. And we have several mechanisms to make sure
    that that would happen. By the way, I should mention, Dr.
    Tether is also very much investing in the biological sciences
    activity, and he is really stretching the envelope a little bit
    with regard to some of the science that he is working on.
        Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. I am aware of some of the instances
    where they are being stretched and they are starting to show
    some results too. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Hayes.
        Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you.
    Lets make a quick visit to Fort Bragg. Are you all familiar
    with their group, is it the defense technology accelerator? I
    am not sure I am giving you the right name. It is a very
    interesting concept, working with particularly former special
    forces soldiers who are using private entrepreneurs and others,
    developing technology for a whole host of things. Let's talk
    about IEDs for a minute. Joint IED task force. Are you familiar
    with this group? And if yes, that is one answer. Are you, are
    you all familiar with them at all?
        Dr. Tether. Yes, I am. They have called me and talked to
    me, yes.
        Mr. Hayes. Any interaction going on there?
        Dr. Tether. Actually, in our case, we have very good
    interaction already with Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
    Fort Bragg.
        Mr. Hayes. I misspoke when I said Fort Bragg. My mind
    always says Fort Bragg, but this is outside the gate. This is a
    private.
        Dr. Tether. No. I understand. I understand. And they are
    retired, and they offered to help bridge the gap, if you will,
    between what is going on in S&T and their knowledge of the
    requirements and they are very helpful. But we are, you know,
    there is activity going on, and we are using them.
        Mr. Hayes. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. And having just
    visited there about two weeks ago, I was very much impressed by
    the number of different ideas and people that were coming to
    the table. I would think--I am sure you all get hundreds of
    cards and letters every day with great ideas, but they really
    seem to be doing a good job of vetting some technology that
    would help identify IEDs and my charge was, find me a way that
    we can explode them in the bomb maker shop, not on the road.
        So I just wanted to make sure that that was something that
    you all were looking at and again, listening to several groups
    present that morning, it would be very helpful, look at them
    even more closely if not. Of course, open hearing, IED issue
    still is the biggest threat we face. I am confident you are
    doing everything you can to----
        Dr. Tether. We have a major effort between us and Joint
    Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO)
    basically using NTC as the--National Training Center in Fort
    Irwin, California, to address directly the moving upstream to
    try to find out the bomb makers place as opposed to each IED
    separately. As you said, it is a little difficult to say
    anything more because we might tell them what we are doing, and
    these are very smart people who undoubtedly will get a copy of
    this hearing.
        Mr. Hayes. Yeah.
        Mr. Young. Can I add copy to that?
        Mr. Hayes. Sure.
        Mr. Young. Because of the nature of that threat, which is
    very harmful to our forces, the DDR&E team we went through. The
    JIEDDO program, had had a series of meetings in the last couple
    of months to make sure that program is coordinated. To
    Congressman Thornberry's question, we brought--there is a
    defense science and technology advisory group. We brought
    JIEDDO, the chief scientist in as a member of that group so
    they are very conscious at what the service is doing and at
    that strategic review we had a month or so ago, they came and
    presented their view of the threat and then what they are
    spending because JIEDDO is spending money a lot of times on
    near-term solutions, increasingly looking at some longer term
    solutions with S&T dollars, and then counting on the services
    to make some investments in those areas and so we are working
    very hard to make sure we have as much momentum as possible in
    that space, sir.
        Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. I think what we will do now is we
    will go to our second panel. I thank Dr. Tether and Dr.
    Tegnelia for their testimony. We have votes coming up quick not
    too distant future, so I want to get the other folks up. That
    would be Dr. Killion, Admiral Landay and Mr. Jaggers, and Mr.
    Young will be on the second panel as well. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, gentlemen. I will introduce the new members of
    the panel. We have been joined by Dr. Thomas Killion, who is
    the Deputy Assistant Secretary General of the Army for Research
    and Technology, their chief scientist. Rear Admiral William
    Landay, who is the Chief of Naval Research. There is a lot more
    after that, but I will just leave it at that. Mr. Terry
    Jaggers, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
    for Science, Technology and Engineering. We will get started.
        Mr. Smith. I believe, Mr. Young, you have comments for this
    panel as well in addition to what you said before. So we will
    again begin with Mr. Young.

        STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. YOUNG, JR., DIRECTOR, DEFENSE
          RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

        Mr. Young. Chairman Smith, thank you again very much. I
    really am grateful for the opportunity to appear and talk about
    the science and technology program of the Department of Defense
    with this committee. The second year I had the opportunity to
    appear before the Congress as the Director of Defense research
    and engineering, and I am very pleased with the direction and
    focus of the Department's science and technology program. And I
    will briefly discuss key elements with you. At the highest
    level, the Defense Department's fiscal year 2008 science and
    technology budget request of $10.77 billion represents a
    continued corporate commitment to strong science and technology
    funding during a year with difficult budgetary demands from the
    ongoing war on terror. As noted in my written statement, from
    fiscal year 2002 to 2008, the science and technology budget has
    grown eight percent in real terms, and these years are the
    seven highest DOD requests for science and technology since the
    current budget process started in 1962.
        The military services and DARPA budget and managed the bulk
    of defense science and technology funds and thus have critical
    roles to play in our program. I am glad to be here with the
    service science and technology executives who are all striving
    to enhance the capabilities we have for support of our
    warfighters. At the next level of detail, we have sought to
    ensure that the funds requested for S&T are guided by strategy
    objectives. The vision for the defense research and engineering
    program is to develop technology to defeat any adversary on any
    battlefield.
        This vision encompasses both state and nonstate actors as
    well as all potential fields of conflict from the physical
    battlefield to the cyberspace to other nontraditional
    battlefields. The vision is well aligned with the challenges
    outlined in the Quadrennial Defense Review. To realize this
    vision, we must apply several key requirements. First, the S&T
    program must be balanced to address near mid and far-term needs
    of the Defense Department. The Defense Department program must
    be robust and assure our proficiency across a broad spectrum of
    military and commercial technologies. Further, the S&T program
    must address urgent needs today while also assuring the Defense
    Department is prepared for the future.
        We must have an integrated research and engineering program
    as discussed earlier, frankly with contributions from the
    services and the agencies. The S&T program must deliver the
    maximum value for the tax dollar. We have reengineered our
    process for coordinating across the DOD S&T program. The new
    Reliance 21 process provides a renewed emphasis on integrating
    and coordinating the S&T investment of all--across all
    components and ensuring that the science and technology issues
    are addressed during the DOD budget cycle. Next, a program that
    contributes to the development of future science and
    engineering workforce. The Department of Defense employs almost
    half of all Federal physical scientists and engineers.
        Our work requires highly educated, technically experienced
    and security-clearable personnel. Programs such as the National
    Defense Education Program allow the Defense Department to play
    a necessary role in the Nation's efforts to recruit, educate
    and train our future scientists and engineers. Finally, a
    program that adapts to department needs and the threat
    environment. Guided by the QDR and Secretary's strategic
    planning guidance task and expert insights, the DDR&E team
    established a number of new initiatives within the S&T program
    focused on nontraditional DOD capabilities as well as DOD
    needs. I would like to briefly highlight a few of these
    efforts.
        The human social cultural and behavioral modelling
    initiative will give the Defense Department needed tools that
    can inform U.S. commanders, decision processes and provide aids
    to help their understanding of different nations' culture and
    infrastructure.
        Mr. Young. The QDR highlighted these lessons in stating
    current and future military operations will require enhanced
    capability to understand social and cultural terrains as well
    as various dimensions of human behavior.
        Biometrics capabilities are already being employed by the
    men and women who are daily engaged in the war on terrorism.
    Our initiative in this area will give these warfighters new
    biometric tools which are relevant to the unique demands of the
    tactical military environment. Tagging, tracking and locating
    will be an essential tool across the full spectrum of future
    conflict.
        Over the past year, the DDR&E and component staffs have
    been working with the U.S. Special Operations Command to define
    the future capabilities needed to tag, track and locate
    military platforms and individual adversaries. The resulting
    TT&L science and technology roadmap is funded in the budget
    before you.
        Beyond new capabilities, our robust Science and Technology
    Program has created opportunities to deliver mission-capable
    technology to the warfighter. Let me highlight a couple.
        Networking is now pervasive in our daily lives. The S&T
    networking initiative will identify opportunities to harvest
    new advances in military and, more importantly, commercial
    networking and communications technology to deliver greater
    network-centric capability to our warfighters sooner. The
    planned S&T investments will concentrate on network
    interoperability, improving capacity, adding bandwidth, and
    building networks in mobile tactical settings.
        The second initiative seeks to deliver low-cost airborne
    communications relays to support theater missions such as
    convoy movements. Today, in some cases, aircraft which can
    perform other surveillance missions are being pressed into
    service solely for communications-related missions.
        Energy use on the battlefield is an important logistics
    consideration. The DDR&E team led a task force which reviewed
    the Department's investment in energy programs. As a result, we
    worked with the services to include funds for pursuit of
    technologies that can increase the energy efficiency of our
    systems and reduce the battlefield logistics' demand for fuel
    and batteries.
        Finally, the rising costs and complexity of weapons systems
    continues to be a priority need for the Defense Department. The
    budget initiates a defense manufacturing technology, a science
    and technology effort to pursue the development of cost-
    reducing manufacturing technologies.
        To leverage the Department's investment in super computers,
    the budget also includes funds to work in partnership with the
    services on a new generation of engineering design tools for
    military aircraft, naval ships and radar antennas to create an
    initiative which should enable the rapid development of
    optimized designs with fewer flaws in the design and better
    performance.
        Mr. Chairman, fortunately for this Nation, the DOD S&T
    program is a broad and comprehensive effort which I cannot do
    justice to in a short period of time. I appreciate the chance
    to highlight several key priorities, and I am most grateful for
    the Congress' strong support for the Defense Science and
    Technology Program. I look forward to the comments from my
    colleagues and the committee's questions.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, and I appreciate the detailed
    testimony that you gave us in our booklet. You are right. It is
    too long to go into in formal testimony, but it is very helpful
    for us to have it in front of us. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young can be found in the
    Appendix on page 39.]
        Mr. Smith. Dr. Killion.

    STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS H. KILLION, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
                OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

        Dr. Killion. Thank you, Chairman Smith and other
    distinguished members of the subcommittee.
        I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the fiscal
    year 2008 Army Science and Technology Program and the
    significant role that S&Ts are playing in supporting the
    warfighters today and in achieving the Army's transformation.
        I have previously submitted a written statement for the
    record and request that it be accepted.
        I want to thank the members of this committee for your
    important role in supporting our soldiers who are at war today
    and for your support of the Army's S&T investments that will
    sustain technological preeminence for our future soldiers. Your
    continued support is vital to our success.
        Our Army S&T investment strategy seeks to mature and to
    deliver technologies that will enable a transformed, full-
    spectrum future force, while seeking opportunities to spiral
    technology into current force systems to enhance today's
    capabilities. We maintain a diverse portfolio of technology
    investments to exploit the potential of emerging technology in
    the near term, while sustaining fundamental research to enable
    potentially paradigm-shifting technologies in the future.
        In terms of the focus of today's hearing, the Army S&T, per
    se, does not have major investments specifically targeted on
    counterproliferation. We are certainly investing in
    technologies that are relevant to the counterproliferation
    mission as it focuses on WMD such as sensors, communications,
    battle command, munitions and force protection, but, primarily,
    we are a significant partner with the Defense Threat Reduction
    Agency and with the joint PEO for chem/bio defense as the
    executive agent for major research programs and the source of
    an expert workforce and unique national facilities at our
    Edgewood chem/bio center as well as elements of the U.S. Army
    Medical Research and Materiel Command.
        As far as counterterrorism is concerned, it is not an
    overgeneralization to say that our entire program is relevant
    to the Army's mission to identify and defeat terrorist threats.
    We have all seen in the ongoing global war on terror, that
    defeating this threat is a full-spectrum mission, ranging from
    special operations to stabilization operations in the presence
    of an adaptive and aggressive insurgency to conventional
    warfighting against organized forces. Our Science and
    Technology Program seeks to enhance current capabilities and
    implement innovative solutions that will equip our soldiers
    with the tools to be victorious anywhere in this spectrum and
    beyond.
        I would like to emphasize two other points.
        First, just as the Army fights as part of the Joint Force,
    we in the S&T community collaborate with the other services and
    defense agencies to develop technologies jointly to achieve
    greater efficiency and speed in solving problems. A significant
    example here is our joint effort with the Air Force and OSD to
    develop joint precision airdrop systems for efficient force
    resupply.
        Second, while our focus is necessarily on the near- and
    mid-term, we must sustain our commitment to basic research for
    the next generation of warfighters. Our budget requests funds
    research across the science disciplines. However, we have also
    focused research in specific areas with high innovation
    potential such as nano science, biotechnology, immersive
    environments and network science, seeking unique and, in some
    cases, unanticipated applications for the future Army.
        In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee to sustain
    your support for Army science and technology investments. I am
    proud to represent the efforts of thousands of Army scientists
    and engineers dedicated to providing our soldiers with the best
    possible technology in the shortest possible time.
        I will be happy to answer any questions you or the members
    of the subcommittee may have.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Killion can be found in the
    Appendix on page 122.]
        Mr. Smith. Admiral Landay.

    STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. WILLIAM LANDAY III, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
                          RESEARCH, U.S. NAVY

        Admiral Landay. Chairman Smith, distinguished members of
    the subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to
    update you on the progress of science and technology efforts
    within the Department of the Navy. I would like to thank the
    subcommittee for its interest and support in naval science and
    technology.
        I also have previously submitted my written testimony and
    request that it be entered into the record.
        The naval science and technology challenge is to enable
    revolutionary operational concepts that support the vision of
    the Navy and Marine Corps as laid out by the Secretary of the
    Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the
    Marine Corps. They envision a force that is joint,
    expeditionary, distributed, persistent, forward-deployed and
    capable of defeating a competitor in major combat operations or
    in various scenarios in the global war on terror.
        To meet this challenge, our S&T enterprise must focus on
    developing not only tomorrow's Navy and Marine Corps but also
    the one after that, yet be nimble enough to rapidly address
    critical problems addressing today's fleet and force, we must
    do three things exceptionally well.
        First, we focus on areas that provide the biggest payoff to
    support the Navy and the Marine Corps. Second, we must be
    innovative in our thinking, in our science and in our business
    processes, because every dollar spent in overhead is a dollar
    not spent on science and technology. Third, we must continually
    improve our ability to rapidly transition our science and
    technology efforts into acquisition programs and into the fleet
    and force.
        The fiscal year 2008 President's budget requests $1.67
    billion for an S&T portfolio that accomplishes what I have
    described. That reflects approximately a two percent growth in
    constant year dollars over the President's 2007 budget request.
        The Navy and Marine Corps leadership recently approved and
    updated a Naval Science and Technology Strategic Plan. It
    ensures the alignment of naval science and technology with
    naval missions, future capability needs and an evolving global
    technological landscape. It ensures that science and technology
    have a long-term focus but is responsive to the near-term
    warfighter needs.
        The S&T plan specifically identifies 13 key areas for
    science and technology investment that will have a high payoff
    in supporting the Navy's and Marine Corps' warfighting visions
    and needs. I have addressed those areas in my written
    testimony, so I will not list them here, but, in order to
    execute that strategy, we are focused on addressing the
    changing global S&T environment in the following ways:
        We must monitor, assess and leverage emerging science and
    technology in a global manner. The increasingly rapid movement
    of technology and innovation around the world demands that we
    be able to take advantage of emerging ideas in science,
    regardless of where they originate.
        We must maintain an investment portfolio that is balanced
    between the long-term scientific discovery that comes with the
    basic research program and the near-term focused product nature
    of the advanced technology development programs.
        We must focus on delivering value to today's sailors and
    Marines, while ensuring that the well of new and novel
    technology development remains deep in support of the next
    generation of sailors and Marines.
        Finally, we must focus our efforts on the transition of
    technology and innovative concepts to the warfighters. We are
    not about science and technology. We are about science and
    technology in support of our sailors and Marines.
        The Navy WMD detection program is developing technologies
    to detect smuggled nuclear weapons and WMD materials in a
    maritime environment. Our research benefits from a continuing
    partnership with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is
    a silent member of the Senior Executive Service that works with
    us on specific naval applications and technologies that they
    are needing.
        Similarly, our Large Vessel Stopping Program will develop
    nonlethal technologies to provide the Navy the capability to
    stop and/or to restrain uncooperative, large marine vessels in
    support of search interdiction in counterterrorism operations.
        We have a near-term focus on Iraq and Afghanistan and a
    long-term focus on strengthening the Navy's ability to meet any
    challenge and to adapt to any security environment. We have
    made adjustments to our portfolio to address the emerging S&T
    needs of the Navy Expeditionary Combatant Command as it will
    shortly commit forces to the fight along the rivers in Iraq.
        We are moving away from functional roles and
    responsibilities toward a greater integration of capabilities,
    a more effective partnership between research and acquisition
    and a broader vision of how to achieve shared goals with DDR&E,
    the Army, DARPA, and the Air Force research organizations. This
    is evidenced by new directions in our Navy science and
    technology plan, by real increases in the President's 2008
    science and technology budget, and by the fact that
    approximately 15 percent of our research portfolio involves
    partnerships with other DOD organizations.
        I believe the state of our science and technology
    investment is sound and represents careful stewardship of
    taxpayer dollars and will make significant contributions to our
    warfighters as they serve in defense of the United States both
    today and well into the future.
        Thank you again for your continued support.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Admiral.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Landay can be found in
    the Appendix on page 135.]
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Jaggers.

     STATEMENT OF TERRY J. JAGGERS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
     THE AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE
               OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ACQUISITION

        Mr. Jaggers. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee and
    staff, thank you. I, too, have submitted written testimony that
    includes a more expansive list of area force S&T activities,
    but for the purpose of this testimony I will submit my comments
    to the counterproliferation activities.
        I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony
    on the fiscal year 2008 Air Force Science and Technology
    Program. As the Nation adapts to a new security environment
    filled with unconventional and nontraditional threats, so the
    Air Force adapts to fight the global war on terror and the
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Air Force
    continues to rebalance and to focus its core S&T competencies
    to aggressively pursue new technologies focused on countering
    these new threats of today, while modernizing our systems for
    tomorrow.
        Air Force leadership recognizes the value of its S&T
    program to provide a wide range of technology options to enable
    us to achieve our vision of becoming an integrated air, space
    and cyber force capable of rapid and decisive global engagement
    anywhere, anytime.
        This is exemplified in our fiscal year 2008 President's
    budget request, which at approximately $1.9 billion reflects a
    $66 million increase in core S&T funding. This translates to
    1.6 percent real growth from the previous year. These
    investments sustain a strong and balanced foundation of basic
    research, applied research and advanced technology development
    needed to support future warfighting capabilities.
        My written statement delves more deeply into ongoing
    research to counter traditional threats by reducing our
    dependence on foreign oil through the evaluation of alternative
    fuels, the development of improved engine technology such as
    the highly efficient embedded turbine engine and the adaptive,
    versatile engine technology, the interoperability between
    manned and unmanned vehicles, the launch of operationally
    responsive tactical spacecraft experiments, the development of
    airborne-directed energy capabilities, and research in both
    bio- and nano-inspired materials. Today, however, I would like
    to present our focused research efforts on counterproliferation
    and counterterrorism.
        Created in response to the Quadrennial Defense Review, our
    Air Force technical vision guided many of the counterterrorism
    and counterproliferation initiatives in this budget request.
    Born from the Air Force kill chain to find, fix, track, target,
    engage, and assess the enemy in a traditional theater, we have
    added ``anticipate'' to the front of this kill chain to inspire
    our scientists to develop new technologies that predict our
    enemies' intentions before they act and ``anything, anywhere,
    anytime'' to the end of the kill chain to focus the need for
    more research in the ``24x7'' tagging, tracking and locating of
    terrorists and WMD in what is now a global theater of war.
        Anticipating enemy actions is a difficult challenge.
    Working with the U.S. Special Operations Command, our Human
    Effectiveness Directorate has a program under way to apply
    mathematical techniques from economics, psychology, sociology,
    and market science to quantitatively assess and optimize the
    impact of information operations in an effort to anticipate
    enemy leadership intentions. They are conducting basic research
    to investigate the role of culture on cognition and behavior,
    applied research to create cultural research tools, and
    advanced technology development to demonstrate the decision-
    aids, models and simulations required by the warfighter.
        We are proud to be leading DOD in this area; and our
    researchers, along with those of the Army and Navy, have worked
    closely with DDR&E in developing their human social, cultural,
    and behavioral modeling program, a program which complements
    ongoing efforts to fund areas the services have not yet had the
    resources to cover.
        In addition, our Sensors and Information Directorates are
    collaborating on near-term efforts to improve command and
    control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance by
    using closed-loop simulation capabilities to better predict our
    adversary's actions. By exploiting data from multiple network
    sensors, providing object-tracking and identification,
    including data fusion and global change detection techniques,
    this effort will allow automated, predictive identification and
    the tracking of space, air and ground vehicles with ultra-high
    confidence.
        Efforts funded within our basic research program at the Air
    Force Office of Scientific Research are already yielding
    exciting results in counterterrorism and proliferation. AFOSR
    started funding a University of California San Diego effort in
    fiscal year 2002 to study photoluminescence quenching effects
    in certain polymers to understand how these effects might be
    used in integrated nano sensors to strengthen our warfighter's
    ability to anticipate threats and acts of terror.
        A by-product of this basic research--and I, too, have a
    little show-and-tell that I would like to bring up. A by-
    product of this basic research contributed to the development
    of a low-cost and robust improvised explosive device detection
    sensor, currently being commercially marketed for use in field
    settings such as security checkpoints at airports, stadiums and
    amusement parks.
        Sir, I will pause at my written point here to explain what
    that is. You have seen in the security checkpoints in the
    airports that they take a swab and they wipe down your hands
    and then they put it in a large machine that is not on wheels,
    but it is a very expensive and large, relatively immobile
    machine. All of that is contained in that device, and what that
    does basically is--you take, more or less, a lint brush, which
    Tim just pulled out, and you wipe it on people and their hands
    and their clothes, and then you stick the paper in that. And,
    in the field, they can look through that binocular port there
    and actually get not a spectral signature of the material or
    the chemical residue but actually see a go/no go or a pass/
    fail. So it is very portable, lightweight, and it is actually
    available in the commercial market, too. Actually, the work we
    did in the basic research led to the production of that by
    DARPA, and that is how we are getting it to the field.
        Equally challenging is the ability to prosecute the kill
    chain against targets anywhere, anytime. This requires research
    in tagging, tracking and locating terrorists or WMD anywhere on
    the globe ``24x7.'' One such project that could facilitate
    tracking by using unmanned aerial vehicles is called Synthetic
    Interface Research for UAV Systems, or SIRUS. This research in
    human effectiveness will enhance an operator's ability to
    acquire, assess and act on information.
        A supporting research program is leading to the development
    of a multi-sensory modeling database that will provide
    automatic target recognition and combat identification
    enhancements to improve Blue Force tracking as well as the
    capability to enable future covert targeting and tracking by
    the year 2011.
        In addition, we are exceptionally proud of our research in
    biotaggants as a transformational technology to
    counterproliferation and acts of terrorism. Biotaggants attach
    either a passive-identifying material, or taggant, to a
    biological warfare agent that can then be read by line-of-sight
    spectroscopy or an active taggant that is activated by radio
    frequency energy so it can be read through walls. In the
    future, use of these biotaggants will revolutionize our ability
    to track WMD around the globe.
        In the near term, however, our Sensors Directorate rapidly
    developed the Angel Fire electro-optical staring array.
    Deploying with the Marine Corps this year, Angel Fire is an
    airborne wide-area, image-gathering, persistent electro-optical
    sensor array that distributes real-time imagery straight to the
    warfighter. Angel Fire provides the capability to zoom in and
    observe more closely any area within the collected image cone
    as well as allows the playback of significant events,
    essentially providing a ``Google Earth, TIVO-like'' capability
    to monitor areas of interest.
        On September 6th, 2006, the Secretary and the Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force directed the establishment of a new
    operational command for cyberspace. The cyber technologies we
    are developing within our Information Technology Directorate
    will provide this new command with capabilities similar to
    those developed for conventional Air Force employment, such as
    strike or reconnaissance systems. This research not only
    postures us to combat traditional threats in cyberspace but
    those emerging unconventional threats as well.
        Technologies being developed include cyber platforms with
    the mission of destroying worms or viruses, thus bolstering our
    information assurance capabilities. An example of this is the
    Air Force Research Laboratory's Defensive Cybercraft, which
    essentially acts as a defensive intelligence, surveillance and
    reconnaissance asset to not only defend against attacks but
    begin to locate and track terrorists and other bad actors that
    choose to wage war in the cyber domain.
        Coupled with the aforementioned game-changing research in
    directorate energy, nano technology, hypersonics, and
    biotechnology, the Air Force's S&T investments in cyberspace
    will position us well to counter future disruptive threats
    facing the Nation.
        The initiatives I have described will not be without their
    challenges. The Air Force S&T program is in a time of great
    change as we reshape our scientist and engineer workforce,
    retool our processes under the Secretary's Air Force Smart
    Operations 21 Initiative, understand the S&T required to meet
    the demands of the cyberspace mission, and move toward a
    capability based planning construct using focused, long-term
    challenges, or FLTCs.
        Despite the challenges facing the Air Force S&T, we are
    emboldened to tackle these challenges head on as we prosecute
    the global war on terror and counterproliferation. Our fiscal
    year 2008 budget builds on the past S&T successes and our
    traditional core competencies, a future tech vision with a
    clear focus on counter and new security threats and reflects my
    five guiding S&T principles: first, to value our scientists and
    engineers; second, to ensure a balanced portfolio between the
    near, mid and far term; third, to focus our investments on
    needed capabilities; fourth, to honor commitments with our
    mission partners; and, fifth, to continue to hone and improve
    our tech transition processes.
        Air Force leadership has shown their commitment to the Air
    Force S&T program by, again, maintaining positive real growth
    of the S&T budget, and we feel we are investing in those areas
    critical to the Nation's defense.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
    present testimony, and thank you for your continued support for
    the Air Force S&T program.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jaggers can be found in the
    Appendix on page 153.]
        Mr. Smith. I appreciate all of your testimony.
        I have a couple of quick questions, and then I will turn to
    Mr. Thornberry.
        First of all, Mr. Jaggers, you mentioned in your testimony
    you are conducting research to investigate the role of culture
    and the predictive modeling of societies. What does that mean
    exactly? Could you explain that program a little bit more?
        Mr. Jaggers. What we are trying to do--and we are doing
    this, actually, in collaboration with the DDR&E as well as
    other services, as well as a larger interagency community,
    including the intel community, as well as the warfighters.
        The competency that the Air Force brings to bear on this is
    our Human Directorate that really builds on past experiences
    and successes with modeling human behavior of pilots, looking
    at fatigue, looking at the human effectiveness of our pilots
    during long-duration missions and that sort of thing. We take
    those models that we have done in those areas plus the
    expertise of psychology and try to understand the cultural
    differences in other societies and create models based on
    mathematical algorithms and statistics to try to predict the
    behavior of other cultures. The competency we bring to the
    larger community is obviously leveraged by others to support
    the intel community and others.
        What we hope to get from this larger activity here is
    trying to understand what action an enemy may take as a
    predictive signal or cue to tip us off on to what they might
    take as far as a counter-error or anything that would harm or
    put our air assets or any Air Force assets at risk of threat.
    So this is part of our technology vision of anticipating enemy
    actions, working with OSD and others to try to see the cues and
    the tip-offs, but based on----
        Mr. Smith. That answers my question. Thanks. I appreciate
    it.
        There is something Mr. Killion mentioned--it might have
    been Mr. Young--about developing manufacturing technologies to
    help reduce the time frame that it would take. That is
    something that I think would be enormously helpful.
        As you know, we have--pick your favorite program and start
    calculating how long it has taken to develop it. It is
    enormously frustrating, not to mention enormously expensive,
    and some of this--I mean, Joint Strike is trying to push the
    outer laws of physics, which are more flexible than most people
    realize; and, you know, that is fine, but there are some other
    things that--it seems like we ought to be able to come up with
    our fighter planes, our ships, our big ticket items, airplanes
    quicker than we are.
        Is there some hope here that we are going to be able to
    take that maybe from 20 years down to 10, or how is that
    playing out specifically?
        Mr. Young. Boy, I would agree with your desire for hope.
        I am hesitant to advertise it as such, but some of the
    initiatives I mentioned are targeted to that. The tool I
    mentioned will seek to build models where now you can design an
    aircraft ergonomically and then go into a structural model and
    optimize the structure. We have efforts that usually take hard
    manufacturing problems and apply technology to making timelines
    shorter, the costs lower. We would like to take a step back and
    invest in a more general space, just like we do in materials or
    electronic devices. We would like systems to come faster and be
    lower cost.
        Mr. Smith. And I think a lot of that also is a decision--
    the further we can sort of narrow the range of what is
    possible--because you do want to push the envelope. You want to
    try to come up with the best piece of equipment you can. You
    want to test some theories out. We can test those quicker. That
    is not going to work. We are not going to go down that route.
    We are going to focus here. That would be enormously helpful.
        Mr. Young. Could I add one more comment?
        Mr. Smith. Certainly.
        Mr. Young. Maybe we will say the same thing.
        Within that space, one thing that takes time is the amount
    of software and capability we put in systems these days; and so
    across all of the services we are looking at initiatives here
    to better reuse tools. We have already done the auto generate
    code, all of the steps that will let us develop more code with
    fewer flaws in it, because that is a significant timeline in
    our efforts, and Army Secretary Bolton and Tom have been
    leaders in saying we need to work on that space. The DDR&E team
    wants to work in that space. I think all of the services are
    inclined.
        Dr. Killion. What I was going to mention is not that area.
        It is a real challenge for us. The initiatives we have
    taken are in our specific programs where we would combine an
    investment in the technology development with an investment in
    manufacturing technology. A good example there is our Flexible
    Display Center at Arizona State University where we are
    partnered through them with industry, and not only are they
    exploring the boundaries of what we can do in terms of
    developing displays that are flexible like this sheet of
    paper--high brightness and lower power and so on--but also the
    manufacturing methodologies and tools that would go into
    building such displays at an affordable cost and at a
    production scale. So at the same time you are developing the
    technology, you are optimizing the methods by which you could
    produce it.
        Mr. Young. Maybe I could briefly respond.
        Congress asked us, as we take programs into the system's
    design and development phases, to make sure the technology is
    ready, which is exactly your comment, Mr. Chairman.
        We intend to apply also what Tom mentioned, manufacturing
    readiness, so the DDR&E team is already providing that
    information to the Under Secretary of Defense for the
    acquisition of technology readiness so that, hopefully, those
    phases will take less time and cost less. Because we again,
    from another angle, brought mature technology and the ability
    to produce that technology to that problem.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Thornberry.
        Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to get back to a topic. You all were here when we
    were talking about the importance of getting and keeping top
    quality people to work in facilities. My understanding is that
    there are, in some facilities at least, demonstration projects
    which grant extra flexibility in the hiring and in the
    evaluating of employees and that when the new national security
    personnel system comes into effect that the way it works now is
    that these facilities can take whatever is the most flexible in
    order to manage that workforce and hopefully get and keep the
    kind of people we want.
        If all of that is right, how many facilities have these
    demonstration programs--and do you all have an opinion about
    this intersection between the new national security personnel
    system and the demonstration programs that they already have?
        Admiral Landay. Well, I would start off, at least from the
    perspective of the Navy.
        Our Naval Research Lab, for example, is under one of the
    lab demonstration programs, and I think it is doing exactly
    what you would like to have as it gives the commander and the
    technical director of that lab greater flexibility not only in
    rewarding the performance of folks in the lab based on their
    contribution but some additional flexibility. It is probably
    not as much as they would like in order to be able to hire and
    bring folks on board.
        My headquarters, the O&R part of that, is under the current
    standard government service; and I can tell you from where I
    sit they are two completely different worlds. I envy the guy's
    ability who works for me to do things that I would like to be
    better able to do, so whether that is national security or
    other lab demos, I think moving in that direction is a
    significant benefit.
        My sense is we have looked between the national security
    personnel program and the lab demos. I think we are still
    wrestling because the lab demos tend to be more comfortable to
    the labs because the labs have been doing them for a while, and
    they are comfortable with them. I think the context of all of
    them are the same, and so I think that was really the intent.
        I will tell you that one of the challenges is you would
    like people to be able to move back and forth between
    organizations. I would like to bring people from my labs into
    headquarters. I would like people from my labs to go work in
    Army labs and be able to hire Army lab people in my labs, and
    if we all get multiple different personnel systems, that
    sometimes becomes a real challenge for us. So, you know, having
    a very common system, I think, is critical, but flexibility, I
    think, we are all very much supporters of.
        Mr. Thornberry. I will be interested to know what other
    facilities, if you all could provide for the record, have a
    demonstration project; and if you have an opinion about those
    flexibilities and how they will be impacted by the new national
    security personnel system, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Young, the Office of Force Transformation was largely
    folded into your organization. I do not expect an answer now,
    but can you get somebody to provide the committee what happened
    to programs that they had under way once it got folded into
    DDR&E so that I can see what happened to those specific
    initiatives?
        Mr. Young. We will get you a longer answer, but what I want
    to assure you is that every program they had continues, and I
    put them with one of the stronger people on my team, Ben Riley,
    who has managed a lot of our counterterrorism and rapid
    reaction response efforts and is working with them to continue
    what they are doing and working with them to vet, if you will.
    As a first stage of new ideas they have, we expect that program
    to continue.
        Mr. Thornberry. Good. I would appreciate the more detailed
    answer, but I appreciate your answer here.
        Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. I just had a couple more questions
    before we wrap up.
        One of the things Mr. Thornberry said at the outset is that
    the overall fiscal year 2007 budget for the Science and
    Technology and the DOD, I believe, is maybe down a little. It
    sounds like the Air Force is up from 2007, but just, you know,
    we ramped up for a couple of years because of the global war on
    teror (GWOT).
        An acceptable answer is that there are needs elsewhere, and
    we all have about 35 top priorities around here, and that is
    part of the problem. But just within your own little world,
    very important world, where do you see that money being in a
    flat budget line as proposed in 2008?
        Mr. Young. I am probably the right person to start, and I
    would refer back to my initial comments. There has been eight
    percent real growth since 2002, and we are historically in
    constant dollars at a period of time of the highest level of
    R&D investment in general.
        I believe the leadership comment, which I agree with, would
    be we have to size the S&T investment to meet the needs of the
    Department, so I do not know if a metric that says three
    percent or two percent is right. I know we are beginning to
    look at that, and I have asked my team to take a look at that.
        I can cite for you an example. I asked Dr. Tether to take a
    look, and we find that we have selected 20 percent of the
    selectable proposals, but I do not think we have enough
    fidelity to tell you those 20 percent are the absolute A-plus
    proposals and the next ones are all Bs or the next ones are all
    Cs, so we need to get better metrics and build the program from
    the bottom up.
        This year, I am very pleased we were able to move over
    across the Future Year Defense Program (FYDP), up over $1
    billion, into these newer technology areas where we needed
    investment in human social, cultural, behavioral, biometrics,
    tagging, tracking, locating. I would be less comfortable if I
    were to tell you that money limits prohibited us from investing
    in those areas, because we have those investments, and the
    services continue to make those core investments that they must
    make in engine technology or emissions technology, and the Army
    grew their emissions investment.
        I think the program is whole, and then we end up back with
    you, to your point, that we do not have enough metric data to
    tell you if we desperately need another dollar or if we had
    another dollar we would spend it well or if we had another
    dollar we would spend it on a B or C effort.
        Mr. Smith. Does anybody else want to----
        Dr. Killion. I would echo what John says in that I believe
    we are, of course, challenged in terms of the fiscal
    environment we are in. We are at war. I am supporting an Army
    that is engaged all over the globe in terms of the S&T program,
    and how much the Army has available to invest in S&T as opposed
    to other considerations in the budget is always a challenge. I
    think we are making smart investments today. We have tried to
    balance the portfolio as best we can, protect our basic
    research program and, very reasonably, it is about 18 percent
    of our S&T program.
        Another consideration is in terms of what you really want
    to be able to do at the end of the day, which is transition the
    technology coming out of S&T. So just plugging up the S&T
    budget is not going to help us very much. Yes, you will have
    more things in the mill, but you also need to be able to take
    that and turn that into real systems that go into the hands of
    the troops, and that is the part of the equation that has to be
    addressed.
        Admiral Landay. If I may add to that, I would agree. We
    have had this discussion very aggressively, probably, in the
    last year in the Navy as we have been looking through all of
    the science and technology. There is a need to have some basic
    level of very broad science and technology, because nobody can
    tell you with 100 percent clarity what the problems are going
    to be 5 and 10 years down the road.
        The challenge, of course, is we could make that so broad
    and so deep that, you know, the things that you have to do in
    the near term you cannot do. So Secretary Young said, I think,
    we all struggle with how much is enough and how do you know you
    are at least focusing in the right broad areas.
        The other challenge that we have, as Dr. Killion mentioned,
    is, in the end, it has all got to transition, so there is a
    real effort to look at science and technology but focus it on
    those areas that you think really do support the Department or
    your particular department.
        I think the thing we all wrestle with the most, as
    Secretary Young said, is not do you have enough, but when new
    areas emerge do you have the ability to get into those new
    areas while you are continuing to do work in the good science
    areas. I think that is what we all really, really focus on.
        Mr. Jaggers. And I will be brief, because my comments
    certainly reflect the comments of my peers here.
        The Air Force, as you know, is modernizing virtually
    everything in the Air Force from space to air; and the trick,
    as Dr. Killion said, is trying to balance the S&T that supports
    the modernization of those assets and ensuring that, in the big
    Air Force, some of that Air Force investment can handle the
    through-put of the S&T being pushed to the modernization
    programs.
        Then the other trick, as Admiral Landay said, is trying to
    pursue transformational or revolutionary technologies and then
    balancing that tech push with, again, a through-put to handle
    that tech push or directed energy, for example, trying to
    understand the effects of directed energy and create platforms
    that can handle directed energy.
        So, in the Air Force, we are fortunate to actually be on an
    upward slope for S&T investments, but I think that reflects,
    quite frankly, on the overall modernization strategy in the Air
    Force.
        Mr. Smith. I think you should submit a more formal answer
    on your budget situation. Not now. Just have your staff sort
    of, you know, get into some of those details on the funding of
    the A programs and the B programs. If you could have someone
    send that over to the committee, that would be great.
        The last area I want to ask about--it is a quick question
    that might have a long answer--is alternative energy. In each
    of your areas, what are you investing in in terms of finding
    alternative sources but also in improving efficiencies? I think
    the greatest area this is in is batteries, you know, improving
    battery life. What is sort of, you know, right there that could
    help us in those areas?
        Mr. Young. Let me offer--certainly I will be brief and will
    tell you the energy task force that the DDR&E team led--and the
    real leader of the team, Al Shaffer, is behind me--looked
    across all of the services at everything in the Department,
    including facilities work. I think we could submit for the
    record the investments we identified that were in the budget
    for those programs, and then we identified gaps and
    opportunities and needs, and we put some new initiatives in the
    budget, which we can identify for you, also.
        Mr. Smith. Why don't we do that? Because this is the kind
    of thing that could be a very long answer. If you could just
    submit to the committee, to my office--you know, somebody from
    your office--here is what we are doing on alternative sources
    of energy and increasing energy efficiency. I think that would
    be probably the best way to do it.
        Mr. Smith. Mrs. Drake, do you have questions?
        Mrs. Drake. I just have one question, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Young, thank you for being here, and I am sorry I could
    not be here for the whole meeting.
        But there are plans to terminate the Medical Free Electron
    Laser Program in fiscal year 2008. Can you provide us with a
    good rationale for the abrupt termination of this program,
    especially in light of all of the discussion that we are having
    right now about making sure we have absolutely the best care
    for our wounded warriors?
        Mr. Young. I can add for the record, but I will give you a
    quick summary of it. It fits with the discussion we had.
        At the start of this budget season, my office was handed a
    bogey to cut about $35 million and about $300 million across
    the FYDP within the programs that are strictly within DDR&E
    cognizance, and then there were new things I was asked to do or
    felt we needed to do for the warfighter. So when you do that,
    you have to go through and cut things, and several things were
    trimmed. We trimmed basic technology demonstrations (TDs). We
    trimmed several projects.
        This one we cut because, at this stage in time, we have
    been investing in medical free electron lasers for 25 years
    now, and we spent over $400 million on this program. I think we
    need to ask ourselves whether we should continue in that vein
    or open the door to a different idea of what we need to do in
    that area. The program is being done. There are quality
    programs. Some of them address combat casualty care. Some of
    them address basic medical technology. Because it is far beyond
    now the medical free electron laser. Some are not even laser-
    related.
        So there are programs in the Department, particularly in
    the Army, some in the Navy, and medical advanced technology
    where these entities could compete, and they could compete to
    provide solutions for combat casualty care that might or might
    not--you know, in their case might involve laser technology or
    might not, but it would be open to other spaces. But limiting
    this program to the providers under the guise of the medical
    free electron laser I felt we needed to move beyond after 25
    years and $400 million.
        Mrs. Drake. I guess, Mr. Chairman, it just leaves in my
    mind the medical reason you would do that and how it is going
    to impact our troops that we are not going to have this program
    that we had for 25 years, and we are not going to have this
    type of treatment that we have had for 25 years.
        So, obviously, you have looked at that and feel comfortable
    that this is an okay thing to do and that we are not removing
    something that our men and women would need?
        Mr. Young. Well, again, as I cited, we have several medical
    technology programs that invest in a broad set of solutions to
    our medical issues where their ideas are the best ideas. They
    should compete and offer those solutions. They can also compete
    within the National Institute of Health budget that has grown
    by something like 100 percent, but at some point in time, the
    Defense Science and Technology Program needs to move on to
    other technology instead of being limited to a certain area and
    a certain set of technologies.
        You could rightly discuss whether we need more money in
    combat casualty care, given the situation we find ourselves
    engaged in in the war, but even then I would advocate it ought
    to be open to every technology that can address those issues
    and not limit it to a set of people who work from medical free
    electron perspectives.
        Mrs. Drake. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thanks.
        Mr. Thornberry, do you have anything further?
        Mr. Thornberry. No.
        Mr. Smith. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. I
    look forward to continuing to work with you as we move through
    on our authorizing the budget. Thank you. It has been very,
    very informative. I appreciate it.
        With that, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 March 21, 2007

    =======================================================================

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 March 21, 2007

    =======================================================================

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]