    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 115-85]

                                    HEARING

                                       ON

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

                                      AND

                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES HEARING

                                       ON

                         A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE

                        FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

           FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD
                                 MARCH 14, 2018

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    29-489                  WASHINGTON : 2019

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES

                    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York, Chairwoman

    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
    BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio               RICK LARSEN, Washington
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana         JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming, Vice Chair      JACKIE SPEIER, California
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
    JODY B. HICE, Georgia
                    Peter Villano, Professional Staff Member
                  Lindsay Kavanaugh, Professional Staff Member
                              Neve Schadler, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island,
      Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
      Capabilities...................................................     3
    Stefanik, Hon. Elise M., a Representative from New York,
      Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities..     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Hahn, RADM David J., USN, Chief of Naval Research................     9
    Miller, Mary J., Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of
      Defense for Research and Engineering, Office of the Under
      Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering..............     5
    Russell, Dr. Thomas P., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
      for Research and Technology....................................     8
    Stanley, Jeffrey H., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
      for Science, Technology and Engineering........................    10
    Walker, Dr. Steven H., Director, Defense Advanced Research
      Projects Agency................................................     6

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Hahn, RADM David J...........................................    62
        Miller, Mary J...............................................    36
        Russell, Dr. Thomas P........................................    52
        Stanley, Jeffrey H...........................................    67
        Stefanik, Hon. Elise M.......................................    33
        Walker, Dr. Steven H.........................................    44

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        Mr. Lamborn..................................................    89

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Hice.....................................................    94
        Mr. Lamborn..................................................    94
        Mr. Larsen...................................................    93
        Ms. Speier...................................................    93

      A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
             Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities,
                             Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 14, 2018.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in
    room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elise M.
    Stefanik (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELISE M. STEFANIK, A REPRESENTATIVE
    FROM NEW YORK, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND
                              CAPABILITIES

        Ms. Stefanik. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Welcome to this important hearing entitled ``A Review and
    Assessment of the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request for the
    Department of Defense Science and Technology Programs.''
        Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recently testified that,
    quote: ``Our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of
    warfare: air, land, sea, space, and cyber.'' End quote. And I
    couldn't agree more. Our committee, and the Emerging Threats
    and Capabilities Subcommittee in particular, has spent a
    considerable amount of time reviewing and understanding
    adversarial threats, most notably from China and Russia, while
    also keeping an eye on emerging technology such as quantum
    science, artificial intelligence [AI], nanotechnology,
    synthetic biology, autonomy, and robotics.
        We have seen troubling adversarial advances in warfighting
    systems like hypersonics and directed energy, and adversarial
    advances in enabling technologies, to include high-performance
    computing and artificial intelligence. We have also learned
    that many of our adversaries continue to increase their
    research and development [R&D] budgets, and implement national-
    level strategic plans.
        Russia has increased their basic research budget by nearly
    25 percent, and the Chinese have national-level plans for
    science and technology, as well as an approach to lead the
    world in AI by 2030.
        All of these signs point to top-down government-driven
    agendas that provide resources and road maps for strategic
    collaboration between industry, academia, and civil society.
    These efforts could propel Russia and China to continue to leap
    ahead in many of the technology sectors we will talk about
    today.
        But adversarial dominance is not a foregone conclusion.
    What we learn today and in future hearings must be translated
    into action--to inform and reform the Department of Defense
    [DOD] in support of national-level efforts in order that the
    United States remains home to the world's leading experts,
    researchers, and technological breakthroughs.
        Artificial intelligence is one sweeping area that I am
    particularly interested in from a national security
    perspective. Next week, I plan to introduce standalone
    legislation that will start the discussion on how we should
    better organize our government to understand and leverage AI.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues on the
    committee, and also with the Department of Defense as we craft
    solutions for this year's NDAA [National Defense Authorization
    Act]. Given these challenges, I am very pleased to see a total
    of $13.7 billion for science and technology [S&T] in the
    Department of Defense budget request, an approximate $500
    million increase, and 2.3 percent of the total defense budget.
        But despite this increase, I remain concerned that our S&T
    investments represent a small percentage of our overall defense
    budget. To truly increase lethality and provide a superior
    technological edge for our warfighters, we should ask ourselves
    if 2.3 percent of the total defense budget is the correct
    balance. A properly resourced science and technology enterprise
    in the long run reduces risk, and when properly executed, can
    generate efficiencies within the Department, something we need
    to keep in mind amidst debates on sequestration and continuing
    resolutions.
        Now more than ever our S&T enterprise and investments play
    a strategic role and are central to our national and economic
    security. This hearing also marks our first open S&T event
    since the National Defense Authorization Act directed the
    reestablishment of the position of the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering [R&E] within the
    Department.
        And as I have said in previous statements, I firmly believe
    that the Under Secretary for R&E needs to be the prime mover to
    drive change and foster innovation within the Department. A
    primary mission of this office should be to provide distinct
    direction and leadership to energize the defense industrial
    base, the military services, combatant commanders, and the
    Department of Defense labs. It must also guide newer
    initiatives, such as the Strategic Capabilities Office, the
    Defense Innovation Unit Experimental or DIUx, and even the
    Algorithmic Warfare Working Group, and the Defense Digital
    Service.
        And while many of these new initiatives have created
    tremendous momentum and energized the conversation about
    changing ``the culture'' of the Department of Defense, much
    more needs to be done to make these more than one-off quick
    gains. If properly empowered and resourced, I also believe that
    the Under Secretary for R&E will be in a unique position to
    drive a national-level dialogue for S&T policy that will, in
    addition to helping maintain a battlefield advantage, energize
    our domestic industrial and innovation bases, and provide
    technology jobs and opportunities across many of the sectors we
    will talk about today.
        So we have significant expectations, clearly, of Dr. Mike
    Griffin and his office, but we do so while also offering our
    support and confidence because the threats we face from our
    adversaries demand that we energize and organize our government
    to ensure that policy indeed keeps pace with technology.
        So to help us with this important topic today, we welcome
    five distinguished witnesses, starting with my left: Ms. Mary
    Miller, Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering [USD (R&E)]; Dr. Steven
    Walker, Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency, DARPA; Dr. Tom Russell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
    the Army for Research and Technology; Rear Admiral David Hahn,
    Chief of Naval Research; and Mr. Jeff Stanley, Deputy Assistant
    Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and
    Engineering.
        Welcome to all of our witnesses and we look forward to your
    testimony. I want to welcome my friend and ranking member, Jim
    Langevin, whose timing is indeed perfect.
        And when he gets situated, I would like to recognize him
    for any opening comments he would like to make.
        Thank you, Jim, I know today has been a busy day for all of
    us.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Stefanik can be found in the
    Appendix on page 33.]

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

        Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Madam Chair. It worked out well, I
    actually literally just flew in a little while ago because of
    the northeaster we received yesterday. I got snowed out and
    wasn't able to get in until this afternoon.
        So, anyway, welcome to our witnesses. Thank you all for
    being here. And, regrettably, I understand Secretary Griffin
    was unable to join us today, although I recognize that he was
    just recently confirmed, and I understand his vision for
    science and technology and innovation, as the first Under
    Secretary of Research and Engineering, is paramount for the
    subcommittee.
        And I certainly look forward to engaging him in the very
    near future. And I appreciate, though, that Ms. Miller is here,
    that you are here representing the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense, R&E enterprise, and it is good to see you again.
        Today we begin consideration, fiscal year [FY] 2019 budget
    request for S&T across the Department of Defense, the total is
    $13.7 billion up from $13.2 billion requested in FY 2018. The
    amount requested for advanced development and prototyping is
    $20.8 billion, $3 billion more than requested in FY 2018, for a
    total of $34.5 billion requested for R&E activities.
        This budget request comes on the heels of the recently
    released National Defense Strategy [NDS] that highlights
    specific technological advancements that the U.S. needs to
    leverage to maintain its warfighting edge. Many of these are in
    areas this subcommittee supported over the years, including
    artificial intelligence, directed energy, hypersonics, 3-D
    printing, and autonomous systems.
        The NDS also highlights long-term strategic competition
    with China and Russia and the need for an unparalleled national
    security innovation base. It is no secret that China is
    employing measures that encroach upon, poach from, and steal
    from us to further their objectives to be an R&E powerhouse and
    degrade our warfighting edge.
        This is utterly alarming and greatly affects our national
    security. Unfortunately, China is not the only nation
    conducting such activities. They are, however, one of the few
    state actors that has coupled such tactics with considerable
    money and other resources behind a national strategy that
    involves a whole-of-government effort and leverages society to
    promote indigenous innovation. If the U.S. is to remain a
    global leader in technology, then we just can't play defense,
    we must also play offense.
        Our efforts to deter and counter China and other actors
    that threaten our ability to maintain our technological edge
    are absolutely critical, as are investments in science and
    research, prototyping, and other development efforts to advance
    warfighting capabilities and to promote deterrence. No less
    important are investments in STEAM [science, technology,
    engineering, the arts, and mathematics] education and in
    programs that develop junior talent into future tech leaders.
    And the implementation of strategic policies that promote a
    sound economic and political environment on U.S. soil where
    global collaboration, discovery, innovation, public
    institutions, and industry can thrive.
        We must also balance participation in the global S&T and
    innovation environment with protection of national security
    interests. Clearly, this cannot be done through DOD alone,
    however. DOD has a significant role to play as a customer and
    driver of S&T innovation. DOD S&T ecosystem includes science
    technology and reinvention laboratories that house some of our
    Nation's greatest assets and people. It also includes DARPA,
    which is invested in some of the pie-in-the-sky ideas that came
    to fruition and change how we fight and how we live.
        They have absolutely lived up to what our expectations are
    to invest in those high-risk, high-payoff initiatives, and
    avoid technological surprise wherever possible. Over the course
    of many years, Congress has worked tirelessly to provide
    authorities and legislation that enable these institutions to
    be utilized to the fullest potential by the Department. Tools
    such as the Rapid Innovation Fund and Small Business Innovation
    Research [SBIR] program have been provided to DOD to leverage
    commercial innovation and have proven beneficial to that end.
        DIUx and other entities have stood up to enable the
    Department to make use of commercial technology and tech
    advancements. However, I believe DOD can make better use of
    these tools as well. DOD also administers the research and
    education program for historically black colleges and
    universities and national defense education programs, which I
    am pleased to say, received funding increases this year,
    although I believe those increases should be bigger. These
    programs enhance DOD's S&T efforts and produce top talent for
    the future workforce.
        The NDS framework and the recent reorganization by DOD by
    Congress to separate program acquisition and sustainment [A&S]
    from research and engineering provide the Department an
    opportunity to rethink how it approaches delivering the most
    advanced capabilities to the warfighter in the near, mid, and
    long term, and to bridge the ``valley of death.''
        In the era of strategic state competition, it is time to
    get creative, and we must outsmart our competitors and our
    adversaries. Today I look forward to hearing about how the NDS
    is shaping DOD's R&D landscape; how the budget request reflects
    an investment being made that serves DOD's interest as both the
    consumer and driver of technology advancements; and how DOD is
    leveraging its ecosystem to the fullest extent so that we may
    remain the global technology leader.
        With that, I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for putting
    this hearing together. And with that, I yield back.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Jim. We now turn to our witnesses.
    Thank you for being here today. Your written statements were
    submitted for the record, so please summarize your opening
    comments within 5 minutes or less. And I will start with
    Assistant Secretary Miller. You have 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF MARY J. MILLER, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF ASSISTANT
     SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

        Ms. Miller. Chairwoman Stefanik, Ranking Member Langevin,
    and distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for
    this opportunity to discuss the state of the Department's
    science and technology program for fiscal year 2019.
        I am proud to be here today representing the newly
    confirmed Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering, Dr. Mike Griffin, and the scientists and engineers
    within the DOD S&T enterprise. We are in an era of constant
    competition. We see nations like China and Russia investing
    heavily in research, trying to close the technology gap with
    the U.S. We see high-end military technology that has diffused
    to many countries that would have been unable to develop it
    themselves, even reaching some nonstate actors.
        In a world with near equal access to technology, speed is
    becoming the discriminator. Not just speed of discovery, but
    speed of delivery. How fast we can develop, adopt, or leverage
    technology to meet the warfighters' needs, and get it into
    their hands will determine our ability to outpace our
    adversaries.
        Under Dr. Griffin's leadership, I look forward to
    instilling within the Department a culture that embraces a more
    agile approach to development and delivery. You have been
    briefed countless times that our adversaries have spent decades
    watching us, how we conduct our warfare, how we fight. They
    have seen our equipment, watched our tactics, techniques, and
    procedures, and determined our concepts of operations. They
    have assessed both our strengths and vulnerabilities and
    strategically invested in capabilities to mitigate our
    advantages and exploit areas of perceived weakness.
        China, for example, has sustained increased defense
    spending since the early 2000s, with the fundamental goal of
    dominating the next generation of military and civilian
    technologies by 2050, making them both a military and an
    economic superpower that prioritize the research and
    development in areas that they believe will help them achieve
    this goal. Areas such as advanced materials and manufacturing,
    hypersonics weapons, advanced computing, artificial
    intelligence, and robotics, to name a few.
        Similarly, Russia has reemerged on the world stage and is
    pursuing force modernization while actively seeking to
    manipulate and dominate the global information environment.
    Meanwhile, North Korea conducts cyber operations to achieve a
    range of offensive effects with little or no warning, and
    continues to flaunt their emerging ballistic missile
    capabilities on a frequent basis. These threats span the air,
    land, sea, space, and cyber domains, which have all experienced
    dramatic capability advancements throughout the world. These
    advancements, coupled with our adversaries' commitment to a
    pace of prototyping, experimentation, and fielding that far
    outstrips our own, present a formidable challenge to our U.S.
    forces operating around the globe.
        In this competitive environment, the Department must pay
    much more attention to future readiness, and ensure our
    conventional overmatch remains over time. We must be willing
    and able to tap into commercial research, recognize its
    military potential, and develop new capabilities and
    operational and organizational constructs to employ them faster
    than our competitors. This would not be possible without our
    DOD scientists and engineers who are doing groundbreaking and
    innovative work. They are embracing these hard challenges our
    military faces every day, seeking to better understand the
    warfighters' problems and working diligently on affordable and
    effective solutions.
        The Department is addressing critical technology and
    capability gaps through a combination of adaptation of existing
    systems, such as efforts conducted through the Strategic
    Capabilities Office, and the development and introduction of
    innovative new technologies through our DOD labs and centers,
    DARPA, and DIUx.
        We recognize that our adversaries present us with a
    challenge of a sophisticated, evolving threat. We are prepared
    to meet that challenge and restore the technical overmatch of
    the United States Armed Forces through focus and innovation.
        Thank you for your strong interest in, and support of, the
    Department's science and technology efforts as we work to
    discover, design, and deliver technology capabilities our
    warfighters will need now and in the future. I appreciate this
    opportunity to testify on this important issue, and I look
    forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Miller can be found in the
    Appendix on page 36.]
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. Dr. Walker.

     STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN H. WALKER, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ADVANCED
                        RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY

        Dr. Walker. Can you hear me? Is it on? Okay.
        Thank you, Chairwoman Stefanik and Ranking Member Langevin,
    for having me here today. For 60 years DARPA has held to the
    singular enduring mission to develop breakthrough technologies
    and capabilities for national security. The genesis of that
    mission and of DARPA itself dates back to a commitment that
    President Eisenhower made that the United States would always
    be the initiator of strategic surprise.
        Working with innovators inside and outside of government,
    DARPA has repeatedly delivered on that mission, transforming
    revolutionary concepts and even seeming impossibilities into
    practical capabilities for the U.S. and allied warfighter. In
    the six decades since DARPA was established the world has
    changed dramatically. These changes include some remarkable and
    even astonishing scientific and technological advances, that if
    wisely and purposefully used, have the potential not only to
    ensure ongoing U.S. military superiority and security, but also
    to catalyze societal and economic advances.
        At the same time, the world is experiencing deeply
    disturbing geopolitical shifts that pose real threats to U.S.
    preeminence and stability. These dueling trends of
    unprecedented opportunity and risk deeply informed DARPA's
    strategic investments decision moving forward.
        My priorities for investment are very much aligned with
    President Trump's National Security Strategy and with Secretary
    Mattis' National Defense Strategy. So my priorities for
    investment in the future are defending the homeland, number
    one, from varied threats, to include developing cyber-
    deterrence capabilities, bio-surveillance and bio-protection
    technologies, and the ability to sense and defend against
    weapons of mass terror.
        Number two. Deterring and prevailing against peer
    competitors in Europe and Asia will require new thinking. The
    U.S. can no longer be dominant across all scenarios, but it
    needs to be highly lethal in select ones. Realizing new
    capabilities across all the physical domains will be important,
    and hypersonics will be a key technology there, but we also
    have to look at space and the electromagnetic spectrum domains.
    They are going to be very important for that fight.
        Number three. Effectively prosecuting stabilization efforts
    across the globe requires us to get better at fighting
    differently and in different environments. Capabilities to
    address gray zone conflict, and 3-D [three-dimensional] city-
    scale warfare, along with the development of rigorous and
    reliable models to predict adversarial moves will be critical.
        Last, but definitely not least, is number four,
    foundational research in science and technology. This will
    underlie all of DARPA's grounded pursuits, and is what makes
    possible never-before-seen capabilities. We must continue to do
    what I think DARPA does better than anyone, and that is to
    follow where technology can lead us to solve the country's
    toughest challenges.
        One of the foundational technology paths we are on
    currently is to help re-create advanced electronics. DARPA has
    had a key role over the years in advancing the state of the art
    in advanced electronics, especially in semiconductors. Today
    the advanced electronics industry is at an inflection point;
    design and fabrication [of] semiconductors is becoming ever
    more difficult and costly.
        China, which is significantly behind the U.S. now, has
    decided to invest huge sums of government-directed private
    capital to acquire today's onshore semiconductor design and
    manufacturing capabilities. In 2018, DARPA launched the
    electronic resurgence initiative, or ERI, which aims to create
    leap-ahead technology that will develop new materials, new
    circuit design tools, and new system architectures and
    manufacturing capabilities for the U.S. semiconductor industry
    and for our defense sector, to keep us out in front.
        As DARPA looks to its next 60 years, it promises to
    continue to be a bold, risk-tolerant investor in high-impact
    technologies so the Nation can be the first to develop and
    adopt the novel capabilities made possible by such work. With
    the continued support of Congress, and especially this
    committee, as well as the backing of the Pentagon and my S&T
    partners on this panel, we will succeed. Thanks.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Walker can be found in the
    Appendix on page 44.]
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Dr. Walker.
        Dr. Russell.

    STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS P. RUSSELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
                OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

        Dr. Russell. Chairman Stefanik, Ranking Member Langevin,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I would like to
    thank you for the opportunity to discuss the United States
    Army's program for science and technology for fiscal year 2019.
    This committee plays a vital role in supporting Army S&T, as
    the program seeks to ensure the Army can operate and dominate
    in complex environments.
        These environments pose a variety of challenges
    characterized by adaptive adversaries employing conventional,
    unconventional, and hybrid methods designed to challenge U.S.
    national security. The Army and the joint future operational
    environment will demand a land power dominance with increased
    flexibility, adaptability, and speed of responsiveness.
        As a means to address current capability shortfalls and
    outpace anticipated threats, the Army S&T strategy pursues a
    foundational technology development for future, and leverages
    organic capacity and the capacity of our partners. Army S&T is
    the only portfolio focused in the Army's future investments. It
    makes investments today in fundamental science and technology
    initiatives that will ensure breakthroughs that will yield
    affordable, decisive, and advantages for the future.
        The S&T portfolio is now being rebalanced to meet the
    Army's needs to prepare for and deter possible near-peer
    threats in the mid and far term. Based on the Chief of Staff of
    the Army's guide, the S&T community with our stakeholders,
    reviewed the entire S&T portfolio and concluded that the
    existing portfolio was out of balance, with too great of a
    focus on the near term, and technology developments focused on
    the counterinsurgency fight versus the near-peer threats.
        The Secretary and the Chief of Staff's modernization
    initiatives have further focused the S&T program on the Army's
    top priorities, while maintaining vital long-term research into
    the cutting edges of military relevant science. As a result,
    greater than a billion dollars in S&T funding was redirected
    from near-term efforts and projects to mid-term projects,
    reducing investments in counterinsurgency programs, and
    increasing and accelerating investments in technologies to
    prepare for and deter possible near-peer threats.
        This portfolio rebalance is impacting budget years 2019
    through 2023, which will allow S&T to maintain a balanced
    portfolio investment to guide breakthrough science and research
    and technology innovation. The Army's S&T program fully
    supports the six key modernization priorities: long range
    precision fires, next generation combat vehicles, future
    vertical lift, network/C3I [command, control, communications,
    and intelligence], air and missile defense, and soldier
    lethality.
        S&T also pursues the broader basic and applied research
    that will create new capabilities and prevent technological
    surprise, including, but not limited to eight key technology
    investments: directed energy, artificial intelligence,
    robotics, internet of things, virtual reality, energetic
    materials, and ultra-design materials.
        In addition, state-of-the-art technical facilities are
    essential to ensuring that the Army's S&T enterprise is
    positioned for discovery and maturation of critical
    technologies. An enterprise-wide approach to modernize is
    centered on three primary thrusts: organic technical
    infrastructure, informing construction of our partner
    facilities, and infrastructure collaboration such as the ARL
    [U.S. Army Research Laboratory] open campus business model.
        Our S&T strategy provides the unifying framework for Army
    labs and our industry and academic partners to collaboratively
    mature new technologies. In addition to the 12,000 scientists
    and engineers in our S&T enterprise, the Army labs and the
    research development engineering centers are critical assets
    for the Army. They have delivered key capabilities and support
    of ongoing combat operations and will continue to do so in the
    future.
        I welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Russell can be found in the
    Appendix on page 52.]
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Dr. Russell. Rear Admiral Hahn.

     STATEMENT OF RADM DAVID J. HAHN, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL RESEARCH

        Admiral Hahn. Well, good afternoon, and thank you for
    having me. Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for your leadership. So the opening
    comments of the Chair I think provide a pretty good summary of
    the state of affairs. And I think the significant term there is
    the advantage has eroded.
        Those who have gone before you in the seats that you sit
    in, in what used to be called the Naval Affairs Committee, back
    in the year 1946 were going through a similar conversation
    about how do we sustain science and technology and all that we
    had learned throughout the conflict of World War II to ensure
    that we don't repeat those same lessons going forward.
        So that group, the Naval Affairs Committee, stood up the
    Office of Naval Research. And I find the words in the
    legislation that created the Office of Naval Research continues
    to provide us our mission statement today. So I think it is
    important that we think about that for a moment. And I am going
    to read those words to you because that is what gives us our
    charge.
        So in your legislation, it says that my charge is to plan,
    foster, and encourage scientific research, in recognition of
    its paramount importance, as related to the maintenance of
    future naval power, and the preservation of national security.
    So those words echo the theme that as a maritime nation without
    naval power in the present and in the future, we will find
    ourselves at a disadvantage.
        The National Defense Strategy lays out pretty clearly, I
    think, that naval power is going to be very important in this
    great power competition that we find ourselves in yet again. So
    it is my charge to figure out how naval power is going to get
    generated through the elements of science and technology.
        I think it is pretty clear to the members of the committee
    that naval power comes from a combination in balance of
    capacity, capability, and lethality, and science and technology
    are at the heart of every one of those elements of naval power.
    Your United States Navy and Marine Corps is going to play the
    away game every single time.
        So my charge is to make sure that we are the first to field
    to take advantage of the speed of technology that is being
    created each day and to figure out a way to get that into
    programs of record where that capability gets to scale, and do
    it in a more and more lethal and a more and more creative way
    every single day, leveraging all those pieces of the puzzle
    that got put together back again in our experience in World War
    II, and that we leverage going forward to today.
        And you mentioned the three legs of that stool: it is
    academia, it is our industry partners, and it is our government
    workforce that understands how naval warfighting looks, and
    what technologies will apply to the naval warfight in the
    future. And those are the ones we invest in and try to carry
    forward.
        So there is good news here, right? Your leadership and your
    investment in a continued and steady way across the years has
    created a workforce of over 4,000 in my part of the enterprise
    and an analogous number and the same kind of talent across this
    whole team here. And it is our job to keep that team moving in
    the same direction, to leverage each other's investments and
    make the best of it.
        So I am happy to take all the questions. I look forward to
    the dialogue. And I couldn't be more proud than to sit here
    with the members of my team. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Hahn can be found in the
    Appendix on page 62.]
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. Mr. Stanley.

    STATEMENT OF JEFFREY H. STANLEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
         THE AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING

        Mr. Stanley. Chairwoman Stefanik, Ranking Member Langevin,
    members of the subcommittee and staff, I am pleased to have the
    opportunity to testify on the Air Force's FY 2019 science and
    technology program. Challenges and threats to our national
    security are evolving rapidly. In some cases our near-peer
    competitors are matching or exceeding our Nation in
    capabilities.
        The Air Force has taken action on multiple fronts to change
    the way we leverage science and technology. The Secretary of
    the Air Force recently commissioned a broad-reaching initiative
    to assess our science and technology investment strategy to
    ensure our dominance across air, space, and cyber. Because of a
    variety of factors, the Defense Department is no longer driving
    the industrial base like it did 10 or 20 years ago.
        The Secretary's initiative is looking across industry,
    academia, the national laboratories, and other agencies to see
    where we need to invest in technology, and how we might change
    our processes and business approach. Change is necessary. And
    the Air Force is committed to ensuring our warfighters have the
    best technological advantage we can give them.
        Additionally, we have pivoted in several game-changing
    technology areas to amplify the enduring attributes of air
    power: speed, range, flexibility, and precision. To do this,
    the Air Force is partner with our other services and agencies
    to accelerate the delivery of these technologies. We partner
    with DARPA on our hypersonics developments and initiated two
    follow-on developments. We recently completed a directed energy
    flight plan and are in lockstep with the Navy and the Army to
    demonstrate mature high-energy lasers, high-powered microwaves
    for base defense, aircraft self-protection, and other tactical
    situations.
        Attritable systems like the low-cost attritable aircraft
    technology effort will change future air battles. Teaming with
    commercial industry, the Air Force has leveraged several
    advances in additive and 3-D manufacturing technologies,
    research into limited-life design methodologies, and advanced
    composites to create a family of vehicles like LCAAT [Low Cost
    Attritable Aircraft Technology], which are not only lethal but
    impose costs on our adversaries.
        The space industry landscape continues to change and we are
    aggressively pursuing low-cost access to orbit for payloads and
    microsatellites with programs like EAGLE [ESPA Augmented GEO
    Laboratory Experiment], which will launch next month. It is not
    only the technologies in which the Air Force invests that is
    important, but the pace at which the Air Force innovates and
    responds.
        Global competition has changed the speed at which the world
    around us operates. The Air Force recognizes that it is not the
    country that innovates the best, but rather innovates and
    applies technology the fastest.
        I want to thank the Congress for the recent NDAA language
    regarding prototyping. Prototyping allows us to bridge the gap
    between science and technology and programs of record, and
    deliver capabilities at the speed the warfighter needs.
        Lastly, the global competition for technology and the pace
    of technology development directly translates to the workforce.
    The workforce for science, technology, and engineering
    continues to be our most important resource. This is a national
    issue. And the demand for technical talent is far outpacing
    degree production in the United States.
        We are appreciative of the continued support from Congress
    through flexible personnel authorities. The Air Force continues
    to utilize these authorities to ensure we attract and retain
    the world-class workforce capable of providing these
    revolutionary capabilities for our warfighters.
        In summary, as the Air Force budget request highlights, the
    Air Force senior leadership is committed to science and
    technology and driving innovation across our enterprise. I
    thank the committee for the opportunity to testify today, and
    look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stanley can be found in the
    Appendix on page 67.]
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Stanley. Before we get to
    questions, I ask unanimous consent that non-subcommittee
    members be allowed to participate in today's briefing after all
    the subcommittee members have had any opportunity to ask
    questions. Is there objection?
        Without objection, non-subcommittee members will be
    recognized at the appropriate time for 5 minutes.
        Moving along to questions. As I mentioned in my opening
    statement, I plan to introduce standalone legislation next week
    on artificial intelligence, and I understand that the
    Department is currently working an AI strategy being led by the
    Under Secretary for R&E's office.
        So, Ms. Miller, can you provide this committee with an
    update on that initiative and are there ways that we can be
    helpful with this and similar efforts?
        Ms. Miller. Yes, ma'am. So I guess it was last September,
    we decided that, you know, we needed to start pulling together
    what everybody was doing in the world of artificial
    intelligence within the Department of Defense. And we had an
    opening conference and invited people within the Department
    that were working in artificial intelligence and some external
    folks to come in and tell us where they are.
        We were surprised by the breadth that this area has
    expanded because everybody has a way to use artificial
    intelligence, they can envision it. We started doing weekly
    meetings with people within the Department of Defense, over 40
    organizations, over 150 people, typically, any given week, that
    come to talk about what they are doing and how they are
    investing and what their needs are.
        Through this effort we have been trying to shape an
    understanding of what we are spending our resources in and then
    to try to organize those efforts into something that would
    apply to the National Defense Strategy, and where we need to
    go. You have to understand what people are doing and then
    figure out how you need to shape it into the end state of what
    the Department needs.
        So we have got five aspects that we are looking--five goals
    that we are looking at. One is foundational. We need to
    establish a workforce that is--understanding artificial
    intelligence. We need to complete partnerships. We need to
    understand and acquire data so you can actually train your
    intelligent agent. We need to develop standards and the policy
    to be able to use artificial intelligence, in many of the ways
    that the Department would need.
        Our second goal is to be able to attain technical
    superiority. So, the foundations of what AI is. Machine
    learning that we are working on. Data analytics. Robotics.
    Advanced computing that allows us to exercise artificial
    intelligence. And how humans and AI can work together to give
    better capabilities to the warfighter.
        We have looked at how we can apply third goal. How we apply
    AI to business functions. Because the Secretary of Defense has
    made business reform his number three priority in the
    Department. The more we can save through our business reform,
    the more we can spend on achieving and attaining that lethality
    that he desires for the Department of Defense. So we are
    looking at how do you apply AI to not only training and
    education, but finances, the medical field, and what we do in
    contracts, acquisition, and legal activities.
        And looking at affected intelligence analysis. You have
    heard about Project Maven, that is clearly kind of our set of
    how data analytics and artificial intelligence can better
    inform a warfighter. So we have this whole intel [intelligence]
    side of this as well. And ultimately we are trying to get to
    lethality, and that is where we take artificial intelligence
    and applying it to what we are doing in command and control and
    communications and survivability in the breadth of what the
    Department is doing.
        Ms. Stefanik. I want to give the other witnesses an
    opportunity to answer questions as well on this topic. Dr.
    Walker, can you--thank you. Ms. Miller.
        Ms. Miller. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Stefanik. Dr. Walker, can you discuss your AI efforts
    within DARPA, and then understanding we are in an unclassified
    forum, are there any adversarial concerns regarding AI that are
    on your radar that you can share with us today?
        Dr. Walker. Sure. DARPA has been involved in AI since 1960,
    when we wrote the first--our information office director wrote
    the first paper, Man-Computer Symbiosis, so we have had a hand
    in much of the development along the way. We are really focused
    now, much of the commercial sector is applying what we call
    machine learning, which is sort of what we look at as second-
    generation AI.
        What we are focused on now is third generation, and that
    is, you know, machine learning requires, you know, large data
    sets, you train--it really should be called machine training.
    You are training a machine over a large data set to recognize
    patterns, et cetera. What we are focused on is third-generation
    AI where you are--and the environment is changing, and so the
    data set is changing, and how does the machine react to that?
    Can it still give you a good answer? And so we have a program
    called Explainable AI that is not just spitting out an answer
    with a probability of correctness, but actually looking at--the
    machine gives you an answer and it tells you how it got to that
    answer, why it came up with that answer. That is one example of
    a program in our third-generation effort.
        Another one is lifelong learning for machines. And so when
    a piece of data changes, the environment changes, how does the
    machine respond to that and how does it get back up on a
    correct answer? In terms of your second part of your question,
    what is the adversary doing, it is well known that adversaries,
    as well as others, are able to manipulate images and videos
    using AI techniques.
        We have a program called Metaphor, which is looking at
    applying AI techniques to understand when images, when videos
    have been tampered with, to provide some truth-telling in that
    scenario.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. Mr. Langevin.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I certainly look
    forward to cosponsoring the legislation that you are
    introducing. And, you know, I also hope we are--we talk about
    standards that we are also proceeding with well-thought-out
    caution as well that we understand where this is going and
    doesn't get too far ahead of us that we can't control it, as we
    saw recently with the experiment that got shut down with the
    Facebook AI talking to each other, and started talking to each
    other in a language that we didn't know what it was. And they
    had to shut it down. And, again, understanding where this is
    going and proceeding, we both, you know, trying to innovate as
    much as possible, but also make sure it doesn't get away from
    us.
        I am going to switch over to another area, just more
    broadly to all witnesses. How has the National Defense Strategy
    shaped how we think about RDT&E [research, development, test
    and evaluation], and how does the fiscal year 2019 budget
    request reflect a new approach that is different from the third
    offset strategy developed in the DOD under former Secretary of
    Defense Ash Carter. And what is the status of long-range
    research and development planning activities?
        I want to start with Ms. Miller.
        Ms. Miller. So I would tell that you the National Defense
    Strategy, we were part of the development of that and had a lot
    of discussions primarily on where the Department needs to go to
    modernize, and what we needed to think in that area. We have
    started to resonate and it can't be just about systems anymore,
    it needs to be about missions that have to be accomplished. And
    in that context, when you look at what is out there today and
    what needs to be out there in the future to accomplish the
    mission, that is where you start to see science and technology
    play a larger role, and you will start to see investments that
    will be mission oriented to give us options. The Secretary of
    Defense has asked for many options to prosecute these missions,
    and that is what we will bring forward.
        Regarding the long-range research and development program
    plan, we intended all along to do this on a quadrennial basis
    to get people together, to think outside of the box, and to not
    be constrained by how we currently fight. And we do intend to
    do that, it will probably be 3 years from now.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
        Dr. Walker. All right. To follow on to Ms. Miller, for me,
    DARPA is looking at the NDS very closely, especially in the
    area of lethality, and applying--trying to think through how to
    deter and prevail our peer competitors in key areas of the
    globe. One of the areas that we have been working in and will
    continue in a bigger way to work is hypersonics, to enable that
    greater lethality. We are working with our partners to do that,
    and I hope to talk a little more about that, but I want to give
    them a chance.
        Dr. Russell. So the question was also about the long-range
    research development planning. I think you will see in the Army
    S&T program it has really been rebalanced to look towards a
    near-peer threat, and it is really a threat-based approach,
    looking at what are the challenges we face in a land battle.
    And the focus has been driven towards six modernization
    priorities. And the six modernization priorities were designed
    around the ideas of the fundamental functions of warfighting on
    land, which is how do I move, shoot, communicate, and protect.
        And in those areas there are applications or science
    technology programs which are looking at, how do I extend the
    range of artillery, how do I extend the missile range so that
    we can actually have a longer range precision fires, and as
    well as a multidomain, so looking at land-based anti-ship
    missiles. In the defensive area, we are all working areas of
    high-energy lasers and so there is some activities looking at
    mobile SHORAD, which is short range air defense, as well as
    high-energy lasers for tactical vehicle demonstrators for IFPC
    [Indirect Fire Protection Capability] Block 2. I just want to
    end there and give my colleagues a chance to answer as well.
        Admiral Hahn. Gentleman, Mr. Langevin, thank you for the
    question. The National Defense Strategy brings into pretty
    sharp focus for us that we are in a high-end fight, that is
    where we need to focus the efforts of our technology
    implementation onboard our platforms. It also puts a premium on
    speed. So I associate myself with all the remarks that you
    heard about this topic so far, but it is the speed of moving
    that technology at scale to the platform so we get it in the
    hands of the sailors or Marines or the airmen. That is what
    this National Defense Strategy has done. It juiced this whole
    process. We are thinking differently about how we create
    pathways to move this technology through the snake, if you
    will, to get it all the way to the end point.
        So that is what has got us thinking hard every day and
    looking for new opportunities. And I would just close with the
    fact that instead of being a, let's go manage risk, this is
    more of an opportunity-based focus. Let's find the
    opportunities. Let's figure out how we take them, put them into
    evidence, and create that deterrence so that when they look at
    us, they understand, here is what you are up against.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Stanley. Sir, I just amplify what Admiral Hahn just
    talked about is the speed. The NDS is clear on the use of
    experimentation prototyping and advocating for that. And I
    think in the Air Force we have wholly embraced prototyping as a
    way to speed delivery to the warfighter, and I think that is
    going to be key in the future.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you. And hopefully we will go to a
    second round.
        Ms. Stefanik. Ms. Cheney.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank all the
    witnesses for being here today.
        Dr. Walker, I wanted to ask you, you mentioned in both your
    written testimony, and here today that we are no longer
    dominant, I think you used the phrase, ``across all
    scenarios.'' And I wondered if you can elaborate on that a
    little bit, and talk specifically about, have decisions been
    made that we won't attempt to achieve dominance, that we
    determine that there are certain areas where we simply are
    going to accept a lack of dominance, accept being second to
    someone else.
        Dr. Walker. I think what I meant by that was--really in the
    context of lethality trying to think through new warfighting
    constructs that would allow us to really be more effective, to
    have multiple constructs that we can set up against our
    adversaries so that they are surprised, they are not
    anticipating the next fighter aircraft or the next tank they
    know that we are building. But we are putting systems together
    in new ways that will surprise them in the end. And so trying
    to think through not the next system, as Mary said, not
    developing necessarily the next system, but develop--focus on
    the mission and understand how we can put multiple systems
    together in different ways and surprise the adversary.
        Ms. Cheney. Maybe we will have an opportunity to follow up
    in a closed setting about that particular issue.
        Dr. Walker. Sure.
        Ms. Cheney. And in particular areas where we may now decide
    that we are going to seek dominance.
        And in my second question, I am not quite sure to whom I
    should direct this, but it is about hypersonics and the extent
    to which our obligations under the INF [Intermediate-Range
    Nuclear Forces] Treaty are having an impact as we are looking
    at design, as we are looking at testing.
        To what extent are those imposing restrictions on our
    testing of that system could--I am not sure whose question that
    is.
        Dr. Walker. I think we are certainly conscious of the INF
    Treaty. We are developing hypersonic systems that would be
    compliant with that.
        Ms. Cheney. And so I guess the converse of that would be if
    we were no longer the sole nation guided by, bound by the INF
    Treaty, we would have a wider range of testing, we might be
    interested in doing with respect, and able to do with respect
    to hypersonics?
        Dr. Walker. That is fair.
        Ms. Cheney. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Larsen.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Miller, the budget
    for science and technology represents about 2.3 percent of the
    total budget, is that about right?
        Ms. Miller. Yes.
        Mr. Larsen. Is that enough? You have to answer more quickly
    than that, I only have 5 minutes.
        Ms. Miller. I will tell you that, yes, we could do with
    more. Right now you have an increasing top line, thanks to the
    administration.
        Mr. Larsen. Right.
        Ms. Miller. Looking favorably on the Department of Defense.
    The majority of that money did not go into the science and
    technology, it went into getting us whole for readiness, and
    that was the priority. As we invest in science and technology,
    we need to have the money to take it out of science and
    technology into programs of record, and we have been having
    that conflict of maintaining a ready force and being able to
    pull technology into new systems.
        Mr. Larsen. And I understand Secretary Mattis' concerns on
    readiness and the O&M [operations and maintenance], but it
    seems that we have been ringing the bell a little bit, and
    we've heard about it here today about the investments our
    competitors are making. And yet, I know there is more money in
    some parts of the science and technology budgets, but not in
    all parts. And I think there is a percentage that it may be
    lower than it was in the 2000s when I first came here. I have
    got to double check that number, it is a long time ago, and my
    memory is getting bad, but it might be lower as a percentage.
        So I guess I just want to--if we are truly concerned about
    this, it seems, since we have lifted the top lines, that
    science and technology needs to have a higher priority at the
    Department than it is getting.
        Ms. Miller. I would say the fact that we have an Under
    Secretary for Research and Engineering who is 3 weeks and 1 day
    in the job, as we build the next budget, you will certainly see
    his influence.
        Mr. Larsen. I will make a note of that.
        Admiral Hahn, can you talk about the impetus for the
    establishment of the Robotarium at Georgia Tech?
        Admiral Hahn. You have that right, the Robotarium.
        Mr. Larsen. Okay.
        Admiral Hahn. So, clearly, if we can provide an
    opportunity, a sandbox, if you will, where we can get vehicles
    in a setting where they can be operated safely by a number of--
    a number of folks remotely who may be coming from different
    spots in the United States, either locally or all the way
    across CONUS [contiguous United States], to be able to iterate
    our way through the use of robotics in a variety of scenarios
    across a number of domains, we are going to learn faster. So
    the Robotarium investment created that ecosystem, if you will.
        Mr. Larsen. That is at Georgia Tech, and that is--so is it
    just ONR [Office of Naval Research] money, or is it university
    money?
        Admiral Hahn. Now, there is some National Science
    Foundation money there as well. Other contributions are
    invested in there, and it is probably not the only place we
    should be doing that, frankly, because this is an area where we
    get the smart people really helping us iterate our way through
    how are we going to work through this manned, unmanned teaming?
    How do we get vehicles working together? So any opportunity to
    make that a more prevalent sort of a sandbox approach in other
    places is certainly welcome.
        Mr. Larsen. Yeah, it is something that has interested me,
    so I'm glad to hear you are interested in maybe replicating the
    concept or growing the concept, and it is worth exploring.
        Dr. Walker, as far as DARPA's--not your specific plans, but
    are you still--do you still see yourselves as the 10- to 30-
    year look part of our research team in the Department of
    Defense?
        Dr. Walker. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Larsen. Longer term.
        Dr. Walker. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Larsen. And do you feel that you can take enough risk
    in order to make mistakes in order to be successful on a long-
    term look, or do you feel pulled back at all?
        Dr. Walker. No, I do feel like we have a risk-tolerant
    culture, we don't set out to fail, but we do fail along the
    way. And we know we are having impact when we do because we are
    reaching.
        Mr. Larsen. Uh-huh. Yeah. And I think that is enough for
    me. That's great. Appreciate it. Thank you.
        Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Lamborn.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Thank you all for what you are
    doing.
        Ms. Miller, I have a question for you first. Last year I
    worked on the provision that would allow the new IP [internet
    protocol] office to address IP data rights on SBIR transitions,
    including serving as a liaison between DOD and SBIR companies
    when IP issues arise.
        Could I please have an update on how we are implementing
    this provision?
        Ms. Miller. Sadly, I will have to take that for the record.
    The SBIR office will become part of the USD(R&E), it currently
    has not been attached to that. It belonged to the small
    business office, and so I don't have that information with me.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 89.]
        Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Then please take that for the record.
    And hopefully you can answer this part as well. I am also
    interested in your implementation of NDAA section 1710, which
    started a pilot program to streamline the commercialization of
    SBIR and STTR [Small Business Technology Transfer program]
    products and services, including encouraging a multiple award
    contract for these products and services. Can you give me an
    update on that?
        Ms. Miller. Again, I will have to take that for the record,
    sir. I am not prepared to discuss it.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 89.]
        Mr. Lamborn. Okay. I will look forward to that and thank
    you for offering to do that.
        And then, Dr. Walker and Mr. Stanley, I have a question on
    space situational awareness and battle management command and
    control. What is being done to fix these two things, these two
    important issues, and how quickly will we close the gaps?
        Dr. Walker. Well, sir, on battle management command and
    control, we are about to start a new program called Black Jack,
    which is looking at developing a large constellation of LEO
    [low Earth orbit] satellites that will provide the ability to
    command and control, ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance], and other missions. We are going to do this by
    leveraging the commercial sector and plugging into what they
    are doing.
        And so this program is starting--it is starting with the
    Air Force. AFRL [Air Force Research Laboratory] is a full
    partner, and the Air Force Space Command is very interested in
    the concept for trying to integrate space and the tactical
    warfight in a much bigger way than we do today.
        Mr. Lamborn. That is good to hear.
        Mr. Stanley. Sir, as you know, space has become a very
    contested territory for us. We have set priorities in our
    investment in building a resilient multilayer space
    architecture. One of the prototyping programs we are doing
    right now is called Global Lightning, which is utilizing
    commercial satellites to do our space situational awareness and
    communication structure. It is a prototyping program right now
    to demonstrate the feasibility. Those are the kinds of efforts
    we have underway to build that resilient architecture we will
    need in the future.
        Mr. Lamborn. That is really great to hear. I am glad that
    you all are working diligently on that and I appreciate it. And
    I will take some answers from you on the record when you are
    able to get back to us, and I appreciate it.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Veasey.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I wanted to ask specifically about some of the technologies
    that you are concerned about that our adversaries may have and
    how you feel that we are being able to, I guess, rise to the
    challenge of being able to bring us up to speed technological-
    wise on some of our systems.
        I know, for instance, that there has been a lot of
    discussion and talk out there that the Chinese and Russians,
    that they are able to get certain systems up and going while we
    are still sort of working on things and still going through the
    technology aspects of that. I didn't know if you had any sort
    of insight on that at all?
        Yes.
        Dr. Walker. Sir, the one technology that keeps coming up in
    my mind that I get concerned about is biology just because of
    the--I mean, there are several reasons, but the fast pace of
    tech development in that field. We at DARPA started a
    biological technologies office about 4 years ago because of
    this very issue. One of our core missions is to prevent
    technological surprise, and so we want to be ahead of the game.
    So we have, just as an example, a program called Safe Genes,
    which is looking at understanding how gene editing actually
    works and then developing capabilities to reverse it as well as
    prevent it from occurring in the wild if we need to because our
    adversaries have done something.
        And so this is a program. It is an unclassified program. It
    is a basic research program at this point. But, again, it is
    DARPA trying to understand the technology so that we are not
    surprised by it.
        Admiral Hahn. If I could just pile onto that real quick,
    sir. It is not any specific technology that causes me concern,
    because every technology that we are interested in, China is
    interested in. They leverage much of our basic research,
    everything that is done out in the open. What bothers me more
    are the lack of structural impediments that they have to move
    those technologies from a university setting or a commercial
    setting into a military application. There are no structural
    impediments. In fact, they have lubricated that system to a
    point where, if there is direction to move it, it goes.
        We don't enjoy that same kind of streamlined system by
    design. I am not saying we need to change our design in that
    manner the way China has, but we certainly do need to think
    through structurally how are we going to do this differently so
    that the great work that is done in sort of the S&T side of the
    business and that we see every single day in our personal
    lives, when it comes time to apply it to naval warfighting or
    the rest of the fight, the joint fight, we have got good
    pathways to get it there. So that is the part that worries me
    is our ability or inability to move at speed.
        Mr. Veasey. When it comes to creativity, how are they doing
    on that? Because I know in the past that has always, you know,
    been an issue with China is that, yes, they are able to produce
    technologies and they are able to copy technologies. But as far
    as creativity is concerned, sometimes they lack in that area.
        Are you starting to see them catch up in the area of
    creativity?
        Admiral Hahn. The short answer is yes. So the creativity
    factor is there. It is not lost on me that the same places that
    educate many of their scientists and researchers are, in fact,
    the places here in the United States that educate ours. Their
    sophistication about military applications, the CONOPS, or the
    concepts of operations that those would fit into are not that
    much different from ours. So this notion in the National
    Defense Strategy to start to create dilemmas, create surprises
    like Dr. Walker indicated, that is becoming more and more
    important as we consider the use of technology and how we apply
    it and put it in evidence every single day.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
        Dr. Russell, did you have anything?
        Dr. Russell. I guess I will just add on the--where they are
    just copying what we are doing. I think in the area of quantum
    there are some areas where you can see that they--the Chinese,
    in particular, have actually been able to do satellite
    communications. But we have not done that in this country,
    which is a step beyond where we are at today. So it is not
    purely that some of our near-peer adversaries are just
    mimicking or replicating the work that we are doing today, but
    they are beginning to lead in several of these areas. And I
    think it is--part of it is driven by what Admiral Hahn
    mentioned, is there is a lack of barriers to be able to
    transition and move technologies that we face here in this
    country today.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
        I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
        Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Knight.
        Mr. Knight. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for
    allowing me to ask a couple questions. I am not on this
    committee. But any time Dr. Walker is in the room, I want to
    come in and chat about hypersonics.
        So my first questions, Mr. Larsen put a couple words out
    there that I think we should all be very aware of, and that is
    risk tolerance. I think that what we have done over the last
    maybe 30 years has gone into a society that we don't want to
    take risk. Unless it is perfectly ready to go, we don't do it.
        So my question is about some of these more advanced
    projects that we are working on, like hypersonics, which we
    have been doing for 60-plus years, but we are now calling them
    advanced, and X-Plane programs that we have kind of let go
    beyond the last couple decades, and now we are trying to revamp
    them. And I know NASA [National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration] has got their New Horizons projects.
        But let me ask the panel: Where you do stand on X-Planes?
    Where do you stand on kind of prototyping and getting something
    from a prototype to an action, to a weapon or an airplane or
    something very quick and that might take some risk also?
        Ms. Miller. So I will start and say in the 3 weeks 1 day
    that my boss has been on the job, he has certainly made it
    clear that he embraces the authorities that are given to him to
    do prototyping and experimentation and to do it with a purpose.
    When he was in his confirmation hearing, he talked about the
    major prototyping efforts that used to happen in the past and
    how we learned so much from those and how they did, in fact,
    give us capability that we could operationalize very quickly.
        I anticipate that we will see more of that as we all
    embrace the use of prototyping to help speed capability to the
    warfighter to make sure we get it right.
        Mr. Stanley. Sir, as you well know, the Air Force was built
    on prototyping. And we are getting back to our roots right now.
    As you mentioned, the two hypersonic prototyping programs as a
    follow-on to our partnership at DARPA right now. In addition to
    those, we have a low-cost attritable aircraft program that is a
    prototype out there.
        We had the Spectral Halo program, Global Lightning program.
    And what has made us be able to do this in the past couple
    years is, first, the section 804 language that increased the
    prototyping mind-set. And then, secondly, we have got a BA4
    line specifically set aside for Air Force prototyping that we
    have really leveraged. And based on our new warfighting
    construct, we have tried to allow that line to be our
    exploration line to see the art of the possible.
        Mr. Knight. Let me follow that up real quick.
        Do we screw it up here in Congress? Because we get projects
    out there like the Airborne Laser or some project like that
    that shows great promise and shows great action, and then
    funding is cut on a program that was about $12 million, or
    something happens that we don't take that to the next step and
    say this is something that we can absolutely use in the future.
        I just worry about, every time we stop a project, that data
    stops right there. And then when we pick it up a decade later,
    we have to pick up data that is already a decade old. And other
    countries can pick up that data, whether it be hypersonics or
    lasers, or whatever we are talking about, use that data or
    steal that data, which many countries are good at that. And
    then they are three steps ahead because they have used our
    three steps of R&D to get them to maybe operation.
        So, you know, these are blanket statements, but I think
    everyone understands where I am trying to go with this.
    Congress needs to be good at saying, ``Go do this. We are going
    to fund it. Make sure it works, and keep going.'' Because
    whatever it is, I could pick 20 projects out of my head right
    now that have gone to a data collecting position and never to
    the next step.
        So I will leave you with my last 22 seconds.
        Hypersonics. Are we moving fast, Dr. Walker.
        Dr. Walker. We are. We are about to, I should say. The new
    budget has given us a lot more money in the Air Force to
    basically take what we have been doing and what we are going to
    fly next year and prototype it into operations.
        So I am excited by the new budget and the ability to do
    that. The services are looking at hypersonics and looking at
    incorporating that into a new construct for fighting wars in
    the Pacific and elsewhere. And I think we will be moving out,
    especially, as Mary said, under the new USD (R&E), who is an
    aerospace engineer and has stated publicly that hypersonics is
    his number one priority.
        Mr. Knight. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thanks.
        You'll have to take the rest for the record.
        We have time for the second round of questions. Votes have
    been delayed a bit, and I know members have additional
    questions.
        My question, Mr. Stanley, you mentioned additive
    manufacturing in your opening statement, and that is a
    technology that is of particular interest in my district. And
    it is an increasingly important transformative capability for
    the Department, especially as we are able to use critical
    materials titanium and other metals.
        So first I want to ask Ms. Miller what is the Department's
    approach to additive manufacturing? What is being done to
    support the adoption of these capabilities?
        Ms. Miller. Well, we have a national manufacturing
    institute that was focused on additive manufacturing America
    makes, and that was started in--I think it was in 2012. You
    know, the national manufacturing institutes were set up for 5
    years of government funding, and then they were meant to be
    self-sustaining.
        In that particular effort, Mr. Stanley might be able to
    follow on, because the Air Force did pick up and add resources
    to them, because we are finding great benefit of that
    particular manufacturing institute. Additive manufacturing, as
    all the services will tell you, has been something that is part
    of our discovery of how it can benefit across the many
    disciplines that we have.
        Ms. Stefanik. And before I turn to Mr. Stanley, who I am
    going to follow up with, are there ways for the Department to
    validate or ensure that the manufacturing processes are uniform
    to guarantee trust, inflate safety, or other critical parts?
        Ms. Miller. That is an effort that the services are
    deliberately making to understand that if we can 3-D print
    something, but we need to know that every time we print it, it
    is going to be the same and have the right attributes. I know I
    personally was at AFRL last year and saw them working on how
    they do it that. It is an area of research. And, yes, we need
    to do it.
        Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Stanley.
        Mr. Stanley. Ma'am, additive manufacturing is a key
    fundamental building block for our systems going forward, as
    you have quite eloquently talked about. In addition, we are
    putting a lot of resources behind that certification process of
    these additive manufacturing designs and products that we are
    spitting out.
        So that is an important piece. We have got to come to
    agreement amongst the services, amongst the other agencies, the
    FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] included, on how we
    certify additive manufacturing parts for airworthiness and
    flight safety.
        Ms. Stefanik. Do the other services want to add here?
        Admiral Hahn. Certainly do.
        So inside the Navy, we are taking an all-the-above kind of
    strategy to work additive and advanced manufacturing mechanisms
    where they make sense. So if we can push a 3-D printer out to
    the edge and have a sailor or Marine print a part that is
    appropriate to relieve a logistic supply problem, that is
    great. But the hardest thing is going to be to get to
    airworthiness or, near and dear to my heart, something that I
    would put on a submarine and take that ship down to test depth
    and depend on that.
        And at the science level of this, we need to understand
    what is happening at the microstructure when we now take that
    same material that we know exactly what happens, or pretty well
    what happens, when we forge it or we cast it. But now we create
    a little molten pool at the micro level and create a part for
    it. That is much, much different. So that is significant
    research that needs to be done. We are doing it together, which
    is the good news. And we are doing it nationally, which is the
    better news. And once we get that, then we unlock the design
    space, because once you capture that digitally, then you can
    understand how now I can remove weight from that part, I can
    get the exact attributes I am after, and I can manufacture it
    differently, cheaper, with more fidelity, more repeatability
    using these advanced manufacturing techniques. So it will
    unlock quite a bit, and we need to get an advantage there and
    then keep it.
        Ms. Stefanik. Dr. Russell.
        Dr. Russell. Yeah, I agree with most of my colleagues--with
    all my colleagues. One thing I might add to it, it gives us the
    ability to be more adaptive to the threat. So as an example, we
    have a program currently in the Army. Instead of making small
    UASes [unmanned aerial systems], instead of producing 700
    UASes, what you might do is produce different capabilities and
    then have the ability in theater to produce a smaller UAS
    capability that would adapt to the threat that you are actually
    seeing. So instead of going to an industry and say, well, we
    need 400 or 700 UASes to support the mission, you actually
    produce them in real time and be an adaptable to the threats
    that you are seeing.
        Ms. Stefanik. Ms. Miller, one more follow-up.
        You mentioned the national manufacturing institute. How are
    you leveraging the private sector research and the innovation
    that is happening in additive manufacturing?
        Ms. Miller. Well, through that particular institute, we do
    have--you know, it was kind of--the national manufacturing
    institutes are almost a pilot for that private-Federal
    partnership, and it has been very effective. We have, I think,
    over 45 industries that are part of that consortium in working
    with the government and trying to create that national
    capability. So I think we are leveraging them fairly
    effectively in that particular space, and actually the rest of
    the institutes as well.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you.
        Mr. Langevin.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Again, thanks to our witnesses.
        Admiral Hahn, let me go back to something you said, I found
    it interesting, in that you talk about China's agility, that
    they don't have the same kind of limitations that we have
    because of the structure that exists. Not to replicate what
    they have, but how can we make our system more agile?
    Especially when you are talking about technology, it seems like
    those types of limitations really, on us now, very--have us
    proceeding with our hands tied behind our back if we can't move
    with the kind of agility that needs to be when it comes to
    technological advance.
        Admiral Hahn. So this is the 64 million or billion or
    trillion dollar question, I think. And it goes back to, I
    think, a little bit of Mr. Knight's thread as he kind of walked
    through the question, are we messing this up. And not that the
    Congress is messing it up, that we are together, I think,
    messing this up, in that we don't recognize the continuum of
    activity that must occur to pull one of these things through.
    We are going to fail sometimes, which needs to be okay. Because
    I failed doesn't mean that the funding is going to go away.
    Because I failed doesn't mean that we are going to stop the
    project. We got to continue on.
        We are going to move through different levels of expertise
    and different phases of this as we move ahead. And many times
    when that happens, at least inside of the services, we change
    the people who are involved. And the expertise goes from, oh,
    that is the science part. Now it is into the engineering part.
    Well, not really. It is all a blend, right? And more and more
    as we find these threads that we need to pull, we need to
    maintain our focus on it.
        So I am particularly encouraged with some of the things
    that I see happening in the Navy. The CNO [Chief of Naval
    Operations] and the Secretary [of the Navy] as well as the new
    ASN(RDA) [Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
    Development, and Acquisition], Mr. Geurts, have put a laser
    focus on some of these things that are important to bringing
    some lethality and some of this technology into the fleet and
    force. One of those areas is directed energy with our Navy
    family of lasers.
        And in and amongst that, we are taking more than one
    approach. We are not putting all our chips into that technical
    approach. We have three or four involved with that. We
    recognize that we are going to learn as we go. We have broken
    the problem into pieces so that a state of the practice fiber
    laser is being used to integrate onto a DDG-51, a destroyer
    combat system. That is a hard problem in and of itself. If I
    combine a state-of-the-art laser, then I am doubling or
    tripling my problem.
        So we are thinking through ways that we can divide the
    problem, but keep the focus and set up a series of, if you
    will, frog races, where these things are going to bump along at
    the pace that technology moves. Some may be better than others.
    But at the end point, as soon as it is ready, we want to have
    figured out the way to get it onto the ship, the plane, or the
    submarine, or in the hands of that Marine and not have the
    funding fall apart as we go through.
        So I applaud the Air Force for their dedication to this BA4
    activity that they protect as sacred to prototype and figure
    out a way to get that stuff fielded.
        So that is the right answer. And, you know, we are trying
    to replicate that. We require your advocacy and help to keep
    those things going, because a lot of times it is the certainty
    and the continuum of funding across this set of activities that
    becomes the impediment.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Langevin. Thanks for the answer, Admiral. And I think
    we have to have this philosophy that it is okay to fail as long
    as there is good lines of communication between the R&D
    community and the Congress, we can take these leaps together.
    And as long as we are not failing, then the--I like the Elon
    Musk philosophy with his people that if they are not failing,
    they are not trying hard enough. And we need to be okay with
    failing sometimes as long as we are doing it the right way and
    there is good communication.
        Let me just--it is kind of a related point. Ms. Miller, as
    I stated in my opening statement, I believe the reorganization
    provides an opportunity to rethink how DOD delivers most
    advanced capabilities to the warfighter in the near, mid, and
    long term. So related to all of this, for instance, it provides
    an opportunity for the Department to bridge the ``valley of
    death,'' so--that so many technologies and companies fall
    victim to, as well as provide an opportunity for greater
    leveraging of the DOD S&T ecosystem like labs.
        Can you please describe how R&E will work with the
    acquisition and sustainment side of the Department and how
    DOD's S&T ecosystem is being leveraged to its greatest
    potential?
        Ms. Miller. Yes, sir.
        With regards to the R&E and the A&S partnership, and it
    does remain a partnership by necessity, the USD(R&E) was given
    the authority to take that risk, to move fast, to fail and
    learn and try and use prototyping and experimentation to better
    inform, one, what the technology risk is and to drive it down
    where we can, and to inform requirements.
        Because as you well know, acquisition is based on the
    requirements and getting those requirements right. And one of
    the things that all of the services I think would agree with me
    when I say, sometimes we get requirements that were given to
    acquisition that aren't really what the warfighter wants. And
    the experimentation venues that the Under Secretary was given,
    the ability to do prototyping experimentation or helping to
    refine that before we get launched.
        So we will do those risky things and try to drive down risk
    and inform the requirements before we launch formalized
    programs of record. And then we go into those programs of
    record, and we have a better chance of success. The partnership
    is there. We need the acquisition guides to be the sounding
    board for when we are really crazy and we can't get the program
    there. And we need to be the guys always telling acquisition
    you have got to take it to get that next step beyond where you
    are. Don't just settle for an incremental change. And I think
    you are going to see that.
        Mr. Langevin. Good. Very good. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Larsen, do you have additional questions?
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
        First, Ms. Miller, I apologize. I did not see that you are
    a Washington Husky. But I am glad you are, so--yeah. And on
    that point, my other son--my one son is there. The other son is
    actually in the engineering school at a different school. But
    it brings up the point about the workforce and the STEM
    [science, technology, engineering, mathematics] workforce the
    pipeline create. And some universities, including ``the W''
    [University of Washington] now have changed. They haven't
    changed the requirements so much to get into engineering, but a
    lot of the larger state schools--you got to apply to the
    school, get in the school, and then, while you are there, get
    the grades to apply into the engineering school or the business
    school or so on.
        And some of the larger schools are changing that because,
    for whatever reason, it is providing them more opportunity for
    domestic students to get into these schools.
        And so this really gets into the question about the
    availability of the pipeline, the availability of the
    workforce, if it is necessary to have U.S. citizens or not, and
    what that means for you in terms of recruiting for the
    workforce that you need to continue to do the work that you are
    doing. So it is all kind of related, but I just wanted to--it
    is really about that availability and what things can you do to
    open up that pipeline. And have you thought through that?
        Ms. Miller. We have been thinking through it. It is a
    concern for all of us because a STEM-literate citizenry is not
    only important to the Department of Defense, it is important to
    the Nation writ large. And so, actually, the services and OSD
    [Office of the Secretary of Defense] and the defense industrial
    base have been doing what they can to incentivize this STEM
    pipeline, as you put it. All of the services reach down into
    the early grades on up to get that resonance of wanting to be
    in STEM.
        What we have been trying to do is champion additional
    incentives to keep U.S. citizens working into the higher
    academia, like Ph.D. programs, so that they will work in areas
    of national defense. This is an area where, in many
    disciplines, we get foreign nationals that will be doing that
    work and doing that Ph.D. thesis. And the U.S. citizens are
    going out and getting jobs. And it does not help us when we see
    reports where, gee, you can get out with a bachelor's and start
    to work right away, and you can make more money than somebody
    who can get a Ph.D. and took 7 years to get there. That is not
    helpful to us.
        However, it is up to us to one, we give them good problems
    to solve in the Department of Defense, because we have very
    challenging problems. But we need to help them make sure that
    that is the choice that they want to make. So we are offering
    scholarships to help incentivize them to go into discipline
    areas that will help us. And we are looking at how we can make
    it more enticing to keep them in that.
        Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Are you exploring at all the ability--you
    have a flexibility to bring people in and out. So on the
    National Guard side, you got cyber warriors, you know, folks
    who can give you a weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, and you
    can bring them in, you can bring them out when you need them,
    as opposed to making them commit to wear the uniform for 3
    years.
        Ms. Miller. Yes. We are absolutely looking at the
    flexibilities of being able to bring people from academia,
    industry into the government and send them back out again.
        Sadly, if you are a government employee, when you go out,
    you sometimes have limitations. And there have been--some of
    the language that had been provided is being interpreted in a
    way that folks don't have the flexibility to come in and out
    and not be held--I guess prevented from working in that
    discipline. And that is something we are working on. How do we
    make sure that we do not disadvantage people that want to come
    work in the Department.
        But the way the world is right now, people want to change
    jobs frequently. They want the experience. And we want to
    maximize our ability to do that.
        Mr. Larsen. Yeah. That is fine.
        Thank you. I yield back. Go, Dogs.
        Ms. Stefanik. That is it for our questions. And in closing,
    I want to thank the witnesses. I want to thank the members,
    both the subcommittee members and the non-subcommittee members,
    for their excellent questions.
        And I want to reiterate the quote that I included in my
    opening statement from Jim Mattis, who recently testified.
    Quote, ``Our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of
    warfare: air, land, sea, space, and cyber.''
        From my perspective, it is our responsibility as
    policymakers and as a Congress to ensure that we don't lose a
    competitive edge in any domain or in any technology,
    particularly as we look at what 21st century warfare looks like
    in the next 10, 20, 30 years.
        And I also wanted to reiterate Dr. Walker's comment where
    he stated one of the founding missions of DARPA was to ensure
    that the U.S. is always the initiator of strategic surprise.
    That is something that we need to continue to focus on as
    policymakers when it comes to our S&T portfolio.
        So thank you very much for the testimony today.
        And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 March 14, 2018

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

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 March 14, 2018

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                  WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                                  THE HEARING

                                 March 14, 2018

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

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN

        Ms. Miller. Although the legislation does require USD (A&S) to
    establish ``an appropriate leadership structure and office within which
    a cadre of Intellectual Property Experts shall be managed,'' the
    Department is still in the planning process, and has not yet formed
    such an entity. The establishment of this office has been deferred
    while the Department's leadership addresses the creation of the Under
    Secretaries for Research & Engineering and Acquisition and Sustainment.
      [See page 18.]
        Ms. Miller. The pilot authority of Sec. 1710 of the FY18 NDAA will
    allow organizations across the Department to easily leverage SBIR and
    STTR developed technologies, supplies, or services. In implementing the
    pilot, we first coordinated with Services and Agencies to identify
    where multiple award agreements were already in use to support SBIR and
    STTR technology development and transition. Our guidance for
    implementation of a DOD-wide pilot was modelled on these programs to
    allow incorporation of lessons from the field. In early June,
    implementation instructions were distributed throughout the Department
    to encourage additional use of multiple award contracts to covered
    small business concerns for the purchase of technologies, supplies, or
    services developed in the SBIR or STTR Program. In addition to the Sec.
    1710 pilot program, the SBIR and STTR programs have multiple tools
    available to support technology transition. These include Phase III of
    the SBIR and STTR programs where no SBIR funds are provided by
    government or prime contractors to complete critical development or
    testing of these technologies in preparation for transition. The Rapid
    Innovation Fund (RIF) program provides another avenue to enable
    transition of technologies from the SBIR and STTR programs to meet
    warfighter needs. Additionally, the Commercialization Readiness Program
    (CRP) is used the provided dedicated support to improve transition
    outcomes for many technologies. Finally, the department was also
    successful in the use of the Phase Flexibility pilot authority (also
    known as Direct to Phase II), which unfortunately expired at the end of
    FY17. Phase flexibility provided the ability to shorten the development
    cycle for critical technology solutions. In today's environment, rapid
    delivery of technical capabilities to the warfighter is critical. This
    authority has shortened the development time for technologies to
    transition to Phase III funding. This encourages companies with more
    mature technologies to participate in the program, further enhancing
    the technical solutions available to DOD. This provision should be
    reauthorized and made a permanent part of the program. The third phase
    of the SBIR and STTR programs, referred to as Phase III or the
    ``commercialization phase'', as well as the Rapid Innovation Fund (RIF)
    program provide resources that are critical for the successful
    transition of new technologies into the Department. While not every
    research project can (or should) transition, for those technologies
    that are ready and provide needed capabilities, the additional funding
    available through Phase III and RIF allows further maturation of
    technologies as well as needed testing and evaluation.   [See page 18.]

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

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                 March 14, 2018

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

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN

        Mr. Larsen. Please provide what percentage of the topline request
    S&T has compromised (6.1-6.3) for FY19 and the previous four fiscal
    years.
        Ms. Miller. Fiscal Year 2019: 2.0 percent Fiscal Year 2018: 2.1
    percent Fiscal Year 2017: 2.0 percent Fiscal Year 2016: 2.1 percent
    Fiscal Year 2015: 2.1 percent
        Mr. Larsen. During the hearing, we spoke of the need to expand on
    the successful Robotarium concept (open access, collaboration with NSF,
    partnership with academia, swarms of autonomous vehicles).
        What would the total cost to the ONR be (assuming a 50/50 cost
    share with NSF) be to establish a Multi-Domain Robotarium incorporating
    UUVs, USVs, and UASs, and what would the value be of such an
    initiative?
        Admiral Hahn. The Robotarium concept presents an opportunity for
    researchers to conduct experiments with distributed and interconnected
    autonomous systems, which are expected to play an increasingly
    important role in future defense operations. These types of systems may
    enable new capabilities across a wide range of defense applications
    including tactical sensing and prediction of ocean and littoral
    environments, surveillance, reconnaissance/search, mine
    countermeasures, force protection, logistics, and humanitarian and
    expeditionary operations. For the defense research enterprise, the
    Robotarium addresses an important challenge of scaling up innovation
    and reducing the cost of entry in order to accelerate advances in
    technology and fundamental understanding of scalable, collaborative
    autonomous systems. Rather than having individual researchers or
    institutions invest time and resources on hardware development and
    maintenance, the Robotarium provides a remotely accessible multi-
    robotic testbed. This enables researchers to upload new software and
    automatically conduct experiments to test and compare methods, gain new
    knowledge, and advance robotics technology. The total potential cost
    depends on the scale and capability of the completed work and
    experimentation space. A range for the endeavor would be $2-10 million
    depending on the size, scope and complexity. One of the big challenges
    that will drive the costs is the extent of investment to simulate the
    effects of genuine undersea mission, sensor, and communications
    payloads such as sonar and acoustic communications. If more realistic
    sized vehicles that are used by the military and realistic conditions
    are needed, the cost could easily increase an order of magnitude.
    Additionally, operating costs are not included in this estimate.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER
        Ms. Speier. The Administration's FY 19 budget proposes to reduce
    funding for the Defense Science and Technology (S&T) program by $350
    million or approximately 2.5 percent from FY 2017 enacted. Requested
    funding is also below what is proposed in both the House and Senate FY
    18 Defense Appropriations bills. Given that a priority of the National
    Defense Strategy is to maintain the Department technological advantage,
    it is puzzling why the budget requests fewer resources for the Defense
    S&T program. As is stated in FY 19 budget documents, the Defense S&T
    program ``invests and develops capabilities that advance the technical
    superiority of the U.S. military to counter new and emerging threats.''
    Please explain the rational for requesting fewer resources for Defense
    S&T given that the Department received significant relief from the
    budget caps.
        Ms. Miller. The Department's President's Budget (PB) request for
    S&T (includes Base, OCO, and Amendments) has grown as compared to the
    previous year's PB request. The PB request for FY 2017 was $12.7B, FY
    2018 was $13.2B, and FY 2019 was $13.7B. The growth between FY 2017 and
    FY 2018 is 4.6%, and between FY 2018 and FY 2019 is 3.2%. The S&T
    request for FY 2017-FY 2019 has been constant at 2% of the DOD PB
    Requested Topline (includes Base, OCO, and Amendments). The DOD PB
    Request represents the best balance of requirements against resources.
    It should be noted that efforts in other RDT&E lines (i.e., 6.4-6.7)
    also contribute to the ability to maintain the Department's
    technological advantage.
                                     ______

                       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN
        Mr. Lamborn. Regarding DIUx, how does DOD plan to improve outreach
    to innovative companies outside of the Silicon Valley, Boston, and
    Austin?
        Ms. Miller. Since June 2016, more than 650 companies from 43 states
    have submitted proposals in response to DIUx's solicitations. Outreach
    is key, and DIUx has a multi-prong strategy for nationwide outreach to
    key groups in order to feature streamlined business processes and the
    DOD challenges. Targeted efforts for engagement include: presentations/
    panel participation at key national technology/innovation events;
    placement and interviews in targeted trade and mainstream publications;
    outreach to incubators, accelerators, and venture capitalists across
    the country; coordination and visits to State economic development
    entities including local chambers of commerce, civic associations, and
    SBIR/STTR entities on local bases; connection to the citizen soldiers,
    sailors, airmen, and Marines who serve as technology industry leaders
    and entrepreneurs when they're not on duty as reservists/National
    Guard.
                                     ______

                        QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HICE
        Mr. Hice. Dr. Walker, in looking at the DOD's research and
    development plan, do you believe that our universities could be
    involved in long-term research and building up the bench strength of
    scientists and engineers for American hypersonics technical know-how?
    How do you engage with the university community to address the long-
    term research and skilled workforce needs in hypersonics?
        Dr. Walker. Universities cannot only be involved in strengthening
    our nation's hypersonics workforce, they provide a critical role in
    establishing and maintaining a robust pipeline of qualified and
    energized young scientists and engineers to support one of DOD's top
    modernization priorities. There are multiple opportunities to engage
    and align university resources with DOD needs. The first is through
    Multi-disciplinary University Research Initiatives (MURI), executed by
    the DOD's service research offices--such the Air Force Office of
    Scientific Research (AFOSR), Office of Naval Research (ONR), and Army
    Research Office (ARO). MURIs can be focused on hypersonic technology
    development areas such as aerodynamics and aeroheating; structures and
    materials; airbreathing and rocket propulsion; guidance, navigation,
    and control; and rapid/robust design, integration, optimization, and
    uncertainty. Secondly, DARPA engages universities through its basic
    research programs through its Defense Sciences Office (DSO), that
    address technology development areas such as basic material science for
    hypersonic systems. Finally, DARPA and the services can work together
    in sponsoring hypersonic flight research experiments that engage the
    university community and offer a unique opportunity to rapidly build
    experience in our young workforce. This is exemplified by the DARPA/
    AFOSR hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition (BoLT) project which is
    sponsoring two university-led teams to conduct ground and flight
    experiments to advance our fundamental understanding of boundary layer
    transition physics for a new class of hypersonic geometry.