[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-79]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
HEARING
ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY,
POLICY, AND PROGRAMS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2021: MAINTAINING A
ROBUST ECOSYSTEM FOR OUR TECHNOLOGICAL EDGE
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 11, 2020
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-443 WASHINGTON : 2021
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island, Chairman
RICK LARSEN, Washington ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
JIM COOPER, Tennessee SAM GRAVES, Missouri
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
RO KHANNA, California AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
ANDY KIM, New Jersey MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
JASON CROW, Colorado, Vice Chair DON BACON, Nebraska
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan JIM BANKS, Indiana
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
Bess Dopkeen, Professional Staff Member
Eric Snelgrove, Professional Staff Member
Caroline Kehrli, 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,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and
Capabilities................................................... 1
Stefanik, Hon. Elise M., a Representative from New York, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and
Capabilities................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Geurts, Hon. James F., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development and Acquisition, Department of the Navy.. 5
Griffin, Hon. Michael D., Under Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering, Office of the Secretary of Defense............ 4
Jette, Hon. Bruce D., Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, Department of the Army.. 4
Roper, Hon. William B., Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of the
Air Force...................................................... 7
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Geurts, Hon. James F......................................... 65
Griffin, Hon. Michael D...................................... 39
Jette, Hon. Bruce D.......................................... 57
Langevin, Hon. James R....................................... 35
Roper, Hon. William B., Jr................................... 82
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Dr. Abraham.................................................. 103
Mr. Cooper................................................... 103
Mr. Larsen................................................... 103
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Ms. Houlahan................................................. 113
Mr. Langevin................................................. 107
Mr. Larsen................................................... 107
Mr. Scott.................................................... 112
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY, POLICY, AND PROGRAMS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021: MAINTAINING A ROBUST
ECOSYSTEM FOR OUR TECHNOLOGICAL EDGE
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging
Threats and Capabilities,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 11, 2020.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 2212 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James R. Langevin
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM RHODE ISLAND, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND
EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
Mr. Langevin. The subcommittee will come to order.
Good afternoon, everyone. I am pleased to welcome you back
to this committee, the Department's highest science and
technology leadership, to testify on the fiscal year 2021
President's budget request for the Department of Defense
science and technology programs.
Before us today are the services' technology and
acquisition executives. These individuals must divide their
attention between fielding the best technology to the
warfighters as quickly and efficiently as possible in the near
and mid term, and protecting science and technological
innovations that enable the Department to keep its
technological edge over the long term.
Under Secretary Mike Griffin, Assistant Secretary Bruce
Jette, Assistant Secretary ``Hondo'' Geurts, and Assistant
Secretary Roper, we welcome you here today and look forward to
this important discussion.
At a time when our national defense planning has shifted
focus to great power competition, addressing the challenge from
rising science powers requires an ambitious plan of national
investment and aggressive talent development in science and
technology. Funding for basic research, applied research, and
advanced technology development in our universities,
laboratories, small businesses, and the tech sector seeds the
necessary science to grow the advanced technological
capabilities required for our next-generation military
engagements. Yet, with bipartisan support for a drastic
increase in investment in our national security innovation base
in this era of strategic competition, somehow growth in the
science and technology budget is almost always sacrificed to
field the mature technologies of today.
So how is it that this year, with an Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering created for the very
purpose of looking past the horizon, and with a National
Security Strategy that claims to be focused on deterring the
wars of the next two to three decades, the Department was able
to submit a budget request that was less proposed S&T [science
and technology] funding than last year.
Due to inflation and labor escalation of scientists and
engineers, and despite Congress' efforts to restore S&T funding
each year, the S&T budget has been effectively shrinking for
the past decade.
In fiscal year 2021, with the total Department of Defense-
wide S&T budgets annually decreasing for the first time in
years, we are left wondering what the future of our defense
will truly look like. Without both Department leadership and
Congress protecting the S&T budget, our warfighters risk losing
the technical edge to prevail in future conflicts of ever-
evolving complexity.
If the U.S. is to remain a global leader in technology, we
cannot simply play defense. We must also play offense.
Investments in science and research and other development
efforts across the whole of government are necessary and vital
to maintaining a technological edge. We must invest in STEM
[science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] education;
programs that develop junior talent into future tech leaders;
university research; and actively endeavor to diversify our S&T
workforce. We must implement policies that promote a sound
economic, political, and strategic environment on U.S. soil
where global collaboration, discovery, innovation, public
institutions, and industry can all thrive. And I recognize that
the open dialogue and debate of academia can mean an anathema
to the secrecy we rely on in the Department of Defense but we
must also recognize and embrace the competitive advantage our
free society provides us to out-innovate and develop better
products faster.
Finally, I must emphasize that we will not attain the
technological edge that we need if we refuse to take risks,
push the scientific boundaries, and challenge the red tape. We
must empower those who lean forward on innovation, whether it
is to be in our laboratories, small businesses, universities,
research offices, tech sector, or in contracting offices. I
realize that this does not come easily for the Department, as
the overriding culture is one of risk avoidance, but we need to
empower the S&T workforce and community to enable technological
leaps that will ensure that our warfighters never enter a fair
fight.
With that, before we turn to our witnesses, I am going to
turn now to Ranking Member Stefanik for any remarks that she
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Langevin can be found in the
Appendix on page 35.]
STATEMENT OF HON. ELISE M. STEFANIK, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
YORK, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND EMERGING
THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Chairman Langevin, and thank you
to the witnesses for being here today.
I want to stress how important our investments in science
and technology, and the innovation ecosystem are to our
national and economic security. The National Defense Science
and Technology Strategy required by Congress and submitted in
October of 2019 rightly noted that, quote, technology will be
the currency of future strategic competition. This strategy
identified the major modernization priorities, and set a course
for continued investment, and, most importantly, persistent
focus and accountability inside the Under Secretary of Defense
for Research and Engineering and across the services.
I appreciate the Department's effort energizing the S&T
Enterprise around these critical technologies in order to
enable our long-term preparedness for the future. There is
recognition that the DOD [Department of Defense] cannot meet
this challenge alone. I applaud your efforts to bolster the
defense innovation enterprise through initiatives like the
Defense Innovation Unit, AFWERX, Army Applications Lab, Army
Open Campus, and NavalX. However, we must view the adoption and
application of commercial technologies as the new normal and
not simply through the limited lens of a pilot program. Many of
the new technologies that are being adopted for military
applications grew out of defense basic research but were
matured, commercialized, and fielded with private sector
investment. Disciplines like artificial intelligence, biotech,
autonomous systems, and additive manufacturing have advanced
significantly because of the investment and collaboration
across the innovation ecosystem to include academia, industry,
government, laboratories, and the venture capital community.
I also firmly believe that science and technology is a team
sport and we must partner with our allies to develop the
technologies and policies that will provide a Western, more
responsible alternative to China's authoritarian approach.
The Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Innovation
concluded in their final report that slowing China down is not
as effective as outpacing it. With this challenge in mind, we
must build the alliances and partnerships that will provide the
investment of human capital and shared research and development
that can contest the goals of Made in China 2025.
However, I remain concerned that our S&T investments
represent a small amount of our overall defense budget and a
decreasing percentage of our total RDT&E [research,
development, test, and evaluation] budget. In fact, last year
this Congress added nearly $2.0 billion in science and
technology funding to the fiscal year 2020 defense
appropriation to make up for the shortfall in the budget
request. This Congress, and this committee particularly,
recognized the importance of research and development to our
long-term technological superiority. Any degradation in these
investments places the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage and,
more importantly, risks skipping a generation of domestic
science and engineering expertise that is so desperately needed
and already in such short supply in disciplines like AI
[artificial intelligence], mathematics, computer science, and
aerospace engineering.
Finally, we cannot allow our own risk aversion or fear of
failure to constrain our military from acquiring breakthrough
technologies. Congress has made strides over the last several
years to provide flexibility to the Department in
experimentation, rapid innovation and acquisition, and outreach
through public-private partnerships. I am particularly
interested in understanding how these authorities are being
utilized and what more we can do to improve our defense
innovation ecosystem.
Thank you again to our witnesses and I yield back to the
chair.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Ranking Member Stefanik.
We will now turn to our witnesses for their testimony. And
with that, Under Secretary Griffin, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE
Secretary Griffin. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stefanik, I
would, in the interest of time, would prefer to yield back my
time for an opening statement. My written statement has been
submitted for the record. I don't think I can improve on it.
So, I will allow you to pass to the next witness.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Griffin can be found
in the Appendix on page 39.]
Mr. Langevin. Okay. Thank you, Secretary Griffin.
With that, Secretary Jette.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE D. JETTE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF
THE ARMY
Secretary Jette. Chairman Langevin, Ranking Member
Stefanik, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities thank you for
inviting me to discuss the Army's science and technology budget
for fiscal year 2021 and for making my written statement a part
of the record for today's hearing.
The Army's S&T program seeks to invest in a balanced
portfolio of achieving a modernized force capable of conducting
multi-domain operations across an array of scenarios in
multiple theaters by 2035 and beyond. Our focus is on discovery
and delivery of new and emerging technologies, then, maturing
technology to reduce programs' risk.
Technology prototypes, proof, affordable, and achievable
requirements, experimentation with soldiers refines new
operational concepts enabled by the emerging technologies. We
work closely with Army's Futures Command to identify technology
requirements in the near, mid, and forward term. Resources,
then, are focused on Army modernization priorities, though not
exclusively, to allow for unanticipated discovery.
The Army's nine priority research areas include disruptive
energetics, quantum, hypersonic flight, artificial
intelligence, autonomy, and science of advanced manufacturing,
which closely align with both the 8 National Defense Strategy
rapid technology advancements and OSD's [Office of the
Secretary of Defense's] 11 modernization priorities. We depend
heavily on our S&T program to help prepare for the future,
mitigate the possibility of technical surprise, and ensure that
we are able to remain dominant in every environment.
The Army also employs more than 25,000 military, civilian,
and contract scientists, engineers, and technicians at
laboratories across the country, who are critical assets in
identifying, developing, and demonstrating technical options.
We are grateful to Congress for the numerous staffing
flexibilities provided to the Army laboratories, such as direct
hire authority, renewable term appointments, and other
initiatives that have been instrumental in growing the
technical workforce and shaping their skills in emerging areas.
Let me briefly talk about reform. With the support of
Congress, the Army has undertaken a number of initiatives to
improve efficiency and effectiveness. Our intellectual property
policy fosters dialogue with industry early in the process so
we are clear about our data requirements and data rights, as
well as our efforts to maintain technological advantage.
Talent management is critical to efficient and effective
operations. We are not only interested in recruiting top talent
but have a number of programs underway to retain them. This
includes a revised recruiting, retention, and management
program for hard skills, particularly STEM, officers in the
military.
Lastly, we continue to expand our industry outreach program
to actively seek out nontraditional businesses with new and
innovative ideas that are willing to engage with the Army.
AFC's [Army Futures Command's] Capital Factory, Innovation
Days, the 75th Innovation Command, combined with Industry Days
by the program executive offices, establishment of the Rapid
Capability and Critical Technology Office, Open Campus at Army
Research Laboratories, xTechSearch, and many other programs
have been fostered to just open these doors for innovators.
Thank you for your strong support of the Army programs, the
authorities you have provided, and this opportunity to discuss
Army S&T.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Jette can be found in
Appendix on page 57.]
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Secretary.
Now, Secretary Geurts, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES F. GEURTS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION, DEPARTMENT OF
THE NAVY
Secretary Geurts. Chairman Langevin, Ranking Member
Stefanik, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thanks for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Department of the Navy's science and technology efforts and how
they support the National Defense Strategy and, most
importantly, our sailors and Marines. It is my honor to
represent the entire science and technology enterprise in this
hearing today.
Before I begin, I would like to extend the Department's
deepest condolences to the two families of our Marine Raiders
killed this weekend in Iraq, Gunnery Sergeant Pongo and Captain
Navas. Their sacrifice serves as a stark reminder of the
seriousness of our jobs, as we work together to best serve our
Marines and sailors.
The Department's fiscal year 2021 S&T program aggressively
pursues increased lethality and modernization with the greatest
potential to deliver nonlinear warfighting advantages. To
deliver future naval power, the Navy and Marine Corps invested
in a diverse set of innovative thinkers and doers. Included in
this are a technical workforce at the Offices of Naval
Research, the Naval Research Laboratory, and our many warfare
centers. It also includes our over 341 university partners, 91
nonprofit partners, and over 20,000 small and large businesses,
all working together to support our efforts.
Scaling innovation requires tool sets to enhance the impact
of this R&D. Our NavalX office, established in 2019, creates
the network that thickens our ability to share best practices,
relationships, and key ideas across the entire Department of
the Navy.
NavalX guides, empowers, and connects our workforce to
achieve the pivot speed that we need to have at enterprise
scale. Part of this program includes our tech bridges, which
leverage and establish ecosystems of expertise all across the
country. We currently have six tech bridges established. That
will double here in the next 30 days.
I would like to thank Congress for the wide range of
authorities you have provided us. The Navy is taking full
advantage of those authorities to increase agility, refine and
streamline our business processes, and drive efficiencies. The
authorities are making a real difference every day in how the
Department of the Navy both recapitalizes our capital assets
and strengthens our workforce.
Authorities such as 233 in the fiscal year 2017 NDAA
[National Defense Authorization Act], allowed us to decrease
processing time for procurement contracts, infrastructure
action, and IT [information technology] actions. We saved over
a half a million processing days using that authority alone.
Again, it is making a real difference to folks down in the
trenches and I thank you very much for that.
As we continue to leverage these authorities and get our
iteration speed up, we are looking for other innovative
business and architectural strategies that will let us go at
the speed of relevance. These include reforming our SBIR [Small
Business Innovation Research program] process, where we have
taken our most recent BAA [Broad Agency Announcement], our end-
to-end cycle time from idea to solution on contract from about
124 days down to 28 days.
We will continue to work with our teammates here at the
table, as we all try and compete at the global scale. And we
thank you for the strong support this subcommittee has always
provided our sailors, and Marines, and their families. And
thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Geurts can be found in
the Appendix on page 65.]
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Secretary Geurts.
Secretary Roper, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM B. ROPER, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Secretary Roper. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stefanik,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on an important topic for our
military, which is science and technology. It is an honor to
represent the Department of the Air Force and to be here with
my distinguished colleagues.
And as I testified last year, preparing for a hearing like
this is good for the soul. You get to go through a lot of
amazing ideas, amazing technology that are being worked on by
people in our laboratory that really do make science fiction
sound like it is going to be real in the future.
Too, I would like to highlight our one group working on
nanosized sonograms that are trying to make the Star Trek
``tricorder'' a reality in the future. And another is a new
material called samarium nickel oxide, which decouples the
temperature of that material from its thermal emission, paving
the way for what could be a cloaking device in the future. So I
am all for making Star Trek real for the military in the
future. We just need a warp drive to get it over the goal line.
It is easy to stand back from amazing technology and
amazing ideas like that and feel comforted that the future of
our military is in good hands. And I have all the confidence in
our research enterprise, but our National Security Strategy
makes it clear we are competing against peers that can match us
tech-for-tech, person-for-person and so we have to bring a
competitive mindset into this important portfolio and make days
and weeks count.
Last year we requested $2.8 billion in our S&T account for
the Department of the Air Force, up 6 percent from the previous
year. We were able to hold that steady in this fiscal year in
our request but take up our research and development efforts in
classified S&T. I would be happy to share the classified
portfolio with you in a closed setting.
We have also made a significant reform in consolidating our
program elements. We are wanting to put the amount of accounts
that we have in S&T, we want to reduce them so we have greater
flexibility and agility to adapt to successes and also
commercial tech trends.
Both yourself, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Stefanik,
your opening comments make it clear that our challenge is that
we are a free and open society competing against a closed
society. And the closed society that China and others have give
them the ability to nationalize their industry base and
nationalize their S&T efforts.
So we are going to have to find a way to make the
Department of Defense work in this broader ecosystem in a way
that is win-win. We are currently 20 percent of the R&D in this
country; 80 percent is commercial. If we don't find a way to
work in the 80 percent, then doing the 20 percent well will be
insufficient to compete and win long term.
So we have to do four things to become a modern S&T
enterprise that can compete and win long term. We need to be
the best inventor of technology that we are not going to get
from the commercial sector either at all or on time. We need to
be the best leverager of technology that is coming out of
commercial innovation. We also need to be a partner and a
catalyzer of commercial tech. And then finally, as all of my
colleagues have noted, we have to compete for talent. All of
this is on a foundational bedrock of quality people that are
world-leading focused on our missions.
So I will go through an example or two of each. In terms of
inventing, there are so many military-unique technology
applications that we need world-leading researchers on.
Hypersonics and directed energy probably come to mind but there
are things we need to start doing on next-generation solid
state devices that will be required by the military before they
will commercially that our research lab is leading the charge
working with universities across the country.
I am also excited that the Department of the Air Force has
created a new process to help transition technology out of the
lab and into programs of record. We didn't have one before. So
we have modeled this process, called the Vanguard process,
after the Strategic Capabilities Office, partnering the
technologist with a program executive officer so that the
details of transition, the logistics, the cost, the training
that might not be resident in the laboratory get augmented by a
program executive officer that knows what needs to be done to
get to the goal line.
We are leveraging technologies like AI across initiatives
like ``FuelAI'' in our Distributed Common Ground Station and
have finally gotten that to initial operational capability. And
we are partnering on reforms like SBIR, fundamentally changing
the way we work with tech startups, increasing our output by
threefold and bringing companies that wouldn't have worked with
the Air Force in. I will be happy to share more details in the
testimony.
Finally, the new thing we are working on that I hope to
testify more on next year is catalyzing. I have an example or
two which we can hit on in the hearing today but we need to
look at where commercial markets are going, skate ahead of the
puck, and see how the military market can help bring not just
commercial technology to bear for the warfighter but markets to
bear in this country faster than in our competitors. That is
part of competing in this global ecosystem, where we play a
role that is synergistic with our commercial counterparts.
And finally, with respect to talent--as I said, it is
foundational--you have given us authorities to hire better,
hire faster, and be competitive with commercial pay scales. We
have used these aggressively in the Air Force. We have gotten
great talent but we can do more. We can never be satisfied with
the talent we have.
Thank you for your questions today and thank you, again,
for this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Roper can be found in
the Appendix on page 82.]
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Secretary Roper, and thank you,
gentlemen, for your testimony here today.
We will now go to member questions. I will start by
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Secretary Griffin, I will start with you. As the R&E [Under
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering], we look to
you to champion the science and technology, and innovation
ecosystem of the Department. Of course, we were disappointed to
see that this year the 6.1 to 6.3 S&T budget was less than last
year. The Defense Planning Guidance has, historically, directed
at least zero percent real growth. So the S&T budget was,
effectively, a half a billion dollars less than we expected.
Indeed, your defense-wide R&E budget was even $245 million less
than last year's request.
How did the Department walk away from its commitment to
protect the science and technology budget this year?
Secretary Griffin. Sir, the Department has not walked away
from that. We highly value S&T funding. This is a tough budget
environment. We don't have topline growth and we have many,
many priorities.
As we went through our budget work, I, in fact, was an
advocate in R&E for S&T topline growth but, in reality, there
are no bad programs. And in an environment where we didn't have
any bad programs we were, inevitably, in order to close our
budget, we were going to have to make priority choices, and we
did.
When we talk about S&T, I will point out, on behalf of my
service acquisition executive partners, that actually the Army
grew by 6 percent. Navy grew by 1 percent. Air Force maintained
zero percent real growth. It was OSD that took a 4 percent cut.
So, the parsing of our S&T budget was done across the
Department very carefully.
I will only conclude by saying we did the best that we
thought we could.
Mr. Langevin. Well, Secretary Griffin, I appreciate your
perspective. I see it a different way.
But Secretary Roper, let me turn to you. I am a Star Trek
fan so I like the idea of developing warp drive for the next
generation but you know the reality is, you are the Air Force's
well-known champion of innovation. How do the Air Force's S&T
requests come out at less than zero percent real growth from
last year's requested funding level? And how do the Air Force's
basic research and advanced technology development decrease by
about 8 percent each? And what will it take for the Department
to champion the long-term science and technology budget in the
face of demands to field new capabilities quickly?
Secretary Roper. Yes, Mr. Chairman, as Dr. Griffin alluded,
it was a tough budget year and, sometimes, the innovation
voices did not win at budget closeout. A lot of things on the
Air Force's plate, with nuclear modernization, the standup of
Space Force, Joint All-Domain Command and Control, and,
unfortunately, when we had to make the budget balance, we had
to look for areas to take risk. And I share your concern.
Taking risk in basic research may not put the military at risk
today or tomorrow but it is eroding that foundational layer
that creates the game-changing technologies of the future.
The one area that I can share good news, and I would
certainly invite the committee to take a briefing on our
classified S&T, it doesn't get reported in wide-world S&T but,
as we think about competing against countries like China and
Russia, if we have foundational research, that publishing it
would simply let our adversary jump ahead. It is great that we
have researchers that are willing to work with us at a
classified level, not publish their research, and help us have
a military edge. We made a sizeable movement in that portfolio
and I would invite the committee to take a briefing, if of
interest.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you. And before--the last question I
have for Secretary Griffin.
For the rapid technological advancements outlined in the
NDS [National Defense Strategy] and for your 11 modernization
priorities, last year's NDAA tasked the Department to lean
forward strategically developing policies on how we should use
and deploy these future technologies, and to consider how these
emerging capabilities will contribute to new security
strategies.
Concurrency in policy, in tech development, I believe is
critical to successful employment of capabilities and being a
global leader in establishing norms for use of technologies.
Yet, too often, policy lags development. In your view, what
action does the Department need to take to promote concurrency
in policy, employment concepts, training, doctrine, and other
matters as technologies mature?
Secretary Griffin. Sir, I will take that question for the
record. I can't answer that here today.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Mr. Langevin. Okay. I think that that is pretty--would be a
pretty basic answer. You have to make sure that we are doing
policy development and technology development simultaneously.
This doesn't seem to be rocket science.
Secretary Griffin. I don't----
Mr. Langevin. With that, I will yield back.
Secretary Griffin. I don't disagree.
Mr. Langevin. I yield to Ms. Stefanik.
Secretary Griffin. I am sorry, sir. I don't disagree but
your question was quite detailed and I want to give it the
attention it deserves.
Mr. Langevin. Fair enough. Thank you, Secretary.
Ms. Stefanik, the ranking member.
Ms. Stefanik. Thanks, Chairman.
Dr. Griffin, I wanted to ask you about 5G. As you know,
Congress provided $200 million to the Department in fiscal year
2020 for the 5G Next Generation Information Communications
Technology Initiative. This was, of course, in order to advance
U.S. leadership in 5G and next-generation wireless
technologies.
The Department has requested $449 million in fiscal year
2021. Can you explain how this is improving the government-wide
strategy to ensure U.S. leadership in 5G and how has private
industry, from your perspective, responded to this R&D
initiative?
Secretary Griffin. Second question or second part first.
Private industry has responded with both feet, jumping in with
both feet on the initiative that DOD has taken. We are, as I am
sure you are aware, we have released RFPs [requests for
proposals] to industry through our Spectrum Consortium. We are
judging those now. We have received many proposals to
collaborate with us. We are putting forward, initially,
experiments on four--actually, we are going for five different
bases because the Congress has called out Nellis as a specific
base where we must experiment and we have four others in our
plans.
We are conducting 5G development experiments to include
smart depots, smart ports, smart airports, capitalizing on the
Internet of Things capability that 5G enables.
Critical to our work in 5G is the concept of spectrum
sharing, in fact dynamic spectrum sharing, so that we can get,
if you will, more use out of the spectrum real estate that we
have because the spectrum real estate is not increasing.
So we are all-in on 5G at the cutting-edge level of
learning how to do the things we have to do for both spectrum
sharing and Internet of Things to make 5G reach the promise
that it offers.
Ms. Stefanik. Shifting gears, Dr. Griffin, particularly
when we are thinking about research and, in my opening
statement, I talked about the importance of partnerships with
academia, with labs, with private sector. There have been
several recent high-profile cases of researchers with ties to
the Chinese Government and this has brought a lot of attention
to the issue of research security and illicit technology
transfer. These concerns are amplified when these individuals
are working on DOD-funded research, in some cases for over a
decade.
Do you believe that the universities, the individual
researchers better understand the nature of the threat? And
what should the Department of Defense be doing to protect these
important investments and partnerships when it comes to basic
research?
Secretary Griffin. We, too, are, of course, aware of these
high-profile incidents. I don't want to be glib about this
issue. This is one that is of the greatest importance to me,
personally, and to the Department.
So first of all, I want to say that identifying individuals
who are behaving badly and, indeed, illegally is a high
priority for us. We are implementing measures to gather more
information about who is doing research on the DOD dime and we
are working with universities and other research centers to do
exactly that.
But when we identify these people, whom we believe to be a
small percentage of the total research community, to us this is
evidence that the system is actually working. Are there
undiscovered people out there who are trying to damage the
United States? Yes, of course, there are, but this is the
country from which other people are trying to steal. This is
the country where other people want to send their kids to be
educated. It should worry us if we are not the people that
others are coming after, because then we don't matter.
Now, we absolutely want to prevent intellectual property
theft. We want to prevent exfiltration of key ideas to our
adversaries. But we got where we are in the world by espousing
an open research community, an open innovation base, by being a
country where others could come and start businesses and
succeed.
Forty-five percent of our Fortune 500 companies are headed
by a CEO who is an immigrant or the child of an immigrant.
Thirty-eight percent of the Nobel Prize winners since 2000 are
immigrants.
There is a risk pool----
Ms. Stefanik. Dr. Griffin, I understand the value of
immigrants and I have been long a leader when it comes to
making sure that we have an immigration system that recognizes
the importance of those that are highly educated, particularly
in those innovative tech sectors, as well as, in my district,
some of the issues related to agriculture. So, I understand
what the stats are on immigration issues.
But I am concerned when we are surprised with headlines
about the head of the Department of Chemistry at Harvard
University, who is using Department of Defense research dollars
and that information is going to China. So, while I understand
your point that we are the innovative goal for other countries
to look to, I cannot stress how important vigilance is to make
sure that we understand this is taxpayer dollars.
And when we are talking about game-changing technologies,
whether it is AI, whether it is quantum, we need to make sure
that the U.S. maintains supremacy and is ahead of the game.
So I know you didn't want to be glib about it but I just
want to underscore that having an understanding of who is
working on these projects and, if there is any foreign
nationals working on Department of Defense-funded research
projects, we need to get our arms around this problem.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Ranking Member Stefanik.
Mr. Larsen is now recognized.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Dr. Griffin, because we matter, as you noted, can you be a
little more specific about what the Department is doing in
working with DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and the FBI
[Federal Bureau of Investigation] to share valid
counterintelligence threats and best practices with
universities conducting DOD research?
Secretary Griffin. Well, we are working with the university
community, and with DHS and FBI to do exactly as you suggest,
to make sure we know who is working on our projects, to know
what other funding sources, in particular, they have, to know
what their origins and connections are, so that we can identify
individuals who are operating here on false colors. We are
doing those things and we are stepping up our game, as Ms.
Stefanik suggested that we should.
Any individual who slips through the net will be a high-
profile case but----
Mr. Larsen. Is there any objective analysis of the work
that you are doing that we can assess ourselves?
Secretary Griffin. I will take that for the record and if
we have objective analysis on statistics, we will get that back
to you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 103.]
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Just how many chemistry departments are
there in the United States, in American colleges and
universities?
Secretary Griffin. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Larsen. A lot, probably.
Secretary Griffin. Probably a few.
Mr. Larsen. And there is one that happens to be at Harvard,
which is high profile. There might be others. I don't know. But
it is certainly a high-profile case, but it is one.
Secretary Griffin. And one bad actor can create an awful
lot of damage, as we have seen with other insider cases.
Mr. Larsen. Absolutely, I agree.
Secretary Griffin. Most of our--all of our highest profile
exfiltrations have been insider threats, native-born U.S.
citizens--Rick Ames.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Well you know, let us know how to help you
on this because we do want to help you. So I appreciate that.
Can you address the--in your written testimony on quantum
science, I don't know the page number, but, quantum sciences
will continue to emphasize atomic clocks and quantum sensors.
These quantum technologies provide the most concrete
opportunities, so on, and so on, and so on.
But your statement before that says quantum science takes
advantage of fundamental physical properties to devise new
technologies whose performance far exceeds what is currently
available. And then you make some comment that basically says
we shouldn't get too excited just now; it doesn't do everything
that people theorize, perhaps, but it perhaps can, one day.
What are you trying to tell us about quantum science, so we
can kind of look at it more realistically?
Secretary Griffin. That, sir, is an excellent question.
Thank you.
It is difficult to pick up any magazine or newspaper
article focusing on science and technology, generally, without
finding some reference to quantum computing, quantum
communication, things like that that are not beyond the
boundaries of physics, as we understand them, but whose
technological implementation could be and will be
extraordinarily difficult. Those are longer term things.
Now, the DOD is, in fact, investing substantial monies in
quantum computing and other initiatives, but the nearer term
initiatives that we believe will pay off are the things to
which I alluded in my testimony.
First and foremost, quantum clocks, to give us timekeeping
precision--synchronized timekeeping precision two or possibly
even three orders of magnitude better than we have today. That
is critically important for maintaining communications in a
GPS-denied environment, where we might have to fight a war.
Quantum sensors for inertial navigation or navigation by
other means--quantum magnetometers come to mind for mapping and
then following the earth's magnetic field, which provides very
detailed navigation information.
These are the things that we will see in the next few years
and where we are focusing a substantial amount of our effort.
Mr. Larsen. And I presume, I think, perhaps, the chair and
the ranking member, in their opening statements, talked about
the role of commercial technologies in supporting the
Department on this particular set of issues.
Secretary Griffin. We are working with our commercial
partners, some of whom are spending quite a lot of money in
these arenas.
Mr. Larsen. I heard they are spending a quantum amount, in
fact.
With that, I will----
Secretary Griffin. Quite a lot of money.
Mr. Larsen. Quite a lot, I am sure.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Abraham is now recognized.
Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I read your bios on all of you and even though I have two
advanced degrees, I feel very inadequate among your presence. I
read your opening--your written statements. They are written by
scientists. They are very detailed. They are very structured.
And I appreciate the attention to detail that you gave into the
written statements.
Dr. Griffin, your resume, of course, precedes you with your
stint at NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration]
and your Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory head. We
appreciate that. And I will tell all of you, I, personally, am
very grateful that you are at the helm of these agencies,
watching our back. We know where are bad actors. As
Representative Stefanik said, we know they are out there. We
certainly have to guard against them, but men and women of your
acuity, where you are, I think we are in a good spot.
And I simply want to give you just a minute--I will go down
the line and start with you, Dr. Griffin--in an open mic
scenario that we are in here, just to highlight what you would
like to highlight in your particular realms, just briefly, so
that the general public that may hear/watch this hearing knows
what is going on at your level.
Dr. Griffin, I will start with you.
Secretary Griffin. Well, we have quite a number of
initiatives, as has been said. We have 11 modernization
priorities taken from the National Defense Strategy, which I
have said publicly, and will say again, is the best I have seen
in decades. So I am bought in.
The NDS urges us to consider that we are, again, in a great
power competition for the first time since the Cold War and
urges us to understand that we will not win that competition
with the weapons and the tools of yesterday.
So, in my particular area, we are working on modernizing
our space architecture. That is critical to how the U.S. fights
and wins wars, and our adversaries know that and are coming
after us. I have been quite public about the need for a
hypersonics offense and defense capability, to allow us to
match what our adversaries are doing and to be able to defend
against them.
In a less publicized way, we have undertaken a wholesale
revamping of our microelectronics initiative. The DOD is--most
of the important microelectronics work is done commercially.
DOD is about 1 percent of the demand. We rely on our commercial
partners completely for everything we do in microelectronics
and none of our systems will work without it. So, we are fully
embracing the need to be able to produce trusted
microelectronics on a risk-assessed basis, all the way from
initial design right through fabrication and assembly. That is
a critical area and our industrial base is under siege from
abroad, as you know. It is in the headlines every day.
So those are a few--with my minute or two, those are a few
of the things we are working on that are very high priority for
us.
Dr. Abraham. Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Secretary Jette. Sir, I will hit three quick points for
you.
I would like to just touch base with the bad actor
question. For the Army, I came in, I took a look at the
students we had in different universities.
I went to MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] to
have--we have a UARC [university affiliated research center]
there, so I know where to go. And I start rooting around there
and I found out that I had twice as many Chinese students on my
payroll as I had U.S. students.
And I will solicit this because I need help, I think, in
Congress. So when I began to try and negotiate with the
university, because we send the money to the university, they
pick the students that volunteer to come to work, not me, the
other way around because of the way it is structured. And their
issue is I can't tell somebody they can't apply for the program
and be selected because we have laws against national origin
preferences. So, they couldn't exclude the Chinese students and
I am trying to do that. So we are both trying to apply the laws
and apply reason, and it took us quite a while to come to a
reasonable conclusion.
I think it is important, not because we don't publish at
6.1 level the work, but there is a big difference between
reading a paper and actually having done it, and being able to
fill all those knowledge gaps. So I just think that is one of
the areas we could use help with.
We, in the Army, have put a deliberate focus, as you saw.
We kept our 6.1 to 6.3 budget robust, plussing it up about 5\1/
2\ percent, but we have increased our 6.4 budget by a third,
fundamentally because for the last 20 years we didn't focus on
transitioning any of the new technologies that were coming,
both in the military sector and the commercial sector. So we
brought those in as well. That is one reason why we have
plussed up in that area.
And I am over time. So, I will just finalize my third one
is I think that there is--we could have a much deeper
conversation on the relationship between 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3
funds and how they play out in a timeframe, given the speed of
technology today.
Dr. Abraham. Well, thank you. I am out of time.
If the other two gentlemen would give me a written
response, I would certainly appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 103.]
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Dr. Abraham.
Mr. Cooper is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I hope that Dr. Roper's initial comments were not too
helpful to any possible adversary out there. I know you just
described it in the most general terms but----
It seems to me that there are funding issues and then there
are jurisdictional issues. And Dr. Griffin has already
mentioned that we wish, in many ways, the funding had been
higher.
Let me set that aside for a minute because, with
jurisdiction issues, we are going to have an MDA [Missile
Defense Agency] hearing tomorrow and laser scaling was taken
away from MDA entirely. Space sensors for hypersonics were
given to SDA [Space Development Agency]. And as you well know,
RKV [Redesigned Kill Vehicle] was killed entirely by R&E,
giving us an 8- to 10-year exposure problem.
So it seems like jurisdiction isn't necessarily being
handled in a way that people are understanding. Now, maybe
there is a good explanation but I am going to face a lot of
grief from my Republican colleagues that the directed energy
for MDA is now zero.
Likewise, in Dr. Roper's testimony, the new NTS-3
[Navigation Technology Satellite 3] capability looks very
exciting; all these Vanguard programs, awesome; Skyborg, Golden
Horde, they have cool names. I am assuming the Space Force will
end up with these, at some point, but you know good to know.
There is probably no good way to handle jurisdictional
issues because everybody thinks they are the best. But can you
help me understand some of these things--zeroing out directed
energy for MDA?
Secretary Griffin. Directed energy is important to us
across the Department. The laser scaling initiative at MDA,
again, I get back to the issue of priorities. The laser scaling
program was one of my personal missions that I wanted to
prosecute. However, we have limited funds, and many claims on
those funds, and choices have to be made, and that is a program
of significant size that could be used to supply funds for
other areas, and is definitely longer term. It is not going to
put a weapon in the field next year or the year after. So, we
cut it.
With regard to space sensors given to SDA, MDA is still
developing the requirements for the space sensors that we need
for the low-altitude constellation and will be developing
those. So, however, the overall architecture is under the
direction of the Space Development Agency and the sensors have
to blend into a larger architecture. So I think that is the
right move but MDA is not doing one bit less work than had been
planned to do previously.
I misremember your third question, sir.
Mr. Cooper. Well why don't we just move on because
jurisdictional issues are less important than overall funding.
Secretary Griffin. Oh, you did mention RKV.
Mr. Cooper. Yes.
Secretary Griffin. If you would like me to stand down, I
will, or I can answer.
Mr. Cooper. Well, I think we have all understood that,
although it is my understanding that JROC [Joint Requirements
Oversight Council] yesterday either shortened the acquisition
period by 2 years or it didn't at all. I have heard two
different versions from two different attendees.
Secretary Griffin. Well, I was there and I would say that
neither of those is true.
Mr. Cooper. Well what is true, 9 years?
Secretary Griffin. The government estimate for the time to
complete the deployment of the Next-Generation Interceptor is
about a 10-year program. That estimate was put together at a 75
percent confidence level so that I could have some surety that
we were not overpromising and underdelivering.
We believe, based on RFIs [requests for information]
received back from the contractors, that some significant
shortening of that period is possible. And when we have
responses to our requests for proposal that are about to be
released, we will be happy to come and share those with you.
But in re-planning this program, which we canceled because
it was failing technically, in re-planning the program, I did
not want to give you a buy-in estimate, if you will, of
something that a few years from now you would be looking at it
and saying, well, Dr. Griffin's promises didn't come true. I
didn't want to be making those kinds of promises.
Mr. Cooper. Well, these are the same contractors who failed
to deliver us a space vehicle that could go to space.
Secretary Griffin. No, sir. One of the contractors who will
be proposing will be the prior contractor but there are three
other contractors in the competitive procurement phase, for a
total of four, that we will be evaluating proposals from.
Mr. Cooper. Okay, good.
I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Bacon is now recognized.
Before we go to Mr. Bacon, today is the rollout of the
Cyber Solarium Commission report, of which I am one of the four
Members of Congress, and of course we had the executive branch
participation, as well as legislative and private sector. We
are doing the rollout today and I am departing for that event
right now. Mr. Cooper is going to take over chairing the rest
of the hearing.
But I thank the witnesses for their testimony here today
and look forward to following up on these issues.
So, with that, again, Mr. Bacon is now recognized.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen,
for being here.
I have a question on the university affiliated research
centers. As a Representative of Nebraska, I stood at the
doorstep of USSTRATCOM [United States Strategic Command]. And
the National Strategic Research Institute at the University of
Nebraska is dedicated to combating weapons of mass destruction.
It is the only university affiliated research center sponsored
by a combatant command, which has engaged over 40 department
sponsors and research valued at over $160 million.
So my question is: How are the entities you represent
investing in academic partners to support mission requirements
and utilize the dedicated research and engineering expertise
ready to support the Department of Defense? Thank you.
Secretary Griffin. Well, university affiliated research
centers, U-A-R-Cs, UARCs, are among our go-to establishments
for when we have technical questions, technical design,
technical development for cutting-edge projects that are not
something industry can supply--end of sentence. So, we use them
a lot.
The largest of those UARCs is the Johns Hopkins Applied
Physics Lab, up the road here in Maryland, and then we have
smaller UARCs throughout the country. They are well and fully
utilized, sir.
Mr. Bacon. I know the one in Nebraska loves what it is
doing with STRATCOM and I think they are now working with SOCOM
[United States Special Operations Command].
Gentlemen, anything else?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir, at least for the Department of
the Navy, they are vital, Johns Hopkins being one of many, Penn
State. I mean they are an integrated part of our R&D
establishment and we could not complete the mission without
them.
Secretary Roper. Sir, for Department of the Air Force, they
are critical and their role is changing, now that we live in a
world of global tech. So we love initiatives. We are working
with universities like our AI Accelerator at MIT was a big win
for us last year, having world-leading researchers at the CSAIL
[Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory]
Institute working on problems of military import.
But when we need to transition that technology into the
military, we need people that understand our programs, that
have clearances, and that have the technical chops to be able
to guide us between the scientists and the program managers. I
think they are going to be extremely vital to help us bridge
between commercial innovators and the Department, just like
they have in times past, while continuing their defense-unique
role.
Secretary Jette. Sir, the Army has three UARCs. One is the
Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies, focused on
biotechnology from anything from consideration of disease
issues to using biometric--or biomaterials to create electronic
devices and material structures. That is at the University of
Santa Barbara.
We have the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology, the one I
mentioned up at MIT, where we do a great deal of technology
development for anything from fabrics and clothing, which
sounds not very sexy but, when you think about what Under
Armour does and how much money they made for some of their
clothes, apparently it is pretty interesting technology.
And then we have the Institute for Creative Technology,
which focuses on--it leverages the industry--entertainment
industry and the technologies there to help us with training
and artificial environments.
Each of those places that we work also have a related Army
laboratory, so that we make sure we have a relationship that
can bring the technology out of those into the Army, when
appropriate, or bring problems from the Army into them.
Mr. Bacon. A follow-on question and I want to talk about--
ask about particularly nuclear C3 or NC3 [nuclear command,
control and communications].
Most of that technology is 1970s that we do at the new
STRATCOM building. Is there an opportunity here with the
universities or UARCs to figure out where we are going to go
with the next level on NC3?
I don't know. It is maybe more of an Air Force question but
it could be Navy, too. Thank you.
Secretary Roper. Yes, Congressman, we have a large portion
of the NC3 portfolio, and absolutely.
There are a lot of commercial technologies that we can
bring to bear for NC3. And General Hyten, our Vice Chairman at
the Joint Chiefs, really brings a great perspective coming in
from STRATCOM that having the one trusted, perfectly secure way
of communicating is probably not our future. We are going to
need to have multiple conduits, use statistics as our ally, and
a lot of commercial technology can aid that.
Then similar to the previous point, we can work with
commercial innovators but when we got to get down to classified
applications, we need trusted insiders and that is what UARCs
and FFRDCs [federally funded research and development centers]
can do.
In the case of MIT, we have Lincoln Laboratory. It is a
federally funded research and development center sitting up you
know at Hanscom Air Force Base that can work closely with
campus to take technology out of that university into the Air
Force. The same model will work well with companies.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cooper [presiding]. Thank you.
Ms. Trahan.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am so happy that you brought up MIT Lincoln Labs, right
in the heart of my district. Thank you for that.
This question is actually for you, Dr. Roper. The SBIR
program, the Small Business Innovation Research program is one
of the most successful and effective programs that is
authorized by Congress.
I was surprised and, frankly, a bit concerned when I
learned that the Air Force Innovation Unit is attempting to
unilaterally implement drastic changes to that program. Many of
those changes diverge from the intent of the SBIR law. And I
know--well, I understand that you are interested in
transforming the Air Force's acquisition system in order to
appeal to the startup world.
Instead of having companies submit Phase 1 proposals to
technical topics written by the Air Force subject matter
expert, the Air Force now has Pitch Days, where literally
hundreds of companies are awarded Phase 1 SBIR grants that are
not in response to a specific topic but, instead, give each
small business initial funding and 3 months to form a
feasibility study and customer discovery of the technology.
I share your goal of making the Air Force and the entire
DOD more adept at attracting the best innovation from the small
business community but I do have concerns about the integrity
of the SBIR program. And of course, if the Air Force wants to
propose a new grant program, we would be happy to consider
supporting that.
Can you just speak to these changes, as well as the goals
of these changes?
Secretary Roper. Yes, Congresswoman. It is a topic I am
truly passionate about. I will just say I know I won't be able
to answer all your questions here. I will be happy to come chat
with you or any other members of the committee.
In a nutshell, the SBIR is an amazing program. It is
amazing that we have this authority to go to work with early-
stage companies. And coming into the Air Force, the thing that
was missing was the connection to the acquisition system, so
companies with good technology trying to find their customer,
their mission, and not having the program dollars to transition
them.
The other limiting factor we had is that our model didn't
work really well with dual-use companies, companies that are
working on tech that could apply to both the military mission
as well as a commercial mission. And so with 80 percent of the
Nation's R&D in commercial, it is a huge risk to the country if
we can't work with that 80 percent.
So what we have tried to with the big overhaul at SBIR is
bring in program dollars for transition, have a model that
works with those dual-use companies, who won't know how to
propose to a specific DOD topic but that can propose to an open
topic, which is bring us interesting technology and let us help
work on mission with you.
In the future, we have to do both. We have to keep the best
of what worked in the past for defense-focused companies, allow
them to work without having to work through commercialization
channels, but we need a new process that allows commercial
companies in.
What I think we have succeeded on is the latter. It is
getting most of the hype and buzz because it is new and it is
augmenting the system in the past but our goal is to keep the
best of both going into this year, ma'am.
Mrs. Trahan. Great. Thank you for that. And so in terms of
customer discovery, can you just speak to how, you know,
normally those were written on spec for something specific. And
now customer discovery--I understand that in the startup world
is kind of where I came from but translate that to me in your
world.
Secretary Roper. Yes, ma'am. So we have those specific
solicitations you have referenced, where we say we need a thing
that flies this far, this fast, and a company that knows
defense knows how to propose to that.
A company with amazing technology won't have the people on
staff that understand our missions. And so they may know that
there is a military application but they don't know where it
is.
By having very small entry-level awards, around $50K, it
allows the company to bring their technology, use that money to
apply it to a military mission that we help them find so that,
when they are talking to that customer at a Phase 2 Pitch Day--
so you have got the warfighter, the acquisition person, the
technologist across the table and they are saying what it can
do, they are informed and they don't have to have that DOD
experience to get there.
Last year we did a thousand--we brought more money into
SBIR than has ever been in before because of the program
dollars and private dollars that came in. We did over a
thousand contracts, 700 companies, 350 new to the government,
and most of them saying they had never planned to work with us.
So we are not willing to do away with the old, but if that
trend doesn't continue so that companies say I want to go work
with the Air Force because it is easy to innovate with them, we
won't keep up with China. Remember, China has a nationalized
industry base. So this is a model to try to mitigate that risk.
Mrs. Trahan. Great. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Roper, the last time I
saw you was at the Advanced Technology and Training Center in
Warner Robins, just outside of Robins Air Force Base. And we
have talked about a lot of advanced weapon systems today.
Could you speak to how the Air Force is using the Advanced
Technology and Training Center to improve depot maintenance
with regard to the more traditional weapon systems, the C-130s
and everything that we use today?
Secretary Roper. Yes, sir, another topic I am very
passionate about.
I mean 70 percent of our money is in sustainment. So just
from a business case, we should be putting more technology to
lower the cost of sustainment. And coming into this job early
on, I didn't know a ton about sustainment. All of my programs
had always been development. So it is an amazing enterprise,
sir. The depots are true national assets but not getting a lot
of the technology from the Air Force.
So we did a couple of things. We stood up the Rapid
Sustainment Office to help transition technology from the
research lab, from industry, into the depots and flight lines.
And they have done a great job getting predictive maintenance
operational, 3D printing operational, and to your point, sir,
these training centers.
The point of the training centers is not to dump technology
on the sustainment enterprise, where they don't know how to use
it. So walking through, early on, there was a laser in the
corner of the depot in one of them, I can't remember which one,
that could strip paint off of tools that normally takes hours
to do, but no one was using it simply because training wasn't
there. People were afraid to.
This is a friendly off-prem facility with some of the
world's leading 3D printing and other technologies like cold
spray, where we help the maintainers understand how to use it
and the results have been phenomenal. And I definitely enjoyed
doing the ribbon-cutting with you, sir.
Mr. Scott. It is a great partnership. And I want to focus
on one of the points you made. Seventy percent of the budget is
sustainment. And one of the challenges has been with the older
systems, sometimes the suppliers don't have the parts that are
available. And so a lot of concern about contracting on systems
as we go forward.
3D printing is there. As we get into future procurement
contracts, have the Departments adopted any type of standard
clause that the military would be entitled to standardized
credible designs?
Secretary Jette. Well I can tell you what the Army has
done. So when you are waiting to be confirmed, you may sit
there a while, so you make a list of things that you think are
important. One of the ones, having IP [intellectual property]
myself, was to develop an IP policy that meant something, as
opposed to what I had experienced when I was in the Army.
So we developed an IP policy which gives equity to both the
developer on the outside, make sure you have got proper
licensing coming in, and vice versa. If the government paid for
it, the government should not only own it, which I found is a
big problem we have, but they should get it delivered, which I
was always expected to do on the outside. We have a lot of
technology we paid for but we don't have in our possession.
So what we have done is made a specific concerted effort. I
am trying to transition away from Level 3 drawings, which give
me a stack of drawings, to digital models and that ties into
advanced manufacturing. We call it advanced as opposed to
additive because there is subtractive, there is conformal,
there is a number of other methods, as well, we are trying to
apply, and being able to have all that data put together in a
digital thread that is available all the way out to the front
edge of the battlespace.
Mr. Scott. I appreciate that comment. That is one of my
primary concerns. I believe in the partnerships, especially
with the more advanced institutions that have been mentioned
here earlier. But in the end, if we pay to develop the system,
we shouldn't have to pay to use the system. There has got to be
a square deal there.
One of the questions I do have, as we talk about the move
from the development into the actual use of it, where we get
into a more classified scenario, is if you have an extremely
valuable person, that is either in the private sector or
currently working at one of the colleges, and we want to
transition them into one of the Departments, are you limited to
the GS schedule to transition people in, when they can make 2,
3, 4, 10 times more if they stay in the private sector?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. This committee has given us and
the NDAA has given us lots of authorities. There is a variety
of them we have used, depending on the case. So I think the
authorities are there. It is not yet common practice to do that
at scale, I would say, across the departments. So we are kind
of learning from each other.
We have taken, we call it 1101 authority, 150 percent of
SES [Senior Executive Service] pay to match that out. That has
been a great authority to bring in. There are also experts for
us to help on different things.
So I think the issue is less needing authorities. We just
need to get them into practice.
Mr. Scott. But you are capped at 150 percent of the GS
schedule?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Secretary Roper. And there is also the enhanced pay
authority, which has been wonderful for the Air Force. It
allows us to go up to $318,000, I believe. It is letting us get
great experts that wouldn't come into the government otherwise.
I believe we have done seven hires. We are able to do 10 across
the Department of the Air Force. The authority expires next
year, I believe, and I would certainly ask for Congress to
consider extending it.
Mr. Scott. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you.
Ms. Houlahan.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't know if you all remember about a year ago when I
sat in this chair as a brand new freshman, I asked you a
question regarding what are we doing to elevate women and
people of color in STEM and, particularly, in your
organizations. And I am a proud alum of MIT and I served at
Hanscom Air Force Base. So I have a lot in common with all of
you folks.
I also aspired, when I was a young girl, to be Sally Ride
but she said, famously, you can't be what you can't see.
So I was really excited to see that in section 229 of the
NDAA we had the diversification of the research and engineering
workforce of the Department of Defense. And that was included,
thankfully, in the NDAA. And I was wondering if you might be
able to give us an update or an assessment on how or if you
have learned anything since about who works within your ranks,
what your hiring practices are to encourage diversity and
inclusion of more people, and what you are doing to attract
more people who are not traditional STEM professionals.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am, maybe I will start here. And
again, I think great learning across the Department and
diversity in all its dimensions, whether gender, race, how you
think, who you know, what your skills are, is our ultimate
competitive advantage. We have got to foster that.
The Department of Navy, a lot of focus on STEM and
promoting from the earliest onset programs are at the high
school intern level. We have summer interns. We have college
interns. We have the Naval Academy has got programs. We watch
the diversity statistics in there.
Ms. Houlahan. But are you, in fact, watching them? I mean
are you----
Secretary Geurts. We are. So for the summer hires last
year, we had 43 percent female participation at the high school
level, 32 percent at the college level. That is not, obviously,
where we want to get to. In the U.S. Naval Academy programs, it
is about 60 percent female in that one dimension.
And so we are watching it and then working hard within the
Department to have the right workforce, how we choose people,
how we promote them, what the selection panels look like so
everybody has got equal opportunity, as they work their way
through the system.
Ms. Houlahan. Is there anything that we can be doing to be
helpful in asking for those metrics or measure of performance
standards? I think one thing that I reflect on in my first year
in Congress was the ability to recruit for the academies and,
specifically, within my office, trying to make sure that I
understood what, of the 70 or so people who applied, what the
diversity was there, and you know kind of asking that question
across the country would be a good one.
Is there anything else that we can be doing to be helpful
in asking----
Secretary Geurts. I would say, I mean last year, asking the
question was helpful.
Ms. Houlahan. Good.
Secretary Geurts. And then continuing to ask the question.
I think when I look at the NDAA, there is a broad set of
authorities there. So I don't know of an authority limitation
yet that I would highlight. But we have got to focus on that as
we go through; the expedited hiring authority and some of the
hiring authorities that let us pick the best performer faster
also is a help. That way, we can find best of breed.
And again, I would just say we need to look at it in all
dimensions--gender, race----
Ms. Houlahan. No, absolutely.
Secretary Geurts [continuing]. All of them because we need
the diversity if we are going to compete and win.
Ms. Houlahan. Absolutely.
Gentlemen, do you have anything else?
Secretary Roper. Yes, ma'am, I do, and we really appreciate
you asking the question last year.
If we are going to compete against China long term, we
can't have any blind spots. You need people that see the world
all different ways, because the next Jobs, or Gates, or whoever
could be that person that is not coming into the workforce if
there is not an open door.
In addition to what Secretary Geurts mentioned, one thing
that is helping us, surprisingly, in the Air Force is the
Direct Site Hire Authority because we are able to go out and
work with organizations, associations that are targeting
greater diversity in STEM fields and we are able to use them as
job fairs at direct hiring events.
For people that wouldn't think about coming to the Air
Force, haven't been exposed, don't have that background, we are
able to go out to them and not use the Federal hiring system
that I think is too opaque and not useful.
So we had 13 percent increase in diversity hires last year.
I think that is great. We can't be satisfied with it but we are
not as diverse of a workforce as we need to be. The Direct Site
Hire Authority is a great tool to help us get there.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And other comments?
Secretary Jette. I would just say that we did go back and
do a good survey of our workforce, trying to make sure we had a
good feel for our diversity. And the Army actually came out--
the report I received was that we are in good shape. We are
proportional. We are above the percentages that the population
is in.
Ms. Houlahan. Meaning you look like the population, the
general population?
Secretary Jette. Yes, right. Actually, we probably look a
little bit more diverse than the general population.
Ms. Houlahan. And is that across all kinds of career fields
or just specific careers? I mean do you look at the depth of
kind of detail?
Secretary Jette. Yes, I didn't look at beyond the depth of
the inside of the ASA(ALT) [Office of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology] itself,
in general. I will say that I think there are programs--we do
have programs that do outreach to HBCUs [historically Black
colleges and universities], MSIs [minority-serving
institutions], et cetera. I think that we go out to 30,000--we
have seen 30,000 students a year, where we send professors or
laboratory people out to schools, do lectures, meet people. I
know that that is a big motivator.
Just as you said, if I don't know this is a possibility, I
don't pursue it.
Ms. Houlahan. Right. And I know that I have run out of time
and I am so sorry for running over, but I really would like to
have the opportunity to follow up with you all on this because
I mean we are all a bunch of engineers and geeks. You know
performance means that we have to measure it. So I just want to
make sure that we genuinely have the metrics and performance
standards that we are all looking towards to make sure that we
are making progress.
And I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Cooper. Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to echo my colleague Representative
Houlahan's encouragement and continue to work on the issue of
diversity. And I certainly want to thank all of my colleagues
for including, in the last NDAA a study for the National
Academy of Science on how we can better include HBCUs and
minority-serving institutions in our research development
enterprise.
Dr. Griffin, I wanted to shift to some of--echoing my
colleague the Ranking Member Stefanik's questions on Talents,
on how we handle our technology protection. I also sit on the
Science and Technology Committee and I am really wrestling with
how we balance the openness that is one of the fundamental
aspects of academia and our research and development
enterprise, and I think that is one of the things that has made
it great, but protect our IP.
And I have to be candid. I am not going to continue
supporting the funding of Beijing's research and development.
And I think we have to be honest, and open, and really I think
very aggressively move out on how we strike that--how we strike
that balance. And I agree with you. I agree with our testimony
that immigrants form the basis. I love the statistic that you
cited on how many Nobel Peace Prize winners have gone to
immigrants, 38 percent I believe.
But would you support legislation that limited or, frankly,
barred Defense Department R&D dollars going to institutions
that have research professors in the Talents program? I mean I
think we need to draw a hard line but I want your perspective,
please.
Secretary Griffin. Specific organizations, like the
Thousand Talents program and all that, can be highly suspect.
And I would not want to make a blanket assertion about what
legislation we could or couldn't go with. But yes, we are
concerned about those kinds of organizations. We are concerned
about the idea that we would not know who is doing work being
done on DOD dollars. I agree with you on those concerns.
Mr. Waltz. I think we need to--Dr. Griffin I think we need
to--I think we are all concerned. I think we have been
concerned for some time.
I am interested in what concrete action and where we can
draw some lines. They are stealing the way to the top and we
will continue this arms race of money but we are facing an
adversary, for the first time ever in our history, that is on
track to have a bigger economy than ours.
So we could have a long debate about our innovation talent
and our values versus theirs but I am not for continuing to
pour taxpayer dollars into their R&D. And what concretely can
we do, can we help you all do, to stem this siphoning that
continues to happen?
Secretary Griffin. I understand and we are concerned. It is
an extremely difficult problem in order that we--we don't want
to become our adversary in the process of remaining ahead of
our adversary. We----
Mr. Waltz. We also don't want to be sharing a world or
subsume to our adversary, which is President Xi's stated goal
through the use--you know China 2025 and through, essentially,
stealing our technological edge.
Secretary Griffin. I could not agree more. I came back to
the DOD in order to deal with this issue of great power
competition with the skills that I can bring to the table,
which are, as Ms. Houlahan was saying, geek skills and not
warfighter skills.
Mr. Waltz. Right.
Secretary Griffin. But I want us to be aware of the long
game, the long-term strategy of changing what got us to where
we are. I want us to go after, with full force, those people
who are here under false colors, those people who commit
espionage or IP theft. I want us to go after the bad actors.
Mr. Waltz. I think, just in the interest of the time, I
would welcome a follow-on with any and all of you. I am sitting
on both sides of this, you know, on both committees.
But we have to be cognizant that every single Chinese
student, professor, you name it, is violating Chinese law,
under President Xi's intelligence laws, to not provide whatever
they are asked for.
So they have no choice. They can be the greatest people
that we have ever known, and wonderful, and willing, but their
families are held at risk should they not provide. And we have
to be cognizant of that and I think we need to take some pretty
meaningful and drastic action.
Thank you. I yield my time and I look forward to a follow-
on conversation with you.
Secretary Griffin. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cooper. The gentleman's time has expired.
We will now have a second round of questions. I will
recognize myself first.
I was wondering if the witnesses would be willing to supply
the subcommittee with a list of industries or scientific areas
in which U.S. companies are not the world leaders. Because it
is my impression, for example with 5G and our competition with
Huawei, that the leading competitors are Ericsson and Nokia but
not a U.S.-based company.
So I would be interested in areas like that because I think
sometimes we blithely assume that U.S. companies are leading
the way, and always on top, and I think, increasingly, we may
not be. Facial recognition--there are a number of things where
it could be that, in order to get world-class expertise, we
have to go outside our borders.
Would you all be willing to supply the subcommittee a list
like that? Okay, thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 103.]
Mr. Cooper. The second question is this, and this is a bit
more lawyer-like--I am worried that contracting with the
defense industry hasn't kept up with the times. When I was
looking, for example, at the various RKV contracts, I saw, in
bold print at the start of the contract, the Air Force retains
design authority. And that looked pretty authoritative and
important.
And I looked further in the contract to see that the
defense industry really was helping the Air Force to come up
with their design parameters. So that made me wonder if this
was circular and who, in fact, was designing the RKV.
So it seems to me, and this is just anecdotal experience,
that more and more our services are essentially kind of
shopping from a catalogue to see what industry has to offer, as
opposed to specifying to industry exactly what they need.
We will have testimony tomorrow from a very important four-
star, and my purpose isn't to embarrass him, but he makes this
seem like it is a virtuous thing to do. We don't know what we
want, so why don't you tell us and then we will pick what we
like? And that might work in an environment in which U.S.
companies are number one but it is not going to work if U.S.
companies are second, third, fourth, fifth place.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir, from the Department of the
Navy, I think it, like many things, depends. There is no
absolutes.
What I would say is the government just blindly throwing
out a specification without understanding is it obtainable, or
at what cost or price, is not terribly useful. Likewise, having
the contractor propose the specification without any expertise
or oversight is not useful.
What we try and say in our frigate program is probably our
best example of, we talk about the need but not the detailed
specifications and then iterate with numerous industry partners
in competition to find that sweet spot of capability, versus
cost, versus schedule. And I think that is a good place to be.
Secretary Roper. Representative, it is a great question.
I can't speak to the RKV. That is under Dr. Griffin's
purview. But one thing that is helping us in the Department of
the Air Force are the rapid prototyping authorities that were
granted by Congress. It is allowing us to push design more on
the government side, without tying the program to a long
production and sustainment where we can't get out of it.
Speeding up programs, when you can prototype, is the bridge
between the idea and the requirements that come from it to the
production line and it is also a natural conduit to get things
out of the laboratory into programs of record, without having
to commit to them up front.
The lesson we have got to learn across the Department is,
if we fund things late to need, then you have to go with what
industry can build. If you have the foresight to fund things a
little ahead of need, then you have time to explore designs
when the government is driving towards a more aggressive
solution. And I hope that we will learn that lesson, sir.
Mr. Cooper. Mr. Jette--Dr. Jette.
Secretary Jette. Sir, very much like Dr. Roper, there are
some circumstances where just shopping is probably the
appropriate thing because we need something and we need
something quick.
We have, in the Army, changed our lexicon. Pretty much, we
have said we have requirements. Now we are talking about
characteristics versus requirements, where requirements are the
type of thing we put on the street for a production model and
the characteristics are the type of thing that we are evolving
through digital design, prototyping, and a cycle between these
and industry. That way, we can get all the way from just
industry talking to us to building a digital design, to a
refined design, to, finally, a prototype. And in each phase, it
gives us a chance to get industry input and insight, where we
may not have seen it, but not necessarily give our soul away to
them.
Mr. Cooper. My time has expired.
Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. I yield the balance of my time to the final
question for the minority side to Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Ms. Stefanik.
I wanted to--two questions for you, Dr. Jette. I just
wanted to get your assessment on the realignment of the Army
labs under AFC, under Army Futures Command. I am sure you are
aware there are concerns floating about short term versus long
term and just how that alignment is going.
The other question, I think not only for you but for
everyone, is you know we have a lot of discussion about
recruiting the right talent. We were just out at the JAIC
[Joint Artificial Intelligence Center] and, maybe a little
counterintuitively for an AI Center, their number one concern
is human talent, right, database managers, all of the folks
that we all struggle to bring in to the enterprise.
One of the things that I, personally, have seen as a still-
serving guardsman is that we have a database of our civilian
skill sets but it is not structured in a way that is useable,
searchable, and the Guard and Reserve certainly isn't organized
around it. So if you ask the Guard or the Reserves how many
people do you have working at the Big Five tech firms or you
know have those civilian skill sets that can be that bridge,
and are they better used for that civilian skill set they bring
in already, already cleared, already in the system, you know
ready to go, or are they more useful as you know an O4 MP,
military policeman, or a database scientist that they are
bringing to the fight?
So those are the two, the labs and then, also, that
civilian database that somewhat exists but I think could be
used--in my opinion, could be used better, or maybe there are
efforts underway that I am unaware.
Secretary Jette. Sir, both great questions.
So AFC, the laboratory system, the DECs, the development
and engineering centers, the Army Research Lab, the Army
Research Office are all under one entity, CCDC [Combat
Capabilities Development Command], under AFC.
I have--there is an Army directive the Secretary signed out
that puts me--continues my role as overarching supervisor of
the facility. I work very closely with General Murray on
programs. My head of like my DASA(R&T) [Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology], who is my
deputy for research and technology, participates in program
reviews. We have phase gate reviews. So, we are deeply involved
in the technology, technology selection, maturation. We still
have transition agreements from the programs.
So I think, at this point, there is always, when you change
something between organizations, there is--I always say there
is forming, storming, norming. We are past any of the storming.
We are pretty much forming. Occasionally, we will have a
tornado roll by and Mike Murray and I will resolve the issue.
But things are, generally, working fairly well.
In the recruiting talent department, so it would be
interesting to see what State you are referencing because we
have just rolled out a new personnel system to the States. It
is IPPS-A [Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army] Rev. 2 and
it should begin picking up these type of things.
We have another one, which is going on, which is IPPS-A
Rev. 3. That won't be out for a little bit longer and that will
subsume everything, all three COMPOs [components], to be able
to manage. And it has got a----
Mr. Waltz. I would just encourage you to take a hard look
down at the user level because all I hear are complaints about
that system.
Secretary Jette. Okay.
Mr. Waltz. So I would just encourage you to deep dive
because I still, on the weekends, jump out of perfectly good
airplanes and then hear about the complaints.
But it is one thing to get it structured in a new system.
It is another thing, you know, as an institution, to mine that,
and to utilize that, and perhaps to pluck that data scientist
out of one thing where he is in his military occupational
specialty and use him--him or her--excuse me--for that civilian
skill set.
And I think, if we saw that in the stability operations
world--are they better as a deputy sheriff or as a trigger-
puller, right, and that back and forth--and I think I would
venture to say that it is not a silver bullet but just
something I would encourage you to look at.
Secretary Jette. Yes, sir. And we never even knew the list
before. Now we, at least, are working on getting the list.
We pulled a number of them out and formed the 75th for work
under AFC----
Mr. Waltz. And DIUx [Defense Innovation Unit], but it has
been ad hoc. It has been----
Secretary Jette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. You know by personality and by who
you know, rather than a systematic approach.
Secretary Jette. You are right, sir. Just it is going to
take a little time to get this turned into a real process.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Ranking Member. I yield.
Ms. Stefanik. I yield back.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you.
If there are no further questions, the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 11, 2020
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 11, 2020
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
March 11, 2020
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN
Secretary Griffin. There is currently no completed objective
analysis, only preliminary results that are subject to significant
change as additional data is acquired. Furthermore, a detailed
description of activities and methods, to include preliminary data, can
only be made available in a classified response. Unfortunately, the
COVID 19 mitigation efforts are delaying information gathering
activities and hindering analysis of the gathered material. However, we
will ensure any analytic products are shared with you, in the
appropriate venue, when they are completed. [See page 12.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COOPER
Secretary Griffin. The Department recognizes that our future
military superiority depends on an industrial base that is postured to
produce the technologies of the future. Within my organization, we are
focused on advancing technologies, cultivating expertise, and
developing the industrial capacity to produce advanced technologies at
scale. For a detailed assessment of U.S. industry activities expected
to be critical to our National Defense Strategy, please refer to the
Department's June 2019 report to Congress on Certain Defense
Technologies Critical to the United States Maintaining Superior
Military Capability. [See page 27.]
Secretary Jette. The Army may not be the best source for an
authoritative list. However, I would gladly meet with you at your
convenience to discuss some of my concerns and offer some
recommendations on how to develop a comprehensive list. [See page
27.]
Secretary Geurts. Technology areas with world-class expertise
outside U.S. borders include: artificial intelligence, autonomous
systems, battery technology, big data, microwave photonics, machine
learning, biomedical technology, quantum, high-end carbon fiber,
lasers, energy grids, robotics, microelectronics, 5G
telecommunications. [See page 27.]
Secretary Roper. 1. Quantum Science and Materials a. Space-based
Quantum Networks b. Quantum Materials, Cryptography, and Software c.
Quantum Technology Component Commercialization 2. Microelectronics
Tools and Manufacturing a. Computational Hardware for Artificial
Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) b. Semiconductor
Manufacturing c. Integrated Photonic Circuits d. Lithography Tools 3.
Directed Energy Components a. Directed Energy (generally) b. High
Intensity Laser Research, Development, and Manufacturing c. Optical
Glass d. Infrared Materials e. Optics Mass Production (lenses, cell
housings, and coatings) f. Commercial Silicon Visible/Near-Infrared
Cameras 4. Hypersonics a. Hypersonics System Design, Flight Controls,
and Optimization 5. Rocket Propulsion a. Oxygen-rich Staged Combustion
Rocket Engines b. Upper Stage Hydrogen Engines c. Extremely High
Pressure Engine Testing Facilities 6. Artificial Intelligence, Machine
Learning Autonomy, and Robotics a. Application Areas in AI/ML b.
Theoretical Computer Science for Autonomy c. Autonomous Vehicles and
Robotics d. Commercial Drones [See page 27.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. ABRAHAM
Secretary Geurts. The Department's FY 2021 S&T program aggressively
pursues increased lethality through modernization efforts with the
greatest potential to deliver nonlinear warfighting advantages. In
order to deliver future naval power and support the National Defense
Strategy, the Navy and Marine Corps supports our teams and partners,
looks for new ways to speed innovation, and invests in disruptive
technology. First, we invest in a diverse set of innovative thinkers
and doers, including our technical workforce at the Office of Naval
Research, Naval Research Laboratory, and our many warfare centers. This
also includes over 341 university partners, 91 nonprofit partners, and
more than 20,000 small and large businesses, all working together to
support our efforts. Second, we invest in the specific tool sets
required to scale innovation and enhance the impact of Navy R&D. The
NavalX organization, established in 2019, creates the networking that
accelerates our ability to share best practices, strengthen
relationships, and share key ideas across the entire Department. NavalX
guides and powers an innovative technical workforce and connects the
DON to industry innovators to achieve the pivot speed needed for the
entire DON enterprise. Third, the FY 2021 budget includes over $400
million in funding for disruptive, revolutionary technologies in six
major thrust areas: Directed Energy, Unmanned Advanced Autonomy/Swarm,
Cyber, Advanced Long-Range Targeting, Hypersonics, and Full Spectrum
Undersea Warfare. Within these thrust areas are 18 focused efforts
including the next generation laser, future hypersonic boosters,
artificial intelligence, and swarming. Finally, we support the
following National Defense Strategy Research and Engineering
modernization areas: directed energy and electric weapons, hypersonic
capabilities, artificial intelligence and machine learning, intelligent
autonomous systems, cyber security, networked sensors and weapons,
advanced manufacturing, high performance materials and energetics,
biotechnology, and quantum science and computing. [See page 15.]
Secretary Roper. One of the biggest shifts you'll notice in the
Department of the Air Force's FY21 S&T budget is an increase in Budget
Activity (BA) 6.3 (Advanced Technology Development) funding to support
advancement of technologies ripe for transitioning to the warfighter.
It is the Department's intent, as cited in our S&T Strategy, to
accelerate our efforts to develop and deliver transformational
operational capabilities. Our new Vanguard initiative, designed to
accelerate technology from the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
into programs of record, is modeled after the Strategic Capabilities
Office's rapid-prototyping process. Specific Vanguard efforts are
approved by the Department of the Air Force Capability Development
Council, co-chaired by the Under Secretary of the Air Force and the
Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, signifying an enterprise
commitment. Warfighters, future force designers, technologists, and
program managers ensure technical feasibility, operational utility, and
a solid business case to work through the complexities of
implementation and facilitate transition into acquisition and fielding.
S&T funds will be dedicated to complete the S&T components of each
Vanguard effort. To accelerate Vanguard transitions, Program Executive
Officers (PEOs) are designated upfront to develop and execute an
acquisition strategy in collaboration with the Technology Executive
Officer (TEO). Upon successful prototyping and experimentation, the
Department of the Air Force will transition the technology into an
operational capability. We recently approved the first three Vanguards:
Golden Horde, Navigation Technology Satellite 3 (NTS-3), and Skyborg.
Golden Horde will develop and demonstrate collaborative autonomous
networked weapons, allowing warfighters to observe and react to the
enemy in real-time. The NTS-3 flight experiment tests enhancements to
space-based positioning, navigation, and timing across space, control,
and user segments, to include reprogrammable software-defined receivers
able to rapidly respond to new conditions and ensure better security
and flexibility. Finally, Skyborg integrates artificial intelligence
with autonomous, attritable aircraft to enable manned-unmanned teaming
of systems. [See page 15.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 11, 2020
=======================================================================
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN
Mr. Langevin. Secretary Griffin, for the rapid technological
advancements outlined in the NDS, and for your eleven modernization
priorities, last year's NDAA tasked the Department to lean forward on
strategically developing policies on how we should use and deploy these
future technologies, and to consider how these emerging capabilities
will contribute to new security strategies. Concurrency in policy and
tech development is critical to successful employment of capabilities
and being a global leader in establishing norms for use of
technologies. Yet, too often the policy lags tech development. In your
view, what action does the Department need to take to promote
concurrency in policy, employment concepts, training, doctrine, and
other matters as technology matures?
Secretary Griffin. My organization is focused on ensuring the
technologies and capabilities the Department is developing are those
needed to best achieve the objectives detailed in the National Defense
Strategy. I agree that concurrency in policy and technology/capability
development is critical to successfully employing new and emerging
capabilities and our goal is to be first adopters in order to build or
maintain advantage, deter and defeat adversaries, as well as establish
norms for the use of new capabilities. My office and the entire R&E
organization, maintains constant communication with key DOD components
as well as the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP)
to ensure new technologies and capabilities comply with applicable US
and International laws and policies. To ensure policy does not lag
technology development we are taking the following additional steps:
First, as R&E develops these materiel-focused technology roadmaps, they
must identify the technology maturation, prototyping/demonstration, and
transition paths individually, or into legacy architectures. These
roadmaps are essential to focus the research and development across the
tech enterprise, synchronize the OSD mission engineering and Service
development planning activities, and help the acquisition and
sustainment community plan for these new capabilities across the
product and sustainment centers. Second, after we develop the materiel
roadmaps, we will be working with warfighters on the Joint Staff and in
Component training and doctrine centers to identify, align, and
synchronize needed non-materiel policy and training activities with the
tech development. Third, we plan to put technology and prototypes in
the hands of warfighters early to allow time for concept refinement and
user feedback before fielding and training development. It is our goal
to provide users with opportunities for hands-on experimentation and
models for war-gaming as part of this early engagement.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN
Mr. Larsen. Please describe your investments in future technical
talent. What STEM programs are being funded and increased?
Secretary Griffin. The Department's STEM programs under the
National Defense Education Program (NDEP) are vital, and affect a
spectrum of students from Kindergarten through College. It ensures that
the Department and the Nation has enduring access to a diverseand
highly technical workforce. It should be noted that the Components also
have agency specific STEM efforts to support DOD's overarching goal of
developing the 21st century technical workforce.
Current NDEP programs:
Science, Mathematics, and Research Transformation (SMART)
Scholarship-for-Service Program. SMART provides the Department the
ability to recruit top talent from across 21 STEM disciplines critical
to the national security functions of the Department of Defense and its
workforce. The program's budget increased by $6.3M from FY19 to FY20,
and is projected to increase by an additional $6M from FY20 to FY21.
STEM Education and Outreach Program. This program is
composed of Kindergarten through College initiatives, which include the
Military Child Pilot Program. These efforts are currently executed
through the Defense STEM Education Consortium (DSEC). DSEC engages
students and educators at multiple entry points across the K-16
continuum. A DSEC cooperative agreement was awarded in March of 2019,
and is a five-year effort of up to $75M. The program's budget increased
by $3M from FY19 to FY20, and is projected to increase by and
additional $2M from FY20 to FY21 as it expands to implement
biotechnology-focused efforts, aligned to one of 11 DOD Modernization
Priority Areas.
Manufacturing Engineering Education Program (MEEP). This
program is an effort to develop the Nation's manufacturing workforce,
essential to the Defense Research and Engineering Enterprise. Over the
past three years, DOD through ONR has awarded 13 MEEP grants to
institutions of higher education, community colleges, and not-for-
profit organizations for a total of $49M.
The Department is also committed to strengthening engagement with
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving
Institutions (HBCUs/MIs). The DOD HBCU/MI Program plays a significant
role in enhancing the STEM pipeline and increasing the research and
educational capacity of HBCUs/MIs. We recognize that HBCUs/MIs are
integral to our efforts to ensure STEM graduates in fields important to
the DOD mission and essential for achieving Departmental priorities to
diversify the STEM workforce. The HBCU/MI Program's budget for the FY
2020 includes a $22M plus up for program expansion and an aerospace
education, research and innovation center.
To promote HBCU/MI involvement in DOD research activities and to
build the STEM pipeline, the Department established five Centers of
Excellence (COE) aligned with the National Defense Strategy--autonomy
(North Carolina A&T State University), cyber security (Norfolk State
University), research data analytics (Prairie View A&M University),
STEM Scholars (Hampton University), and Minority Women in STEM (Spelman
College). Collectively, the Centers achieve several objectives
including increasing the research capabilities at HBCUs/MIs to perform
cutting-edge research involving student support. Additionally, the
Centers aid with graduating minorities in STEM disciplines and foster
collaborations with other research universities. Each COE is funded at
$1 million per year for six years. The Department continues to provide
opportunities for minority students in STEM disciplines and prepare
them for careers in science and engineering fields important to the
defense mission. The Military Departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force),
through their laboratories, offer opportunities for student involvement
through a variety of summer programs and internships. These programs
are designed to foster student interest in STEM education and careers
in DOD, and to support the Department's objective of developing a
diverse, motivated, and highly skilled civilian workforce. During the
summer of 2019, OUSD(R&E) supported HBCU/MI involvement in STEM and
potential research careers in DOD by placing 101 interns and 18 faculty
fellows at DOD laboratories.
Mr. Larsen. The Minerva Research Initiative is a basic research
program that services as a connection between the DOD and academic
social science communities, providing context for the Department on
topics ranging from great power competition, strategic priorities and
power projection strategies. Why did the Department decide to cancel
this program?
Secretary Griffin. During the Department's Defense-wide Review, R&E
scrutinized and revectored our POM21 budget request to align more
directly with the Department's National Defense Strategy technology
modernization priority areas. Although the Department appreciates the
contribution Minerva provided in the past, difficult choices had to be
made among many competing priorities.
Mr. Larsen. Tell us about the ways you are optimizing the
opportunities of the Small Business Innovative Research program (SBIR)/
Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR) to develop and
transition technology into your current programs? What are you doing to
to improve the ability to transition these technologies into programs
of record?
Secretary Griffin. Our office is committed to identifying
transition and commercialization pathways for SBIR/STTR funded projects
that provide solutions to technological challenges.
The Small Business and Technology Partnerships (SBTP) Office, which
manages the SBIR/STTR and Rapid Innovation Fund (RIF) programs within
OUSD(R&E), recently hired a Technology Portfolio Manager (TPM) who will
manage the accelerated transition of SBIR/STTR technologies (as well as
existing RIF projects) into military and commercial applications.
The TPM will engage with the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering (DDRE) for Modernization and the Assistant Directors for
each of the modernization priorities to identify opportunities for
insertion of SBIR/STTR technologies into DOD programs of record,
fielded systems and other transition pathways as appropriate.
Additionally, the TPM will conduct targeted outreach to DOD Program
Executive Offices (PEOs) and Program Managers (PMs) to expand and
accelerate SBIR/STTR technologies/capabilities into DOD programs and
Prime Contractors. SBTP will work to transition the SBIR/STTR
technologies into high-priority systems for DOD programs and will
expand small business support for technology maturation and
manufacturing capabilities.
To conduct effective technology transition, the SBTP will continue
to collaborate among all of the stakeholders, to drive an iterative
process of development, implementation, and acceptance. Both the
technical team and the product users must be part of the end-to-end
decision-making process. An example of this is the SBTP Office is
currently working with the DDRE for Advanced Capabilities to develop a
``Small Business Technology Transition'' funding pipeline for
prototypes in the absence of the RIF program.
In addition to the increased emphasis being placed on transition
within the SBTP Office, each DOD Component has mechanisms for
transitioning and/or commercializing SBIR/STTR funded projects within
their mission portfolios. The Army, Navy, and Air Force have formal
programs that utilize the Commercialization Readiness Program (CRP)
authority, which allows up to 1% of SBIR funds to be used for
administration. These programs often include cross-agency Phase II
efforts. One of the many possible examples of best practices to enhance
transition is the Army's use of Technical Assistance Advocates (TAAs),
stationed within various Army organizations, who provide assistance to
SBIR small businesses. The TAAs provide advice to SBIR projects and
Government technologists and customers to increase transition and
commercialization success. Another excellent example is the Navy's
reengineered process in FY20 to ensure Navy SBIR execution is fast,
agile, and impactful. Two efforts the Navy is piloting include their
Technology Acceleration pilot and Accelerated Delivery and Acquisition
of Prototype Technologies (ADAPT). Finally, the Air Force's modernized
SBIR/STTR process offers a streamlined approach to providing many
product solutions focused on meeting Warfighter needs using innovative
and commercially relevant solutions. One example is the Air Force SBIR/
STTR Contracting Center of Excellence, which has developed a process in
which the PEOs and Technology Executive Officers (TEO) are part of the
process through all phases of the SBIR lifecycle.
Mr. Larsen. How do your respective service S&T budget requests
reflects R&E's 11 modernization priorities, and how have you ensured
that your teams are working with Dr. Griffin's office as his
modernization Assistant Directors lay out roadmaps for each?
Secretary Jette. The Army's Science and Technology (S&T) program
supports the National Defense Strategy (NDS) and the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) modernization areas by
focusing on enabling the Army Modernization Strategy and its
priorities: Long Range Precision Fires, Next Generation Combat Vehicle
(NGCV), Future Vertical Lift, Network, Air and Missile Defense, and
Soldier Lethality. Additionally, these Army S&T efforts are aligned
with the eight rapid technological advancements outlined in the NDS.
Army Subject Matter Experts--within my office under the Deputy
Assistant Secretary (Research & Technology) as well as from Army labs
and engineering centers--coordinate directly with the USD(R&E)
modernization Assistant Directors and through USD(R&E)'s Communities of
Interest to ensure we are working together to solve critical technology
problems for the Army and for DOD. Examples of efforts that are aligned
with USD(R&E) modernization priorities include the Army Artificial
Intelligence Task Force, significant biotechnology basic research,
broad robotics work across the ground technology portfolio, and
substantial work by the Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies
Office in directed energy and hypersonics. Also, there are Cross
Functional Team (CFT) efforts in Assured Position, Navigation, and
Timing and Synthetic Training Environment under the Army's Network and
Soldier Lethality modernization priorities, respectively. Of the $2.6
billion (B) S&T budget (Budget Activities 1-3), $0.8B of this funding
Secretary Jette. aligns directly to USD(R&E) priorities. The greatest
percentage of this funding falls within Autonomy for the NGCV Army
modernization priority ($100 million in FY21). Investments within the
Enabling (non-CFT aligned) and Basic Research areas span the largest
number of Office of the Secretary of Defense priorities.
Mr. Larsen. Tell us about the ways you are optimizing the
opportunities of the Small Business Innovative Research program (SBIR)/
Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR) to develop and
transition technology into your current programs? What are you doing to
to improve the ability to transition these technologies into programs
of record?
Secretary Jette. In FY19, the Army restructured the governance of
the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) programs to ensure alignment of research and
development focus areas with modernization (Army Futures Command) and
acquisition (ASA(ALT)) priorities. The SBIR program was refocused on
technology transition, manufacturability and sustainability challenges,
and realigned with the broader Army Research Development Test and
Evaluation program. Furthermore, the Army has encouraged early
engagement with the Program Executive Offices (PEOs) and Program
Managers (PMs) to provide transition opportunities for SBIR and STTR
generated technologies into programs of record. The ability to address
technology needs from the Army acquisition, PEO and PM community
provides additional mechanisms and opportunities to transition small
business generated technologies into Army programs of record. To better
apportion funding, those funds derived from S&T taxation are managed by
and applied to SBIR/STTR efforts which directly support S&T objectives.
Similarly, those funds derived from 6.4 and above are applied to more
mature SBIR/STTR efforts focused on potential programmatic use. This
allows funds to be focused against Army needs while ensuring a full
spectrum Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding plan.
Mr. Larsen. How do your respective service S&T budget requests
reflects R&E's 11 modernization priorities, and how have you ensured
that your teams are working with Dr. Griffin's office as his
modernization Assistant Directors lay out roadmaps for each?
Secretary Geurts. The DON S&T priorities are derived from the
National Defense Strategy and solidified by the Chief of Naval
Operation's ``Fragmentary Order 01/2019: A Design for Maintaining
Superiority 2.0'' and the Commandant of the Marine Corps' Planning
Guidance. The DON FY 2021 S&T budget outlines investments that support
of these documents and align with USD(R&E) modernization efforts. The
FY 2021 S&T investments in fundamental research include continual
advancements in the science of artificial intelligence (AI), quantum
sciences and computing, advanced autonomy, ocean and atmospheric
sciences, and high performance materials and energetics. FY 2021 S&T
investments in advanced technologies include next generation hypersonic
boosters, full spectrum undersea warfare capabilities, advanced
manufacturing techniques for forward logistics, operationalizing
artificial intelligence and machine learning, cyber security advanced
naval networks for sensors and weapons, advanced operational prototypes
for the next generation of directed energy weapons, and autonomous
systems focused on swarming missions and independent operations.
Mr. Larsen. Tell us about the ways you are optimizing the
opportunities of the Small Business Innovative Research program (SBIR)/
Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR) to develop and
transition technology into your current programs? What are you doing to
to improve the ability to transition these technologies into programs
of record?
Secretary Geurts. In FY 2019 the SBIR/STTR program engaged with DON
stakeholders and senior leadership to implement a reengineered process
for FY 2020 that encourages wider participation, and increases
relevance and speed. The reengineered process ensures Navy SBIR
execution is fast, agile, and impactful, and encourages the use of SBIR
as a tool to rapidly discover, develop, and deliver technology to the
Fleet and Force. To make it easier for small innovative businesses to
participate, the last DOD SBIR Broad Agency Announcement in 2019
included three broad topics for the Navy. The proposal requirement was
simplified from 20 pages to five pages, and resulted in nearly 10 times
as many proposals received. The evaluation and selection processes were
streamlined and resulted in 79 Phase I awards in 28 calendar days, 66%
faster than our traditional process. The Navy used a flexible contract
vehicle to allow multiple Phase I, II, and III awards under a single
agreement, demonstrating an innovative approach to encourage small
business to work with the Navy. Successful Phase I proofs of
feasibility may receive Phase II awards, worth up to $1.6 million. When
conditions allow, those awardees will have the opportunity to
demonstrate their technology to industry, acquisition, and the
investment community at a Navy SBIR Technology Acceleration
Demonstration Day that will be scheduled at a date to be determined.
SBIR is also piloting an Accelerated Delivery and Acquisition of
Prototype Technologies (ADAPT) initiative intended to accelerate the
delivery and scaling of viable operational prototypes using startup and
venture capital principles. Key characteristics of ADAPT include:
utilization of NDAA prototype authorities; use of milestone-driven
award execution to accelerate delivery of operational prototypes and
strengthen small business and DON engagements; use of Other Transaction
Authority business practices to reduce barriers to prototype scaling
and acquisition; incorporation of a business accelerator to access
private investments and facilitate prototype scaling; and employment of
flexible SBIR solicitations to include in-cycle special topics and out-
of-cycle accelerated solicitations. The ADAPT pilot is being evaluated
in FY 2020.
Mr. Larsen. How do your respective service S&T budget requests
reflects R&E's 11 modernization priorities, and how have you ensured
that your teams are working with Dr. Griffin's office as his
modernization Assistant Directors lay out roadmaps for each?
Secretary Roper. The Department of the Air Force increased FY21PB
S&T funding to perform additional research in support of the following
USD(R&E) modernization priorities: 5G; Space; Networked Command,
Control, and Communications (C3); Autonomy; Positioning, Navigation,
and Timing (PNT); Nuclear; and Microelectronics. We also increased
experimentation and prototyping investments for Networked C3 and
Autonomy to accelerate transition of key technologies. Over the past
two years, we have focused extensive efforts and resources to
invigorate the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) programs to increase both the speed and
probability of transition of into programs of record. These valuable
S&T dollars are moving small business technologies forward in priority
mission areas. For example, in support of the OUSD(R&E) Space
modernization priority, we held a first-ever ``Space Pitch Day'' in
November 2019. This event had acquirers, warfighters, and technologists
from across the Air Force listen to pitches from 30 separate companies
and make the selections of potentially game-changing concepts. The Air
Force awarded 30 contracts at $750,000 apiece, a total of $22.5
million, with some of the companies going on to compete for even larger
awards. Additionally, more than 100 private investors attended the
pitch day which provided the small businesses unprecedented
opportunities for matching investments. This June, we are hosting a
virtual ``Quantum Collider'' event to bring together government,
industry, academia, and the small business community in this important
technology area. We're looking to make up to 36 awards at $150,000 per
award to enable small business innovation to quickly transfer advanced
quantum technologies to our warfighters. These Pitch Day-type events
create a faster, smarter method to evaluate cutting edge technologies,
award contracts to small businesses, and provide them an accelerated
path to commercial success.
Mr. Larsen. How is the Air Force working with the Strategic
Capabilities Office (SCO) and the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU)? How
are these organizations working with your organization, including labs,
your Small Business Innovation Research office, and others, to promote
and transition technological innovation?
Secretary Roper. The Department of the Air Force works closely with
both the SCO and DIU on a wide range of initiatives to promote and
rapidly transition technological innovation. The Air Force Research
Laboratory (AFRL) works closely with SCO on various ventures, including
experimentation with a hyper velocity projectile system for countering
the cruise missile threat. The AFRL team is also collaborating with
SCO's Avatar program to share lessons learned on pairing manned fighter
jets with unmanned systems in the rapid development of Skyborg. As a
Department of the Air Force Vanguard initiative, Skyborg is integrating
artificial intelligence (AI) with autonomous unmanned air vehicles to
enable manned-unmanned teaming with a focus on accelerated transition
to a program of record. We also work closely with our counterparts at
DIU to promote and transition technological innovation. For example, in
collaboration with DIU's National Security Innovation Network (NSIN),
NavalX, and Army Futures Command, we ran the first-ever joint Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Open Topic in February 2020. This
joint effort yielded tremendous results, with 1,000 SBIR applications
for a single topic, and the award of contracts to 500 companies in less
than 30 days from solicitation. There is also significant overlap of
people and informal relationships between the Air Force and DIU because
so many of the military members working at DIU come from the Department
of the Air Force.
Mr. Larsen. Tell us about the ways you are optimizing the
opportunities of the Small Business Innovative Research program (SBIR)/
Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR) to develop and
transition technology into your current programs? What are you doing to
to improve the ability to transition these technologies into programs
of record?
Secretary Roper. Competing across the entire technology ecosystem
is a new challenge for the Department--especially with 80 percent of
our nation's R&D now commercial--but it is one in which we have made
great progress. Over the past two years, the Department of the Air
Force has focused extensive efforts and resources to invigorate the
Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) programs and increase both the speed and probability of
transition to programs of record. Since many of our past efforts were
disparate and ineffective at helping build tomorrow's commercial-tech-
enabled Air Force and Space Force faster and smarter, we've developed
Air Force Ventures (AFVentures) as our much needed process for tapping
into the commercial innovation eco-system. The AFVentures model
improves opportunities and access to small businesses to solve
Department of the Air Force technology challenges using existing
commercial solutions. It provides a simple pathway for U.S. small
businesses to go from first contract with the Department to a program
of record in as little as 24 months. Our open-door approach improves
access to small businesses solving problems using existing commercial
solutions and incentivizes private capital investment in national
security interests. We've already demonstrated remarkable success.
We've grown the industrial base by bringing 1,000 new small businesses
into the SBIR/STTR fold. With five dollars of commercial investment
matching every one SBIR dollar--and 85 percent coming from private
capital--we're seeing over three dollars from private capital for every
taxpayer dollar invested. The program has leveraged over $1 billion in
private capital in just two years. We look forward to continued
communications with Congress on the innovative AFVentures process and
how we're making great strides in optimizing SBIR/STTR opportunities to
meet the priorities of the National Defense Strategy.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
Mr. Scott. In a March 6, 2018, Breaking Defense article, you are
quoted as saying, ``The Chinese love our acquisition system. They are
the biggest fans of our acquisition there possibly could be.'' Do the
Communist Chinese still love our acquisition system today? If they
still do love our acquisition system, what can Congress do to make them
stop loving our acquisition system?
Secretary Griffin. Thanks to the hard work of Congress and the
Department, I would like to think the Chinese are loving us a little
less these days. That being said there is still much work to be done
and we are engaging with our colleagues across the Department to
continue to add speed and flexibility to our acquisition process, so
that we don't just pace the Chinese threat but achieve and maintain a
distinct advantage. We ask that Congress continue to work with us to
identify and repeal acquisition roadblocks and add authorities as
needed.
Mr. Scott. Hypersonic threats are beyond the ability of any current
U.S. systems to engage. Why did the Department of Defense allow this to
happen despite decades of research? What lessons can be learned?
Secretary Griffin. The U.S. has been a world leader in hypersonic
research for decades, however, we have consistently made the decision
to not transition that technological advantage to the warfighter. We
have not pursued hypersonic technologies with a sense of urgency or
clear direction, which has led to a slower rate of progress compared to
China and a lack of sufficient investment in the necessary
infrastructure and workforce needed to support multiple acquisition
programs. There are many reasons for that and opinions differ, but one
could argue that with the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise in the
global war on terror (GWOT) there has not been a strong threat driven
demand for the sophisticated capability enabled by hypersonic systems.
In the global war on terror, we have enjoyed battlefield dominance on
land, in the air, at sea and in space without the need for developing
hypersonic capabilities. With our focus directed to the GWOT, a
resurgent Russia and an aggressive China studied our capabilities and
the systems that enabled our domain dominance on the battlefield, and
systematically developed capabilities to challenge that dominance in
every domain, including in the case of China, a highly capable
portfolio of hypersonic systems. Until the most recent National Defense
Strategy and the pivot from an almost complete focus on GWOT to a focus
on Great Power Competition, we simply did not have a priority on paying
attention to, and countering, the strategy and buildup of our great
power competitors. At the same time, China, and to a lesser extent,
Russia, have been able to capitalize on our early advances in
hypersonics across the board, and saw this as an area in which they
could match or exceed our capabilities. They read our literature,
watched our experiments, and invested heavily in people,
infrastructure, and programs. As a result we find ourselves in a
competition where our adversaries are fielding advanced capabilities,
including hypersonic systems, at an alarming pace and we are having to
greatly accelerate our pace of modernization. To that end, we have
created DOD Modernization Priorities, including one for Hypersonics, to
accelerate our competitive posture with a renewed focus on China and
Russia. The Hypersonics modernization priority includes development of
offensive hypersonic systems to provide capability to defeat the range
of adversary high end systems that challenge our battlefield domain
dominance, as well as, systems to defend against adversary hypersonic
capabilities. Relative to lessons learned, the primary lesson is that
we need to continue to balance our investments, keep our attention on
the full range of challenges to our National defense, and have the
vision and fortitude necessary to ensure we always have technical
advantage against our current and future potential adversaries.
Mr. Scott. Given the rise of 3-D printing, should future
procurement contracts include a clause that the military be entitled to
standardized, printable designs?
Secretary Griffin. The Department is evaluating how best to employ
technological advances in 3-D printing to improve sustainment and
product support for its weapon platforms and other critical systems.
This evaluation is part of a broader review of advanced digital
manufacturing capabilities that contribute to the Department's
implementation of its digital engineering strategy. The Department's
procurement practices will require updating to keep pace with our needs
to employ 3-D printing. The revision and addition of standardized terms
and conditions will be part of this update. The specific application of
these requirements to the procurement of printable designs will be
driven by appropriate business case analysis that balances the costs,
benefits and risks of acquiring this technical data, rather than
through Department-wide fiat. Our approach is focused on identifying
requirements for acquiring such data in a manner that can be integrated
smartly into the acquisition strategies and product support strategies.
Business case analysis will allow us to understand when it is
appropriate and cost-effective to acquire and license such data.
Alternatively we may encounter cases in which 3-D printable product
design has been developed without DOD funding and must be treated as
proprietary data of the original designer/vendor. In such instances it
may not be cost-effective to acquire the necessary license rights for
that data. The Department will seek to employ a consistent approach
that can also be adapted to address specialized needs of different
programs and platforms.
Mr. Scott. DOD invented the new geographic domain of warfare known
as cyber. What assurances can you give this committee that should DOD
invent another new domain of warfare that it won't be shared with our
enemies to weaponize against us?
Secretary Griffin. R&E defers to the Joint Staff.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HOULAHAN
Ms. Houlahan. It seems there is a new area of concern we have
entered with China regarding advanced biomanufacturing. As China looks
to advance their biomanufacturing capability, I understand they've
signaled willingness to use biotechnology and other emerging
technologies against their opposition and adversaries without respect
for protocols, conventions, or human rights.
What is the Department is doing to ensure we remain ahead of China
in biotechnology?
Secretary Griffin. To maintain biotechnological overmatch
capabilities, the Department of Defense named biotechnology a
modernization priority. Each modernization priority is led by an
Assistant Director or Technical Director, who is responsible for
unifying and advancing the Department's investments and capabilities in
that area. Biotechnology modernization is focused on developing
critical resources and capabilities to field biotechnology-enabled
products. Under these modernization efforts, the Department started a
Biotechnology Community of Interest (COI) in December 2019. The purpose
of this COI is to: 1) coordinate, roadmap, and prioritize biotechnology
research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDTE) efforts across
the Department components and 2) advance biotechnology capabilities
towards applications in varied mission domains, including material and
systems, human performance, military medicine, and chem-bio defense.
Recognizing critical gaps in U.S. biomanufacturing, DOD is establishing
a Bioindustrial Manufacturing Innovation Institute (MII). The
Bioindustrial MII will accelerate emergent biomanufacturing
technologies and processes with the goal to successfully transition
science and technology research into defense and commercial products
within a globally competitive U.S. manufacturing ecosystem. The
Bioindustrial MII will serve as a bioindustrial innovation hub,
providing the infrastructure to support biomanufacturing enterprises of
all sizes and ensuring that the U.S. biomanufacturing industry is a key
pillar in an enduring and thriving bioeconomy. Standing up a MII for
biomanufacturing will establish U.S. technical leadership, greatly
expand U.S. capacity, provide key capabilities to ensure DOD
biotechnology modernization, and lead to commercialization of
biomanufactured products. Concept papers for the MII are due May 4,
2020 and the DOD anticipates making an award in Fall 2020.
Ms. Houlahan. Are there any programs within the DOD that allow mid-
level serve members the opportunity to go out and work in STEM academia
for a designated amount of time, and then bring their expertise back to
the Department?
Secretary Griffin. There are programs with the Department that
allow mid-level civilian members the opportunity to work in STEM
academia. Specifically, the Science and Technology Reinvention
Laboratories (STRLs) have sabbatical-like programs. These sabbatical-
like programs allow the employees within the STRLs to work with
academic institutions to benefit their organization's mission. These
programs require a service agreement and must demonstrate value to the
organization's mission. Included below are excerpts from the internal
operating procedure from an Army and Air Force STRL that describe their
programs.
Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) Armaments Center
(AC)
Sabbatical. The CCDC AC Director has the authority to grant paid or
unpaid sabbaticals to all career employees. The purpose of a sabbatical
will be to permit employees to engage in study or uncompensated work
experience that will benefit the organization and contribute to the
employee's development and effectiveness. Each sabbatical must result
in a product, service, report, or study that will benefit the CCDC AC
mission as well as increase the employee's individual effectiveness.
Various learning or developmental experiences may be considered, such
as advanced academic teaching, research, self-directed or guided study,
and on-the-job work experience. One paid sabbatical of up to twelve
months in duration or one unpaid sabbatical of up to six months in a
calendar year may be granted to an employee in any seven-year period.
Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
Developmental Opportunities Program. The AFRL Developmental
Opportunities Program (DOP) is available for all employees at a Science
and Technology Reinvention Laboratory (DEMO Employees). This program
provides a process for personnel to acquire knowledge and expertise
that cannot be acquired in the standard working environment. These
activities should enhance the employee's contribution upon his or her
return to the organization. Each developmental opportunity must benefit
both AFRL and the individual employee. The spectrum of available
activities under this program is limited only by the constraint that
potential contribution to AFRL's mission exists. The program can be
used for training/educational opportunities, such as training with
industry or on-the-job work experience with government, public,
private, or nonprofit organizations. It may enable an employee to spend
time in an academic environment such as advanced academic teaching or
research. An individual may also take advantage of this program to
devote full-time effort to writing technical papers, articles, books,
entrepreneurial opportunities, etc.
In addition to the STRL sabbatical program, the Basic Research
Office within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering manages the Laboratory-University Collaboration
Initiative (LUCI). This program facilitates and competitively funds
leading DOD-service Laboratory scientists in a three-year basic
research collaboration with prominent University professors who
participate in the Department-wide fundamental research programs,
specifically Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellows (VBFF), and current and
previous Principal Investigators (PI) and co-PIs of the
Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program. The
partnerships between the competitively selected DOD Laboratory
researchers, members of their team, and the university researchers are
designed to enhance the Service Laboratories' primary objectives of
bringing better capabilities and expertise to the Warfighter, while
enhancing and sustaining prominent academic researchers' interest in
defense technology development. The topical areas these funds and
efforts support include, but are not limited to; quantum information,
bio-engineering, and materials sciences, as well as applied
mathematics, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience.
Ms. Houlahan. Following on the importance of developing the
Department's policies and understanding the implications of these many
emerging threats, we are disheartened that this year the Department
decided to terminate the Minerva program. Minerva is a unique social
science basic research program that has helped DOD understand
nontraditional threats to national security--from the rapid growth of
China's technological prowess; to the human systems underlying the
cyber threat; to the behavior of populations involved in conflicts; and
to the mind of a suicide bomber. How can the Department continue to
build out its policies without having the tools, techniques, and
frameworks to understand the dramatically changing landscape of our
future threats?
Secretary Griffin. During the Defense Wide Review, R&E conducted a
rigorous prioritization of its RDT&E activities and identified where
funds could be reinvested in lethality and readiness. Key DOD
investments made possible by this reprioritization included: quantum
science, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and 5G. While the
Department remains committed to drawing on the contributions of the
social sciences to address the broad range of threats we face difficult
choices had to be made among many competing priorities.
Ms. Houlahan. According to a Defense Science Board report, ``most
Lab Directors feel they are unable to maintain their facilities and
infrastructure at a reasonable standard.'' The FY20 NDAA directed the
Secretary to develop an infrastructure master plan to support research,
development, test, and evaluation missions in the Department. How are
you working to support this requirement? And can each of you please
discuss the state of your research laboratories and how the budget
addresses your concerns about maintaining the labs at the standard
necessary to conduct cutting edge research and attract the same level
of talent?
Secretary Griffin. As directed by Section 252 of the FY2020 NDAA,
my staff is working with the Military Departments to draft the
Infrastructure Master Plan. It will be submitted to Congress by the
mandated date of January 1, 2021. As conveyed in this year's Report to
Congress on Unfunded Requirements for Laboratory Military Construction
Projects: Section 2806 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law
115-91), funding DOD laboratory military construction is a critical
issue. The current state of the research laboratories is reflected in
the large number (126) of unfunded laboratory MILCON requests submitted
by the Military Departments. Up-to-date facilities increase mission
readiness and attract top talent, ensuring the Department is able to
meet future capability and preparedness efforts. However, maintaining
the laboratories is an ongoing problem, as the Military Departments are
prioritizing readiness with the scarce MILCON funding available.
Despite this, the Military Departments are slowly modernizing their
facilities and there are ongoing projects within the Army, Navy, and
Air Force.
Ms. Houlahan. According to a Defense Science Board report, ``most
Lab Directors feel they are unable to maintain their facilities and
infrastructure at a reasonable standard.'' The FY20 NDAA directed the
Secretary to develop an infrastructure master plan to support research,
development, test, and evaluation missions in the Department. How are
you working to support this requirement? And can each of you please
discuss the state of your research laboratories and how the budget
addresses your concerns about maintaining the labs at the standard
necessary to conduct cutting edge research and attract the same level
of talent?
Secretary Jette. Army laboratory facilities have an average age of
more than 50 years. The Army requires modern buildings, equipment and
other resources to continue developing cutting-edge technology that
supports the Soldier and continue to attract, recruit, and retain the
most talented science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
personnel. In accordance with Section 252 of the Fiscal Year 2020
National Defense Authorization Act, the Army is revising, developing,
and implementing the master plan to address infrastructure (physical
and intellectual) and modernization requirements across the department.
The Army is currently evaluating baseline competencies, including
function, capacity and quality in technology areas that support the
National Defense Strategy and Army Modernization Strategy to ensure our
current facilities can address emerging and future needs. Funding for
mission-specific facilities maintenance, e.g., labs, and general
modernization is based on the Army's Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation budget and, when specific needs are identified, additional
funding is requested through the budget process
Ms. Houlahan. According to a Defense Science Board report, ``most
Lab Directors feel they are unable to maintain their facilities and
infrastructure at a reasonable standard.'' The FY20 NDAA directed the
Secretary to develop an infrastructure master plan to support research,
development, test, and evaluation missions in the Department. How are
you working to support this requirement? And can each of you please
discuss the state of your research laboratories and how the budget
addresses your concerns about maintaining the labs at the standard
necessary to conduct cutting edge research and attract the same level
of talent?
Secretary Geurts. Ensuring the Navy R&D community executes their
mission in state-of-the-art facilities is a priority for the DON. We
have established a new Facilities Operating Model (FOM) that has the
labs develop strategic infrastructure plans. The DON is fully
leveraging Title 10 Section 2363 investments for repair and
revitalization of our laboratory facilities and we anticipate this
authority to be a major tool in the future strategy. The DON continues
to maximize the use of Section 233 authority from the FY 2017 NDAA that
provides enormous flexibility to our Sustainment, Repair, and
Modernization program to promote speed of execution through both public
and private service providers.
Ms. Houlahan. According to a Defense Science Board report, ``most
Lab Directors feel they are unable to maintain their facilities and
infrastructure at a reasonable standard.'' The FY20 NDAA directed the
Secretary to develop an infrastructure master plan to support research,
development, test, and evaluation missions in the Department. How are
you working to support this requirement? And can each of you please
discuss the state of your research laboratories and how the budget
addresses your concerns about maintaining the labs at the standard
necessary to conduct cutting edge research and attract the same level
of talent?
Secretary Roper. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) developed
a 5-year facility master plan, which supports the Secretary's
requirement. The plan identifies facility requirements from various
funding programs (e.g., MILCON, RDT&E, O&M) and was recently reviewed
for its alignment to the National Defense Strategy. While our
laboratory facilities are capable of meeting current requirements, they
will require updates to conduct the cutting edge research necessary to
compete with a near-peer adversary and meet the long-term requirements
in the National Defense Strategy. The AFRL Commander uses the
authorities given in 10 U.S.C 2363(a) and 10 U.S.C. 2805 [Unspecified
Minor Construction] to help address laboratory improvements, including
revitalization of laboratory facilities. As authorized in 10 U.S.C.
2363(a), up to 4% of the funding available to the AFRL Commander is
used to support state-of-the-art research facility improvements in line
with strategic research and development. In recent years, this amount
has totaled about $32 million per year spent on AFRL facilities.
Additionally, AFRL fully uses the special Unspecified Minor
Construction laboratory authority which provides for increased single
project construction thresholds of $6 million. This helps address some
of the lower cost facility projects, and increases AFRL's ability to
maintain facilities at the standard necessary to conduct cutting edge
research and attract top-tier talent.