[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


.                                     
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-88]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBER, INNOVATIVE 
                  TECHNOLOGIES, AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

                                   ON

                    REVIEWING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY,

                    POLICY, AND PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL

                      YEAR 2023: ACCELERATING THE

                           PACE OF INNOVATION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                              MAY 12, 2022

                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-652                    WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBER, INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

               JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island, Chairman

RICK LARSEN, Washington              JIM BANKS, Indiana
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
RO KHANNA, California                MO BROOKS, Alabama
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts    MATT GAETZ, Florida
ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania,      STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
    Vice Chair                       C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JASON CROW, Colorado                 BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan             PAT FALLON, Texas
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York

               Michael Hermann, Professional Staff Member
                Sarah Moxley, Professional Staff Member
                           Payson Ruhl, Clerk
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Banks, Hon. Jim, a Representative from Indiana, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and Information 
  Systems........................................................     3
Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island, 
  Chairman, Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and 
  Information Systems............................................     1

                               WITNESSES

Baldwin, Kristen J., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
  for Science, Technology, and Engineering, Department of the Air 
  Force..........................................................     6
Mann, Paul D., Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
  Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Department of the 
  Navy...........................................................     9
Nelson, William B., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Research and Technology/Chief Scientist, Department of the Army     7
Shyu, Hon. Heidi, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and 
  Engineering, Department of Defense.............................     4

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Baldwin, Kristen J...........................................    52
    Langevin, Hon. James R.......................................    31
    Mann, Paul D.................................................    87
    Nelson, William B............................................    76
    Shyu, Hon. Heidi.............................................    33

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Morelle..................................................    99
                    
                    
                    REVIEWING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY, POLICY,

 AND PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023: ACCELERATING THE PACE OF INNOVATION

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
       Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and 
                                       Information Systems,
                            Washington, DC, Thursday, May 12, 2022.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:34 p.m., in 
room 2118, 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 CYBER, INNOVATIVE 
             TECHNOLOGIES, AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

    Mr. Langevin. The subcommittee will come to order. I would 
like to begin by welcoming everyone to today's hearing on the 
Department of Defense fiscal year 2023 strategy, policy, and 
programs for science and technology. Following the open portion 
of the hearing, the subcommittee will reconvene in a closed, 
classified members' only session in room 2212 with 
representatives from DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency] and the military services research entities.
    So to take care of some housekeeping things first. We have 
convened this as a hybrid hearing. Members who are joining 
remotely, including myself, must be visible on screen for the 
purposes of identity verification, establishing and maintaining 
a quorum, participating in the proceeding and voting. Those 
members must continue to use the software platform's video 
function while in attendance unless they experience 
connectivity issues or other technical problems that render 
them unable to participate on camera.
    If a member experiences technical difficulties, they should 
contact the committee staff for assistance. Video of members' 
participation will be broadcast in the room and via the 
television internet feeds. Members participating remotely must 
seek recognition verbally, and they are asked to mute their 
microphone when they are not speaking.
    Members who are participating remotely are reminded to keep 
the software platform's video function on the entire time they 
attend the proceeding. Members may leave and rejoin the 
proceeding. If members depart for a short while for reasons 
other than joining a different proceeding, they should leave 
the video function on.
    If members will be absent for a significant period or 
depart to join a different proceeding, they should exit the 
software platform entirely, and then rejoin if they return. 
Members may use the software platform's chat feature to 
communicate with staff regarding technical or logistical 
support issues only.
    Also, and finally, I have designated a committee staff 
member to, if necessary, mute unrecognized members' microphones 
to cancel any inadvertent background noise that may disrupt the 
proceeding.
    So let me begin with this by saying, this is an important 
opportunity to examine the Department's work to maintain the 
technological advantage that our Nation enjoys. And I want to 
thank Ranking Member Banks for organizing this hearing with me 
and thank our witnesses for joining us.
    Before us today, we have the Honorable Heidi Shyu, Under 
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering; Ms. Kristen 
Baldwin, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Science, Technology, and Engineering; Mr. William Nelson, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Technology 
and Chief Scientist; and Mr. Paul Mann, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, Test, and 
Evaluation.
    So I thank and welcome our witnesses here today, and I must 
say that this is a bittersweet hearing for me as it is the 
final science and technology posture hearing that I will chair 
before retiring at the conclusion of this Congress. It is 
remarkable, I have to say, to see how far we have come in the 
years since I joined the Armed Services Committee going back 
all the way as a freshman, but I am continually reminded of how 
far we have yet to go, foremost on the infrastructure and 
facility challenges throughout the enterprise.
    I have to say that it is shocking that we face a massive 
backlog in laboratory investment, more than $5.7 billion in the 
latest report to Congress. These challenges affect not just the 
pace and breadth of innovation, but also, our ability to 
attract and retain the top-tier talent that we depend on.
    I am committed to doing everything in my power to address 
this issue, and I look forward to hearing how to set the 
Department on a sustainable path of research facility 
investment. This could not be more pressing.
    We also live in an incredibly dynamic world, as we all 
recognize, with an accelerating pace of innovation, but we face 
enormous challenges within the Department in terms of 
technology development, transition, and adoption. But these are 
not just about the adoption of commercial innovation and more 
agile procurement, but the Department's willingness to invest 
at scale in potentially game-changing technologies.
    The case study for this, in my mind, is electromagnetic 
rail gun. It is incredibly disappointing to me that this 
program is being effectively shelved with the Navy being unable 
or unwilling to make the effort to integrate and transition 
this capability into a warfighting system.
    Similarly, I am perplexed as to why there is a sudden lack 
of support for the Diode-Pumped Alkali Laser program, a key 
directed energy technology that is making great strides. By 
shunning these programs, I fear that we are ceding a crucial 
technology space to our competitors, and they are not sitting 
by idle.
    However, I have to say that we also have seen incredible 
successes within the S&T [science and technology] world, 
particularly when it comes to the Department's SBIR/STTR [Small 
Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology 
Transfer] program. So I wanted to highlight those as wins.
    For example, one small company has produced robotic 
exoskeletons and prosthetics systems to both augment human 
strength and help those with injuries or disabilities move 
independently. Another produced a hypoxia training system, 
which supports pressure on demand, reduced oxygen delivery to 
pilots flying jet trainers, solving a challenge that had long 
plagued the Department. Such innovation would not have been 
possible without robust S&T investments.
    I will also, of course, include the incredible work done by 
DARPA on MRNA [messenger RNA] technology that led to the 
development of the current vaccines that we have today that 
have no doubt saved lives and kept people healthy, too numerous 
to count. And that was a game-changing technology and just 
underscores just the importance of early-stage research and 
investment.
    In conclusion, I want to talk about our greatest strength 
as a country, the incredible talent and resources of our 
people. But we cannot expect our edge to persist indefinitely. 
We must aggressively invest in our future through STEAM 
[science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics] 
education and workforce training. We must ensure that we are 
able to contribute, and that means that we are all able to 
contribute, and that means ensuring diversity, that, for 
example, historically Black colleges and universities and 
minority-serving institutions are full partners in the defense 
ecosystem. And it means enabling small businesses to bring 
their unique capabilities to this innovation base. And it means 
that researchers, engineers, and innovators who bring their 
talents to the unique challenges of national security should 
find a Department of Defense able and willing to embrace their 
ideas rather than an opaque system that has, too often, impedes 
the rapid adoption of innovation.
    So I know that our witnesses today share my concern and my 
desire to do right by our incredible [men and] women in uniform 
that serve our, and protect our Nation in such a major way. And 
I thank you all for appearing and I look forward to today's 
discussion and working with each of you in my final year on the 
committee.
    With that, I will now turn to our Ranking Member Banks for 
any comments that he may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Langevin can be found in the 
Appendix on page 31.]

  STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA, 
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBER, INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, 
                    AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first and foremost, 
I would like to welcome a special guest, the mayor of New 
Haven, Indiana, from my district who is joining us in the back 
row. I told him he didn't have to stay here for the entire 
hearing, but I wanted him to come and see his Congressman at 
work. So welcome, Mayor, thanks for joining us today.
    Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman for those remarks and thank 
you to our witnesses for your time today. The work that you and 
the men and women in your enterprises do to transform our 
capabilities and technology through research and development 
will be the defining factor in future conflicts.
    Our adversaries are heavily invested in emerging 
technologies through expanded research and development, 
recruiting top scientists, and stealing our intellectual 
property. They are transforming these technologies into 
capabilities that we will see on the battlefield. Our Armed 
Forces are made up of incredible men and women, but we are 
putting them at a disadvantage if we fail to equip them with 
the best capabilities and technology.
    In the past year, we have seen several high-profile 
departures from people in positions related to innovation. A 
common frustration that they have expressed is that the 
Department is not moving fast enough to modernize the 
Department and transition technologies to the warfighter.
    We can't afford to slowly embrace new technologies and 
capabilities, much less fail to adopt them at all. We can't 
rely on antiquated practices when equipping our warfighters 
with the tools that they need to win in the battlefields of the 
future, whether it is hypersonics, artificial intelligence, 
quantum computing, directed energy, biotechnology, 5G, or 
cyber, we must lean into developing, procuring, and deploying 
these technologies, and investing in the leading edges of new 
ones in order to compete, but more importantly, to maintain our 
superiority.
    I hope to hear from you today about how the Department is 
preparing for the future of defense and how Congress can help 
you do it. I look forward to our discussion and working 
together to advance that mission.
    With that, thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Langevin. I thank the ranking member.
    With that, we will now go to witness testimony.
    The witnesses are asked to summarize their witness 
statements for 5 minutes and they can submit the longer 
statement for the record.
    With that, I will now turn to the Honorable Heidi Shyu for 
your testimony. Welcome, Madam Secretary.

 STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI SHYU, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 
        RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Secretary Shyu. Chairman Langevin, Ranking Member Banks, 
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
represent research and engineering arm of the Department of 
Defense at this hearing on accelerating the pace of innovation.
    I am honored and proud to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
Research and Engineering, and the Department's Chief Technology 
Officer. And I am very happy to be here today with my esteemed 
service colleagues at this testimony.
    As Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, 
my responsibility is to ensure an enduring technological 
advantage with the United States military. We will accomplish 
this goal by building/implementing the Department's technology 
strategy as directed by Congress, and in alignment with the 
National Defense Strategy.
    The forthcoming National Defense Science and Technology 
Strategy will provide guidance to the Department on near-term 
challenges and ensure that our Nation remains the global leader 
in technology and far into the future.
    The challenges are vast, from rising nations to rising sea 
levels. In my written testimony, I describe the specific, 
critical technology areas, and how the Department is working 
faster and more collaboratively across prototyping and 
experimentation. Today, I want to briefly highlight two areas 
where the Department must work closely with Congress to ensure 
an enduring advantage.
    First, build a strong foundation for science. And secondly, 
updating how the Department [inaudible] businesses better to 
reflect today's world. Every strong structure needs to stand on 
a solid foundation to ensure this country retains our edge, and 
fuels the future technologies and capabilities. We must make a 
commitment to science and technology, particularly in basic 
research. We must attract the best people. We must supply the 
necessary infrastructure for R&D. We must rapidly prototype and 
perform joint experimentation and collaborate across the 
technology ecosystem.
    If we expect the Department to attract the world's best and 
brightest to produce state-of-the-art technologies, we must 
modernize our laboratory and test ranges. The future of the 
Department depends on talented people, and we are committed to 
developing this talent.
    The Department has invested in a variety of workforce, 
educational, and research programs ranging from K-12 robotic 
systems to STEM [science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics] scholarships and social science research. As 
strategic competition increases, so must our attention to S&T.
    I know many of you on the committee feels the same way, and 
I look forward to working with you to strengthen our S&T 
supported infrastructure in the workforce.
    In my remaining time, I want to discuss how the Department 
must innovate in pace with the technological change, and in 
keeping with the demands of the National Defense Strategy. 
Historically, the Department has been a leader in R&D. We still 
are, but the growth of the private sector of R&D has exploded 
in the last 50 years.
    As seen in Ukraine, novel commercial technology, paired 
with conventional weapons, can change the nature of conflict. 
The Department's processes ranging from programming to 
experimentation to collaboration should be updated to reflect 
the dynamic landscape of today and anticipate the needs of 
tomorrow.
    Our Nation's private sector is our competitive advantage, 
and we must focus on improving how the government and private 
sector work together. I am committed to working with you to 
ensure the Department can move as quickly as possible as it 
engages with the private sector, and the whole innovation 
ecosystem to rapidly transition technology to future 
capabilities.
    Thank you for having me here today, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Shyu can be found in 
the Appendix on page 33.]
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Secretary Shyu.
    The chair now recognizes Deputy Assistant Secretary Kristen 
Baldwin.

STATEMENT OF KRISTEN J. BALDWIN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
    THE AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING, 
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

    Ms. Baldwin. Chairman Langevin, Ranking Member Banks, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2023 
President's budget request.
    The Department of the Air Force science and technology 
portfolio addresses near-, mid-, and far-term capabilities with 
a focused transformational component that matures game-changing 
technologies for transition.
    It is clear that supremacy in the air and space domains can 
no longer be presumed without deliberate technology 
investments, modernization of our military systems, 
strengthening innovation and partnerships, and growing the 
talent, skills, and diversity necessary to deliver operational 
capabilities.
    Our S&T budget is invested in critical technology areas, 
including artificial intelligence and autonomy, quantum, 
hypersonics, microelectronics, directed energy, biotechnology, 
and many others. Research and technology is cross-cutting in 
its application and breakthroughs routinely provide 
multidisciplinary benefits. Thus, the Air Force Research Lab 
remains one laboratory supporting both the Air Force and the 
Space Force.
    We continue to push the boundaries of modern technology to 
transform our warfighting capabilities. Our WARTECH [Warfighter 
Technologist] process has demonstrated great success engaging 
warfighters and technologists to ideate and mature 
transformational S&T. We have initiated over two dozen WARTECH 
projects and four Vanguard programs. Designed from the start as 
collaborative teams from S&T, acquisition, operations, and test 
communities, Vanguards couple investments across multiple 
budget activities to bridge the transition gap from S&T to 
acquisition. Three of the four Vanguard programs will achieve 
their transition by the end of 2023.
    We continue to transform the way we work with commercial 
small business. In 2021, we launched SpaceWERX focused on 
pursuing novel technologies for the Space Force. SpaceWERX is 
an organic part of AFWERX, leveraging shared processes and 
resources.
    Last year, we awarded over 1,800 Small Business Innovative 
Research and Small Business Technology Transfer contracts. More 
than 75 percent of these small businesses are new performers to 
the Department of the Air Force. Since 2018, our SBIR/STTR 
performers have received over $6 billion in follow-on 
government contracts and $17.5 billion follow-on in private 
investment.
    Maintaining our world-class talent requires agile processes 
to be able to recruit, hire, and retain personnel. We make 
great use of the authorities that the Congress has provided to 
the science and technology community. In particular, direct 
hiring authority and enhanced pay authority allow accelerated 
hiring and the ability to attract top-notch talent in cutting-
edge areas.
    Diversity of this workforce brings strategic advantage as 
well. The Air Force Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions Outreach 
Initiative is a $97 million effort providing HBCUs and MSIs the 
opportunity for research and development funding through 
strategic partnerships with small businesses.
    In 2021, partnerships were formed with 19 of these 
institutions. Looking forward to our future technical talent, 
last year, our K-12 STEM program impacted 1 million students, 
16,000 teachers, and involved over 4,000 volunteers. A 
highlight of our STEM portfolio that I would like to share with 
you is the LEGACY [Leadership Experience Growing 
Apprenticeships Committed to Youth] program that reconnects 
young students as they grow from craftsmen to junior 
apprentices to interns.
    And in 2021, 388 students participated in our LEGACY 
program with a return rate of 84 percent.
    I thank you for your strong support of the Air Force and 
Space Force science and technology, the authorities that you 
have provided, and this opportunity to testify.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Baldwin can be found in the 
Appendix on page 52.]
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
Baldwin.
    The chair now recognizes Deputy Assistant Secretary William 
Nelson.

 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. NELSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
     THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY/CHIEF SCIENTIST, 
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

    Mr. Nelson. Chairman Langevin, Ranking Member Banks, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss Army science and technology strategy, 
policy, and programs today.
    These are all designed to realize U.S. Army modernization 
priorities, founded on a robust S&T ecosystem, to provide our 
soldiers a technological advantage. Army modernization is a 
team effort. Spearheaded by the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, and Army Futures 
Command [AFC], includes a network of synchronized laboratories 
and engineering centers located across this great country. 
Together with our partners from the other services and the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army labs and centers are 
working with academia and industry to develop new technology 
that is driving near- and mid-term modernization to equip the 
Army of 2030 and performing the fundamental research to enable 
the Army of 2040 and beyond.
    The Army is building a balanced S&T portfolio for near- and 
mid-term technology insertion, and for technology breakthroughs 
for basic research. Our S&T strategy pays careful attention to 
supporting the signature modernization priority efforts, while 
simultaneously maintaining and supporting research aimed at 
fundamental long-term change.
    We are continuing to transform the Army S&T business model 
to emphasize early collaboration and frequent communication 
between requirements, S&T, acquisition, testing, and 
sustainment communities; also with our academic and industry 
partners, and most importantly, our soldiers.
    As a recent AFC cross-functional team director, I can tell 
you firsthand that these communities are collaborating in 
unprecedented ways. Army scientists and engineers are changing 
the way warfighting concepts and requirements are developed 
which then shape longer term research projects and goals.
    Our program executive offices are maturing an exceptional 
number of technologies emerging from S&T and the cross-
functional teams are quickly delivering our signature 
modernization programs to meet the demands of joint multi-
domain operations. Our basic research programs enable the 
foundational work that will define the technological 
capabilities of the Army of 2040 and beyond.
    At the center, the Army Research Lab has built a network of 
regional hubs and labs that give us access to the widest 
spectrum of scientists in colleges and universities across the 
country. These talented researchers and academic partners 
perform cutting-edge research in a variety of critical areas to 
the Army, including quantum science, synthetic biology, and 
artificial intelligence.
    Our university partnerships provide Army access to our 
country's world-class science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematic talent. And the Army's educational outreach program 
helps develop STEM talent across the spectrum from kindergarten 
through college with a strong focus on reaching traditionally 
underserved communities.
    Of course, as with all educational programs, COVID-19 
caused some disruptions. However, I am pleased to say we were 
able to successfully pivot to virtual programs in 2021, and 
served approximately 28,000 teachers and students across the 
country.
    Army labs are powered by an S&T workforce that is diverse, 
technically competent, and highly educated. The congressionally 
provided special personnel hiring authorities have been 
critical for Army laboratories to remain agile and competitive 
with the private sector.
    Last year, direct hiring authorities allowed Army 
laboratories to hire 650 government scientists and engineers in 
critical fields such as bioengineering, neuroscience, computer 
science, and materials engineering. To attract and retain these 
scientists and engineers, our Army labs must have world-class 
research facilities and equipment.
    Due to several factors, many research and test facilities 
would greatly benefit from revitalization and recapitalization. 
We are making slow but steady progress by relying on a spectrum 
of congressional authorities to resource and modernize these 
facilities. Your support to raise the laboratory infrastructure 
construction cost caps would be greatly appreciated.
    In conclusion, I want to thank the members for their time 
and support. Gaining and exploiting new scientific knowledge is 
crucial to the advancement of warfighting capabilities, and we 
must safeguard these endeavors as a national critical resource. 
Army S&T is at the forefront of acquiring the knowledge 
essential to its land warfare mission and developing 
technology-enabled and soldier-informed capabilities that will 
transition to meet the warfighter dominance needs of the 
future.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson can be found in the 
Appendix on page 76.]
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Deputy Assistant Secretary Nelson.
    The chair now recognizes Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 
Paul Mann for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF PAUL D. MANN, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
   THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, 
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    Mr. Mann. Chairman Langevin, Ranking Member Banks, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to address the Department of the Navy's investment 
strategy for the science and technology portfolio.
    The United States is a maritime nation. With our allies and 
partners, the Department of the Navy provides security and 
stability, maintains the peace, and ensures free and open 
access to the world's waterways. We continue to face a rapidly 
changing global security environment as evidenced by Russia's 
invasion of Ukraine and China's continuing efforts to challenge 
the United States influence in the Pacific.
    To generate our competitive advantage, we leveraged the 
full force of our naval research and development establishment, 
which includes our naval warfare centers and laboratories, the 
Office of Naval Research, and our partnerships with allies, 
industry, and academia.
    Our diverse team has focused on outcomes driven by 
learning, agility, scalability, and systems that leverage 
innovative technology and systems engineering to deliver 
maritime dominance in the joint fight. In alignment with the 
SECNAV's [Secretary of the Navy] enduring priorities and the 
CNO's [Chief of Naval Operations] and VCNO's [Vice Chief of 
Naval Operations] Navigation Plan and Get Real, Get Better 
campaign of learning, we continue to push technological 
boundaries.
    Our investments in prototyping, experimentation, 
partnerships with operational forces, and collaboration with 
allies enable the agility we need to keep our adversaries 
disadvantaged.
    With your support, our workforce of dedicated scientists, 
innovators, and engineering professionals will continue to 
develop and deliver the most effective capabilities that solve 
immediate and future key operational challenges. We endeavor to 
support our operational forces with enduring asymmetric and 
technological advantages across all operational environments.
    Our strategic investments in research and development 
enable the competitive edge we require today, tomorrow, and for 
decades to come.
    Finally, to all of you, we welcome you to visit our warfare 
centers and laboratories around the country and see firsthand 
the technologies that we are developing, the systems under 
development, and the talent professionals and the teams working 
together who make it all possible. We believe our workforce is 
our competitive advantage.
    I am honored for this opportunity to answer questions, and 
share insights on matters important to the subcommittee and our 
Nation.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mann can be found in the 
Appendix on page 87.]
    Mr. Langevin. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Mann.
    I will now turn to member questions, and I will begin with 
myself.
    So to our witnesses here today, investment in Department 
S&T efforts continues to be dependent on large congressional 
increases to maintain an appropriate level to support future 
warfighters.
    Why is this, and what capability gaps could you fill with a 
larger S&T budget?
    Secretary Shyu, why don't we start with you.
    Secretary Shyu. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Langevin. Yes, now we can.
    Secretary Shyu. The first thing I would do is to help out 
to get more MILCON [military construction] money to help out in 
our lab and test infrastructure side. This is where there is a 
huge deficiency that you have seen. There is $5.7 billion of 
UFR [unfunded requirements] that went over, and I think that 
piece is absolutely critical for us to put some additional 
funding against. So that will be my number one priority.
    Along with some of the lab and test infrastructure, I will 
give you example. There is about $500 million needed by the 
Navy electromagnetic and cyber countermeasures laboratory to 
modernize the lab in order to develop and evaluate emerging 
threats, and to be able to support an increased number of 
classified projects. This is just one example of chunk of money 
that we need.
    Ms. Baldwin. Chairman, I would just add a few comments. If 
you are familiar with the Department of the Air Force S&T 
strategy--
    Mr. Larsen. Sorry. Could you just pull the microphone 
closer to you. Just pull it; grab it. There you go.
    Ms. Baldwin. Absolutely--excuse me.
    Our S&T strategy for the Department of the Air Force 
highlights a focus of directing 20 percent of our investment 
towards transformational technologies. I spoke to this in my 
opening remarks, and I would just say that that is an area of 
the investment where we are really trying to bridge the 
capability gap to our most critical priorities.
    You may be also familiar with the Secretary of the Air 
Force's operational imperatives in order to keep pace with the 
China threat.
    We are actively identifying what capabilities are needed, 
and using this transformational S&T component to align with 
those capability gaps. So that would be one. But I would be 
remiss if I also did not mention basic research. The Department 
of the Air Force invested an increase in the basic research 
account for fiscal year 2023, increasing it up to $550 million 
for 2023, and this is just an important enduring investment.
    Those are my two remarks.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
    Mr. Nelson.
    Mr. Nelson. I would just add, I would probably stay on the 
infrastructure note that Honorable Shyu mentioned. That is 
certainly an area that we all share in common and could always 
use additional support. But as I mentioned in my opening 
comments, I would ask that the subcommittee consider some of 
the limitations that have been implied due to, I believe, it is 
section 129, but in some cases, that ability to--if we can 
raise that limit, will allow the services a little more ability 
to get after some of these more challenging projects that we 
have that we are just unable to get after given the current 
limitations that we have.
    And so, again, we would like to work with you in terms of 
what a modest improvement or increase to that would be 
acceptable to the committee and to Congress.
    That would be where I would focus my attention, sir.
    Mr. Langevin. Okay. Mr. Mann, do you have anything to add?
    Mr. Mann. Sir, I'll just echo one point is that while we 
are balancing all of the investment in the S&T portfolio, 
attracting the world's best and brightest, getting them here 
and unleashing their talent for decades, we want them to enjoy 
working in modern facilities. And so competing with the 
infrastructure requirements across the entire landscape is 
always challenging, and building the laboratories that these 
professionals can execute their mission will go a long way to 
sustaining our enduring advantage.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Langevin. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the witnesses' 
answers, but I will be honest with you, no one really answered 
the question as to why Congress needs to continue to add 
funding each year.
    Secretary Shyu, would you try--can you go back and try to 
address that question? Because, you know, you have significant 
budgets, but every year, we are having to add on.
    Secretary Shyu. I think--can you hear me?
    Mr. Langevin. Yes.
    Secretary Shyu. So realistically, there is always greater 
demand than there is the supply side. So I will say every 
single year, we tally up the type of investment that we have 
made from 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 as well. There is always 
additional funding across the multitude of topic areas that we 
encompass.
    You got to realize that all the areas that we encompass 
covers from emerging technology, from biotechnology, advanced 
materials, areas in quantum science, all the way to more mature 
technology which we are trying to field in the area of 
hypersonics.
    So our requests are vast; part of the reason because we 
cover a wide span of different technology areas.
    Mr. Langevin. Well, we are going to have to keep working on 
this together, because there are significant gaps that exist, 
and we need to work harder on closing those gaps.
    My last question for now, anyway, with China, we are 
competing with a country with significant strategy between its 
military and private sector.
    What is the Department doing to leverage and incorporate 
private sector innovation and talent at scale, and is it being 
aggressive enough? And what is the role of organizations like 
DIU [Defense Innovation Unit] and others?
    I was just out there with Mrs. Bice. I was out at DIU in 
California last week doing an on-site visit. Really eye-
opening, very pleased that we could take time to be there, meet 
with the director and his team. But, you know, what is the role 
of organizations like DIU and others? And why do these efforts, 
particularly DIU, continue to seem to struggle to get buy-in 
and support from senior leaders given the return on investment 
that they provide?
    Secretary Shyu. DIU has done an exceptional job in the last 
6 years in terms of developing dual-use technology that can 
satisfy needs of our military. I think if you look at their 
track record, is about 40 percent with the projects that they 
have started have successfully transitioned to the hands of 
warfighter. That is the tally that they have tracked so far.
    The other organization that we have across each every one 
of the services that are innovative organization that is also 
looking to the commercial sector for innovation and for ideas 
that we can transition in terms of solving our services' 
problems.
    Example, Army Rapid Capability, Critical Technology Office. 
They have, very successfully, had three different industry 
engagements, engaged very closely with the small companies and 
they pull in program executive officers from the Army to 
identify what are the critical technology gaps that they have. 
It is that marriage of understanding the critical capability 
gaps in developing solution space that they are trying to 
bridge.
    They have funded a number of small companies with their 
innovative ideas, and they are developing prototypes and 
handing the prototypes over to program management office, to 
enable the rapid transition. So all of that is happening as we 
are--as we are looking across each every one of the services.
    Mr. Langevin. Do you think that DIU does or does not 
struggle to get buy-in and support from senior leaders, again, 
given the return on investment?
    Secretary Shyu. Well, I think DIU has very strong support. 
I spent an entire day at DIU last month. So I have been waiting 
till the COVID dies down so I could actually fly out. So I 
spent an entire day over there. They have my respect and my 
attention. So at the senior leadership level, I absolutely 
concur that I support them 100 percent.
    I also had opportunity to meet with the captains and the 
majors that is down there, the incredibly dedicated, lot of the 
Reserve officers. So I am very pleased with what DIU has 
accomplished and I think they are a little frustrated with the 
fiscal year 2022 budget cut, but that was in the last 
administration. So I am here now and I am able to support them 
in terms of going forward.
    Mr. Langevin. Well, I certainly think that DIU deserves our 
support. It certainly has mine and we want to continue to 
leverage the model that they bring to the table and engaging 
with these small innovative companies.
    With that, I will now turn to--I think Ranking Member Banks 
had to step out. If that is the case, I will yield to Mrs. Bice 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for having this 
hearing today and for the witnesses for being here.
    As was mentioned, I was on a CODEL [congressional 
delegation] with Chairman Langevin last weekend. It was 
incredibly enlightening to see all the incredible technology 
that is happening in this space.
    I want to start with Dr. Shyu. The demands of the present 
era call for new operational concepts, increasingly joint 
operations, and quickly fielding emerging science and 
technology opportunities. How does the Department jointly move 
early research and new scientific breakthroughs into 
warfighting capabilities?
    As someone who is a freshman who has been in the technology 
space, one of the things that has been most surprising to me is 
the slow pace of innovation within DOD [Department of Defense]. 
And I feel like that whether it is a procurement process or a 
requirements process, there is such a long lead time, and 
technology is emerging so quickly. So I want to know what the 
services are doing jointly together to try to push forward with 
these new and emerging technologies?
    Secretary Shyu. That is a great question. I would love to 
spend some quality time with you.
    Mrs. Bice. Let's do that.
    Secretary Shyu. One of the things that we have initiated 
that you may have heard about is the Rapid Defense 
Experimentation Reserve, called RDER. RDER was initiated last 
year to address joint warfighting capability gaps. So we took 
the joint warfighting capability gaps and went to the services 
and asked them, Do you have prototypes that you are developing 
that could close these joint warfighting capability gaps?
    And I was shocked. Within 5 weeks, we received over 200 
proposals spanning from Unclassified to Secret to Top Secret to 
Special Access. We literally looked at all of those proposal 
and rack and stack them against the capability gaps, and laid 
it down against a scenario, a vetted scenario of interest. I 
won't say which one because that one is Secret, but I would be 
more than happy to come meet to talk more in terms of details.
    But we identified 32 projects, which has the most--will 
give us the best bang for the bucks, let's put it that way, 
okay, and we are funding these 32 projects in the fiscal year 
2023 budget proposal.
    Mrs. Bice. Are you funding those specifically through RDER?
    Secretary Shyu. RDER. Absolutely. So what we are doing 
here--we are funding through a RDER piece and, every single 
service proposed projects, the best projects was given--the 
money was allocated back to the services. For example, Army has 
over $100 million worth of project that is going to be funded 
by RDER specifically to address some of the capability gaps, 
okay?
    Navy, Air Force, they all have budget that is being 
allocated as a part of RDER Experimentation Reserve. So what is 
going to happen, this is a campaign of joint experimentation 
that is going to continue every 6 months.
    So we are able to take rapid prototype capability 
externally and be able to add it in to show utility in terms of 
closing our gaps and look for rapid transition into the 
services' hands.
    Mrs. Bice. That is perfect. Thank you for that.
    To follow up, what improvements would you recommend to the 
defense acquisition process to speed up delivery of technology? 
And I think this is an area that I have had lots of 
conversations on, but we need to move forward quickly.
    What do you suggest for improvements in that realm? And I 
am happy to throw that to any of the other witnesses.
    Secretary Shyu. So there is several shortfalls that I see 
right now--shocking, but one of the shortfalls is when I engage 
with small companies that come up with really innovative ideas. 
One, there is lack of funding for them to move into production 
rapidly. So they have developed several prototypes and the 
government, the DOD is very interested in their prototypes.
    They want to be able to ramp up and they don't have the 
capital, right, to help them ramp up. So this is one thing we 
are helping by the fiscal year 2022, the APFIT [Accelerate the 
Procurement and Fielding of Innovative Technologies] funding 
has given me $100 million to help address--to bridge this 
production capability gap, okay?
    So very appreciative of the Congress' giving the $100 
million. So this way I can help some of the small companies to 
help them to ramp up into production.
    Mrs. Bice. Is that similar to what DIU is doing with the 
companies that they are working with, trying to get them ramped 
up?
    Secretary Shyu. DIU is trying to get the services 
interested to be able to say, Here is the technology that we 
have developed. You have an interest in this technology, I am 
going to transition over to you. You have to cough up the 
transition money to accept it, okay? Some companies can get 
venture capital money to help out; some companies are not able 
to do that because they may be building a component that goes 
into a system, right?
    So they are looking for capital. So that is an example an 
area that we're in the process of trying to figure out how to 
help them to do the rapid transition.
    Mrs. Bice. Perfect. My time has expired, so Mr. Chairman, I 
will yield back. Thank you, again, to the witnesses.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you for the line of questions, Mrs. 
Bice, and the answers there.
    Mr. Moulton is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under Secretary Shyu, 
the Department has repeatedly emphasized harnessing commercial 
technology better. This has obviously been a theme of the 
hearing so far, but I am not sure the money tells that story.
    The Defense Innovation Unit, DIU, has proven success in 
accelerating development and fielding of advanced technologies 
America needs and working around a 60-year-old acquisition 
process that, frankly, is holding us back and allowing our 
adversaries to get ahead. We have often joked that the best 
thing for DOD would be if China copied or stole our acquisition 
process, because that would really hobble them.
    It has been Congress, not the Department, that has 
repeatedly pushed investment in DIU and in innovation. Now you 
just said that you support DIU 100 percent, but your budget is 
basically flatlining it from fiscal year 2021. You factor in 
inflation that is about 90 percent.
    How do you think we are going to improve on DIU's success 
if, in real dollars, we are actually facing a budget that is 10 
percent less than what we gave it 2 years ago?
    Secretary Shyu. Yeah. Fiscal year 2021 budget, if you are 
looking at fiscal year 2022, it is actually worse than flat. 
They have got a 30 percent cut.
    Mr. Moulton. I know, but I am comparing this year's budget 
with fiscal year 2021, 2 years ago.
    Secretary Shyu. So 2 years ago--so from fiscal year 2022 to 
2023, we are increasing by $10 million, okay, from 2022 to 
2023.
    Mr. Moulton. Right, but it is a flatline from 2021, which 
means that it is a 10 percent cut if you factor in inflation. I 
mean, that is just basic math, right?
    Secretary Shyu. I completely concur. You got to realize by 
the time I came in, I came in in July 29th into the 
administration where the budget was pretty much baked 2 weeks 
before I came in. Okay? So my opportunity to influence is this 
year in fiscal year 2024. So you will see a much stronger 
request for funding for fiscal year 2024.
    Mr. Moulton. Okay. Under Secretary, are you familiar with 
the Future of Defense Task Force report that this committee 
produced a couple years ago?
    Secretary Shyu. No, sir, I am not.
    Mr. Moulton. Okay. Well, in that report, which is the first 
time that the House Armed Services Committee has really looked 
20 or 30 years ahead at where we need to be, and it is a 
remarkably bipartisan report, entirely bipartisan, entirely 
bipartisan task force--four Democrats, four Republicans with a 
fully supported bipartisan report.
    We called for increasing the budget for DIU by a factor of 
10 recognizing that DIU is one of the only organizations within 
DOD that is really finding a way to get around the traditional 
acquisition process, and bringing these commercial technologies 
quickly to the warfighter.
    Do you think that that is an accurate assessment of how 
much we need to be spending on innovation?
    Secretary Shyu. DIU is not the only organization that is 
bringing commercial technology in. I think it is very important 
for you to hear from each of the services what they are also 
doing in terms of bringing commercial technologies in. I gave 
you an example of Army Rapid Capability and Technology Office, 
who have about $46 million this year, also going out completely 
to the commercial industries, small companies to look for idea 
to solve problems that they have.
    So that is just one other example of service. I would be 
happy to share with rest of the service members here and tell 
you about what they are doing in terms of leveraging commercial 
technologies.
    Mr. Moulton. But we don't have time to get into all of it 
right now, but I would just point out that we clearly need to 
be spending a lot more on innovation, not incrementally more, 
not 10 percent more, but on the order of magnitude of 10 times 
more.
    The fiscal year 2023 budget continues to spend a majority 
of dollars on status quo weapons platforms, despite a record 
RDT&E budget for fiscal year 2023. So do you think we are 
actually spending enough on cyber, biosecurity, autonomous 
systems, space capability, and other emerging technologies, or 
do we not have that balance correct yet?
    Secretary Shyu. We are spending a fair bit of money on the 
cyber arena. Some of those fundings are in the classified 
world, which is hard to talk about in this mechanism, but I 
would be happy to follow up to talk about some of the other 
things that we are funding to address imminent threats.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, I think that for any of us who have 
spent time in the classified world and looked at what our 
adversaries are doing, we need an order of magnitude increase 
in defense spending on innovation. I think that is a theme you 
are hearing a lot from this committee, and I hope to see that 
better reflected in next year's budget.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Moulton.
    I understand Mr. Banks has returned, so I will turn to the 
ranking member for his questions.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Shyu, I want to ask about the recent resignation 
of Mike Brown, the chief of the Defense Innovation Unit, and 
can you tell us what the transition will look like? How will he 
be replaced? When will he be replaced? And also maybe you could 
comment on why he is leaving?
    Secretary Shyu. His 4-year term comes up. He is basically 
Highly Qualified Expert, HQE. His term is coming up in 
September, so he and I chatted about this. I just say, Well, 
the most I could do is extend you by 1 year. My preference is 
to have somebody else in there that can span the duration of my 
term and bridging to the next administration, so the ball 
doesn't get dropped between administrations, right?
    What I did is to extend his deputy by 1 year, because his 
term was coming up this summer. This way I will have his deputy 
with the skill set that has been here for the last several 
years to expand while I search for a replacement for him.
    Mr. Banks. When can we expect a replacement? Can you give 
us a more specific timeline of when----
    Secretary Shyu. I can't give you a specific timeline 
because I need to do a search.
    Mr. Banks. Okay. What would we be searching for?
    Secretary Shyu. I will search for candidates that has 
experience in the commercial sector, and preferably some 
experience in the venture world or at least knowledge in the 
venture world, exposure to the venture world, and, preferably, 
also, some time in the government. So you have experience on 
both sides and then you can figure out, Okay, what are the 
things I can bring from one side into the other side?
    Mr. Banks. I think it goes without being said and I imagine 
in a very bipartisan way, this committee treasures the work of 
Mike Brown, the director of DIU. He has brought the Defense 
Innovation Unit to a whole new level that it continues to excel 
at the core mission of the organization. I hope that we replace 
Mike Brown with someone with the same type of knowledge and 
experience and continue to move what DIU does in the right 
direction.
    With that, as you search for candidates to replace him, can 
you tell us about what, in your mind, what is the next chapter, 
what are the next big steps of DIU to continue to support 
innovation and support our warfighters?
    Secretary Shyu. I think the biggest challenge that they 
have faced is really trying to get the services to, on the 
other side, on the acquisition side, to help the innovation 
that they have found to go into production because that is 
where the gap is.
    Lot of small companies, great ideas, have produced a lot of 
prototypes. It is this funnel that is going down to production 
and it is the pull from the acquisition community that we need. 
So I think that is what I want to focus on.
    And this is where I think having somebody on both sides of 
the aisle with experience on both sides would help. 
Understanding the acquisition process and also have exposure to 
commercial world can help to do the faster pull rather than 
just being extremely frustrated by the bureaucracy internally, 
right?
    Mr. Banks. Can you talk about what investments in the 
President's budget specifically for DIU will lead to better 
opportunities to solve some of those issues in the year ahead?
    Secretary Shyu. I hope so.
    Mr. Banks. Anything specifically?
    Secretary Shyu. So, I am saying fiscal year 2024 is where I 
am looking at have an opportunity to impact the budget.
    Mr. Banks. Okay. Well, Mike Brown, unfortunately, isn't the 
only leader that we have seen leave the Department who has an 
important role related to technology and emerging technologies 
and innovation. There have been several. I mean, in a very 
high-profile way, I mean, it is almost--for many of us who have 
been focused on this area, it is concerning when you see 
headlines after headlines of chief technology experts leaving 
the Department, like the Air Force's chief software official 
who recently left and said the reason he left is because China 
is kicking our butt.
    Why do you think there is so much of that--why do you think 
that that concern exists among some of the leaders in the 
Department that we have empowered to lead on this front? And 
what are we doing about it?
    Secretary Shyu. I think it is probably the frustration with 
the bureaucracy, the process internally from--first, I don't 
know the guy, but I heard that he was frustrated because of 
lack of--his lack of ability to get money to do things he 
wanted to do. So I don't know the details. Maybe, Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. If that is all right. I can--Mr. Chaillan was 
our chief software officer. Again, he was HQE on a term 
appointment as well, but you are correct in that he was 
frustrated. I would say that many of us are frustrated as you 
are with our struggle to keep up with the pace of technology 
transition and modernization that perhaps some of our peers 
have achieved.
    I would offer that it is, as Ms. Shyu said, it is not only 
just a focus on attracting those small businesses and investing 
in innovation, but, rather, the funding that is required to 
transition from a small business S&T contract into a program of 
record.
    We have just completed a study in the Air Force for the 
Secretary on technology transition. We are briefing it out next 
month to the Secretary, and we have a set of major 
recommendation findings. Number one is tech transition funding 
to cross the Valley of Death. This is typically budget activity 
6.4 dollars that are--and the purpose of this fund, as some of 
us have mentioned, prototyping and experimentation and concept 
refinement and development planning.
    So these are focus areas that we believe are critical to 
close that gap, to actually bridge activities like DIU, as well 
as AFWERX and SpaceWERX, to be able to deliver and then 
transfer the technologies into programs.
    And then I would just say as well, it has also been 
commented that the acquisition process is the broken process. 
The second major finding of our tech transition study is that 
it requires synchronization, not only from acquisition, but 
requirements as well as our PPBE, our planning, programming, 
and budgeting [and execution] activity, which are also very 
bureaucratic.
    And so, what we are doing in the Air Force is prioritizing 
capability needs and then bringing together to synchronize 
those three processes and making sure that the amount of 
technology transition funding, which must--is so important 
for--in our fiscal year 2023 budget to be maintained, 
consistent, and continued. We can focus those to achieve that 
tech transition into capability.
    Mr. Banks. Well, let me just finish. You are frustrated, we 
are frustrated, but we can't afford to lose talent from the 
Department. The men and women who come to work in the 
Department are focused on these issues, who understand these 
issues, who come to serve to make a difference, and help us to 
innovate the Department.
    These headlines are deeply troubling to me, so I hope that 
you are listening to those frustrations, I hope we are learning 
from them, I hope that you are addressing them, and I hope you 
will come back to the committee and tell us how we can help you 
address those frustrations, too.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Banks. Very good line of 
questioning. I associate myself with many of your remarks and 
the questions you have asked.
    With that, Ms. Escobar is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Chairman Langevin. I really 
appreciate this opportunity for our subcommittee to better 
understand the Department's innovation efforts.
    I have the incredible privilege of representing Fort Bliss 
here in Congress, and as such, I have the opportunity of 
representing the Joint Modernization Command, as well as the 
University of Texas at El Paso [UTEP], which, if you are 
unfamiliar with it, is a top-ranking research institution and a 
minority-serving institution. It mostly serves the community, 
which is 85 percent Latino.
    Since my time as a local elected official in El Paso--I 
served as the chief executive there, county judge--I have been 
working to help our community leverage the talent at UTEP in 
their engineering department and their STEM fields, and our 
local economy and the aerospace and defense industry so that 
the community and the Department can all benefit to achieve a 
win-win situation, and so that El Paso could have good-paying 
jobs.
    Secretary Shyu, in the fiscal year 2022 NDAA, this 
committee included language allowing the Defense Innovation 
Unit to expand outreach to communities that do not otherwise 
have a DIU presence, including disadvantaged communities. UTEP, 
as I mentioned, is a leader in producing incredible engineers, 
but unfortunately, for years they have been going to other 
parts of the country in search of jobs. So we are essentially 
exporting talent that we have been investing in since they were 
little kids, and that is not helping us escape our economically 
disadvantaged situation.
    Having DIU establish a presence in El Paso could be what we 
need to both help the Department find undiscovered talent and 
technology. However, it was reported 2 weeks ago that the DIU 
plans to open up an office in Chicago, which means DIU now has 
offices in Silicon Valley, Austin, and Boston. While, 
obviously, these are great cities and regions with unlimited 
potential, it seems like DIU is just going to continue to 
follow the trend of focusing on well-known institutions rather 
than actively seek out the next best thing in communities like 
mine, communities with large minority populations, excellent 
STEM and research institutions, a military installation, and 
yet, are traditionally underserved.
    So my question is, what is DIU doing to expand into 
communities like mine that offer great opportunities but don't 
typically get the same chance that places like Austin or 
Silicon Valley get?
    Secretary Shyu. I would like to talk a little bit about 
DIU. DIU focuses on major hubs, you are right. But I will say, 
one of the key things that DARPA is doing is outreaching in 
communities that is not necessarily in major metropolitan 
areas. I think DARPA can probably talk about all of their 
initiatives, what they are trying to do, expanding across the 
U.S. in multiple entities.
    The other thing I think I want to emphasize is we do have 
HBCU/MI activities, and maybe this is one area we can expand 
into how we can help to expand into minority institutions to 
tap into the talent that is in UT El Paso. But we will 
definitely take a note and look into that.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Escobar. Wonderful. And I would love to invite you to 
visit El Paso and the University of Texas at El Paso, you and 
your incoming director, or your existing director, members of 
your team. There are tremendous opportunities in this country, 
especially in a community like mine. We have got to grow the 
pie because the talent is out there, and we can't just continue 
to look to the same places and spaces for talent.
    I have long been an advocate for the use of additive 
manufacturing and seeing the Department expand the applications 
it could be used for, which is why I was thrilled to see that 
barracks would be built on Fort Bliss using the largest 3D 
printed--using 3D technology. UTEP is quickly becoming a 
national expert in this.
    And so, what again--I am running out of time, so I will 
just close by again saying, there is really tremendous 
opportunity, and I think all of us on this committee really 
want to see our vision fulfilled, and as Members of Congress, 
we want to do everything we can to help you achieve that 
ambitious vision.
    Mr. Chairman, I am out of time, so I'll yield back.
    Mr. Langevin. Very good. Thank you, Ms. Escobar.
    Mr. Franklin is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 
witnesses for taking the time to be with us here this 
afternoon.
    As another freshmen member, really one of the privileges I 
have had in this first term is the opportunity to get out and 
visit some of your sites. I have spent a day out at DARPA, been 
at the Naval Research Laboratory. Dr. Shyu, you and I, we 
talked over at the Pentagon and heard some of your ideas there 
on some of the changes that we need to make in the acquisition 
process.
    I walk away from each of those tours fascinated with the 
things that we have going on, but also frustrated when I hear 
the operators on the other end of the pipeline just exasperated 
at the time it takes to field these technologies and just the--
and we have already been--we've highlighted some of these 
challenges here, but I want to dive into that a little bit 
more.
    Secretary Shyu, should the programming--or planning, 
programming, budgeting, and execution resource allocation 
process be changed to encourage rapid innovation or agility in 
research?
    Secretary Shyu. Absolutely. So I am all for changes in the, 
I would say the Cold War PPBE process that is there, right? And 
this is dialogue that I had with Secretary Austin a year ago. 
He asked me the exact same question you asked; namely, Heidi, 
why the heck--why is it I see all of this innovation outside 
and I can't get it on the inside of the Department?
    So one thing I said to him, Sir, let's just say you see 
some really great prototype and you want to buy a particular 
product. Did you have the foresight 2 years ago to put it into 
your POM [Program Objective Memorandum] request? If you didn't, 
guess what? You have no authority.
    So that is the problem. So by the time you get the 
authority, you put it into your POM, it is 2 to 3 years down 
the line, the product that you are buying is already obsolete.
    Mr. Franklin. Right.
    Secretary Shyu. Right? So this process absolutely has to 
change. There is plenty of innovation on the S&T side. It is 
the bottleneck getting it into the hands of the warfighter. The 
PPBE process has to change to reflect the agility that is 
utterly needed.
    Mr. Franklin. So how do we go about doing that?
    Secretary Shyu. Well, I hear there is a PPBE commission 
that is ongoing, so I do hope that they are looking at this 
very, very seriously and coming up with a great idea to 
compress the timeline.
    The other thing, you look at China. How are they able to 
accelerate so fast? They invest heavily in their S&T and R&D 
enterprise and test enterprise, right? They rapidly test things 
out. And they field it. And they go right on to the next idea; 
test it out and field it. They don't take a decade, right?
    So we absolutely must compress this timeline. I am utterly 
passionate about it. This is why I want to leverage the RDER 
activity that we have ongoing to be able to take the prototypes 
we need, test it out rapidly, and push it into rapid fielding.
    Mr. Franklin. So you mentioned that, you know, the Chinese, 
I would say the old adage of fail quickly and, you know, fail 
forward and learn from that. Our system seems to have 
inherently built into it a fear of failure, and we--you are 
rewarded for not screwing up more than you are rewarded for 
success, it seems like, and that may be unfair.
    But you talked some about the RDER program, but, you know, 
are there structural changes you would recommend that would 
allow the Department's S&T ecosystem to take risks better and 
to learn faster and fail faster and move forward?
    Secretary Shyu. I think the S&T area, we do test things 
out, and failure is okay. It is like DARPA, right? Failure is 
absolutely expected in things that you do because you are 
pushing the edge of the envelope. It has to be okay to fail.
    But once you get into a program of record, okay, you have 
the schedule that you have laid out. You have the unit cost 
that you have laid out. You have the development cost that is 
laid out. You have to predict what your maintenance and 
sustainment costing logistic is going to be, even though the 
system is not even designed yet. Everything is baked in very 
conservatively.
    And if you fail, guess what? You get called in to say, Tell 
me why did you fail. Your career is dead. Okay. It will be more 
and more beating. Congress will slam you on the top of your 
head, Why did you fail on that program? How did you screw that 
up so badly, right? The press jumps on your neck. So it is a 
death spiral.
    So if we want to be able to fail fast and accelerate, we 
have to change the entire mentality. You can't tell just the 
program manager, I am going to grade you how well you deliver 
cost and schedule and performance and not screw up. This is how 
you get promoted, right?
    So incentive structure is not there, okay. So there is a 
lot of things that has to change, unfortunately.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Franklin.
    I agree that we need to continue to engage in smart failure 
so we learn as we accelerate our testing and our R&D efforts. 
If we are not failing, we are not learning. So we need to 
continue to engage in learning as we go. If projects do fail, 
we need to make sure it is smart failure.
    Thank you, Mr. Franklin, for your line of questions.
    Mr. Morelle is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 
of the witnesses for being here. Obviously, an important topic 
that a lot of folks here, not only in Congress but around the 
country, care deeply about.
    And I had a number of questions, but some of the comments 
by my colleagues have just prompted me to think a little 
differently.
    First of all, I appreciate Mr. Franklin's comments and 
others about the need to fail fast, and I worry sometimes that 
particularly with emerging technologies where you are not 
certain certainly early on in the process whether the 
technology will pan out, whether or not when it is completed, 
to your point, whether it is going to be timely, and worry that 
there isn't enough of an appetite for failure. And, 
unfortunately, many times in technology--you could all speak to 
this far more intelligently than I can, that that will 
necessarily require some degree--some appetite for failure or 
some willingness to at least understand that failure is a part 
of that.
    How do you factor that in? If you are going to fail fast, 
it does mean failing, and learning you often do by not being 
able to complete what you thought you were going to be able to 
do. Can you just speak to that in terms of sort of the 
tolerance for failure in what you do and how you sort of 
mitigate that, but also learn from it and what we could learn 
to help you, maybe, accept a higher level of tolerance around 
the need to fail to be able to succeed?
    Secretary Shyu. Like I said before, on the S&T side, 
because it is early in development, you are expecting failures, 
a failure is absolutely okay. Okay. If you build a prototype, 
the prototype doesn't quite work, go ahead and fix it. That is 
the obvious thing to do because you are still very much in the 
development phase. What we want to do as a part of the RDER 
activity literally is take the prototype, test it out in a 
contested environment in which we are going to fight. Let them 
test it out to see if it is going to pass or fail. If it fails, 
it is okay. But yet, guess what? You can modify your design, 
come back again 6 months, test it out.
    Mr. Morelle. So are there ways in which you feel stymied 
that we could help you get through that cycle, or do you feel 
that you have the tools available to you to shorten that 
timeframe?
    Secretary Shyu. The tools are available in the early phases 
of the program, from 6.1 to 6.4, okay. It is when you start to 
transition beyond 6.6, okay, into a program of record. Now, 
this is where everything becomes rigid and locked in, and you 
will be beaten up if you don't meet schedule or costs or 
performance. That is where the risk aversion comes in because 
you are graded by that, okay.
    So I would like to pass it over to my colleagues.
    Mr. Nelson. I will just mention too, you know, in many 
cases it is why did it fail, and I think understanding that is 
critically important as well.
    You may have heard that the Army started a campaign of 
learning on its Project Convergence. Back in 2020 was our 
first, and really the intent of that was to take these 
burgeoning technologies and get them into the field, get them 
into the field, get the engineers and the scientists, team them 
up with the soldiers, put them in a relevant environment that 
that equipment will need to perform and then go see how it 
works.
    And I will just say I have been through as a planning part, 
as my cross-functional team hat on, and it was amazing to watch 
the technologies where the engineers thought they had it right, 
or they thought they knew what the soldier needed. But when you 
team them together and you put them in the dirt, the amazing 
chemistry that happens and the ability to fix things on the 
fly, and be able to then have a valid test and then rapidly 
improve that capability. At the end of Project Convergence, in 
many cases, yeah, we fully expect some of those technologies to 
fail. In fact, that is why we do it, to kind of find those, and 
then maybe there is new requirements need to be changed, right? 
But it is the learning process again, that campaign of learning 
that helps learn from those failures, in some case improve, and 
then rapidly move those projects forward.
    Mr. Morelle. So I guess what I am asking is, are there 
things that we could do to help you accelerate that or some of 
the frustrations that people are voicing, are there things we 
can do to be of assistance to you in speeding up that 
timeframe, or am I just not understanding this well enough?
    Ms. Baldwin. I would just say, I mentioned before, we have 
got two program elements, tech transition and requirements 
maturation program elements, and we would just ask for the 
continued support for the funding, that is 6.4 dollars, that 
those dollars fund that critical 2-year timeframe between S&T 
and when we can get something into a program of record.
    The second thing that I would just offer that maybe hasn't 
been mentioned here is that we are all looking at digital 
technology, digital modeling, simulation, agile software 
practices. And so, the continued interest by the Congress in 
allowing us to utilize advanced technologies and transforming 
our processes through digital tools is also going to, I think, 
have a significant benefit because the failure can be--I mean, 
I like to call it not just a failure, but learning, just as my 
colleague, Mr. Nelson, described, you know.
    The knowledge gaining and the learning process, the 
recovery can be quicker when we are trading things in models 
and simulations versus expensive hardware prototyping.
    Mr. Morelle. So I would like to come back to this after--I 
am running out of time, but I am also curious, how often do the 
different--how often do you all connect with one another? And 
how do you share information, and how are you feeling about 
that collaboration?
    Ms. Baldwin. We--Ms. Shyu, in fact, stood up upon her 
entry--DEPSECDEF [Deputy Secretary of Defense] stood up an 
innovation steering group. That is where we share all of these 
practices, and I routinely meet with my service counterparts on 
major issues, so I think it is--we are [inaudible].
    Mr. Morelle. And I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I am over time, 
so----
    Secretary Shyu. So, I have monthly innovation steering 
group meetings which all of the services, along with the COCOMs 
[combatant commands], all participate. Okay.
    Mr. Morelle. Very good. Thank you.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Morelle.
    Mr. Moore is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chair. I apologize if there is any 
background noise.
    I will direct my question to Ms. Shyu, but I welcome any 
other context from any of the other witnesses. Thanks again for 
being here.
    There is a recently released report ``Safeguarding Our 
National Security by Promoting Competition in the Defense 
Industrial Base.'' There are several items, five key efforts 
that were identified, two of which are increasing new entrants 
and increasing opportunities for small business, something I 
believe in greatly.
    I left the management consulting world to come to Congress, 
the somewhat--as you get involved in the bureaucracy of many of 
our organizations and departments, we all know that was a move 
from efficiency to not as much efficiency, I'll be honest, but 
I was prepared for that.
    But one thing I have found that I have been excited about 
is the Defense Innovation Unit, the DIU. And, you know, I think 
we have seen good outcomes from that. There's a proven success 
and proven capability of success with integrating emerging 
technologies and harnessing the power of American innovation.
    Ms. Shyu, absent congressional direction, so without focus 
from Congress and a push from Congress, is the DOD dedicated to 
supporting an increasing investment in DIUs?
    Secretary Shyu. Absolutely.
    One of the things that you will be seeing that is coming 
out in the near to--probably the next 2 months is the 
initiative we are developing internally on strategic capital. 
And this is where our plan is to help out small companies, to 
help them--to give them the capital that they lack, or help 
them to find the capital, help them to tie closer into the 
program executive offices that the services will do the actual 
pull.
    So one of the things that AFWERX has done--let me just 
explain a little bit--is they have taken the funding from SBIR, 
SBIR funding, they have matched it with the PEO [program 
executive office] funding, when the PEO is interested in this 
particular technology. They have also taken and gone outside to 
a venture capital and say, Hey, here's a company that has a 
creative technology that the program office is interested in 
transitioning. Are you willing to match that funding?
    So let's say $1 million from SBIRs, $1 million from PEO, $2 
million from venture capital; so this really helps the small 
business to get a lot more funding to continue to develop the 
prototypes and mature it to the phase that they can transition.
    So we are in the process of creating and standing up this 
office right now on purpose to bring the activity that has 
succeeded in AFWERX and STRATFI [Strategic Funding Increase] 
within the Air Force to bring it across the entire DOD.
    Ms. Baldwin. Sir, if I may, just align with that, the 
renewal of the SBIR/STTR program by the Congress is of critical 
importance to all of us at DOD, and you have heard from the 
different variety of stats and the benefits of that program 
from each of us today, so I just wanted to reinforce that 
renewal is of paramount importance.
    Mr. Nelson. Thank you. And I would just jump in in terms of 
the Army has utilized the DIU program for a number of efforts 
and continued to see that as a gallant effort to help get these 
technologies into the field faster.
    But I would also add that--we already mentioned SBIR/STTR--
we have an xTechSearch program that also tries to reach out to 
nontraditional innovators and small businesses. That is another 
accelerator program, and we have got a lot of success from 
that.
    I think, in some cases, we don't articulate the successes 
that we have sometimes. There is a number of technologies that 
are making it across the Valley of Death, in many cases, from 
small businesses. We had a company develop a new anti-jam GPS 
[Global Positioning System] antenna. We had some metal powder 
3D manufacturing. We had some live fire modeling done. All 
types of SBIR-related projects that are making it across the 
Valley of Death.
    But I think we can always improve our messaging both to you 
and to the American public in terms of how well we are doing in 
some cases. I think we do ourselves a disservice. But again, 
there always could be room for improvement. I certainly would 
accept that. But I do think there is a bright future, in some 
cases, here for a lot of these technologies.
    Mr. Moore. Excellent. That's excellent context. That 
actually makes it easy to do my job when I ask one question 
with that much involvement. So thank you.
    I will quickly just end with, in all of my time I have yet 
to see any more enthusiasm in any other area or industry about 
small business wanting to be involved in the fight, in the 
mission of the DOD. And I just--you know with only $3.7 
billion, it is a pretty small number relative to the entire 
budget. And to wrap here, like, concentrating DOD spending 
power in only defense primes, I think we do ourselves a big 
disservice, and we need to make a strong mix and would 
encourage as much as we can to embrace that.
    So thank you, Chair. My time is up.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
    And I agree, that is really where so much of the innovation 
comes from is from these small innovative businesses that we 
need to help bring to maturity and let them get their 
capabilities into the hands of the warfighter.
    So our time is coming to a close. I did want to ask for one 
point of clarification.
    Secretary Shyu, when you talked about--if I understood this 
right, that in the 6.1 to 6.4 funding, that that process lends 
itself to smart failure, but it is in the 6.5, 6.6, or beyond 
funding levels that that is where the structure is not properly 
placed to allow for failure? Because I don't know that 
everybody would agree with that, but I think we need smart 
failure in the earlier places too.
    Secretary Shyu. I could expand; 6.1 to 6.4 is really the 
early part of research in science and technology.
    Mr. Langevin. Right.
    Secretary Shyu. Prototyping is the 6.4. The 6.6 is when you 
get a prototype that has been demonstrated in a relevant 
environment, okay. Typically, that is an entry point into a 
program of record, so you have to pass that particular 
milestone before you are mature enough technologically to enter 
a program of record. But once you enter a program of record, 
like I said, this is where you have a program milestone that is 
well-defined, okay. When you can pass through each one of these 
gates, when you are going to enter low-rate initial production, 
when you anticipate the initial operating capabilities is going 
to be. And this is where the program manager is going to be a 
lot more risk-averse, because you have got a program that is 
laid out, that is presented to the Hill, and you are going to 
be judged, in terms of success, how well you execute to your 
plan. So they are not going to be nearly as receptive to a new 
innovative technology that is not mature enough because it 
increases the risk of the program.
    I would be happy to come in to spend more time with you.
    Mr. Langevin. I am glad you clarified that point because we 
need more flexibility and smart failure in the prototyping 
programs. I couldn't agree more.
    So those are the questions I had.
    I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. 
And the members may have additional questions, especially those 
that, unfortunately, were not able to stay for the question-
and-answer period. I ask that you respond to those members 
expeditiously in writing at the earliest opportunity.
    I thank Ranking Member Banks for his partnership in holding 
these hearings with us and the members for their participation.
    With that, the hearing stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 6:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]    
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                              May 12, 2022
     
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                              May 12, 2022

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                              May 12, 2022

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

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MORELLE

    Mr. Morelle. Thank you in advance for your time responding. We 
greatly appreciate the collaboration. Recently, during the Senate 
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Dr. Brown, the 
Director of Defense Innovation Unit, remarked on acquisition reform for 
budgeting processes, where he recommended the establishment of 
dedicated organizations for commercial technologies, which can focus 
defense expertise without a need to be service specific in order to 
create capabilities of record vice programs of record.
    Dr. Brown suggests this would drive the DOD to track where 
capabilities are going and to continually assess vendors for immerging 
technologies at a rate that matches commercial cycles.
    He asserted this recommendation would allow ``DOD to furnish 
capabilities to the warfighter in a year rather than a decade.'' Is 
your perspective similar to that of Dr. Brown's and/or do you have 
other recommendations of budget process reform that can expedite the 
development of capabilities?
    Secretary Shyu. Technology horizon scanning is an important part of 
the DIU mission, as it allows for the accelerated identification and 
adoption of pathways as discussed by Dr. Brown. In addition to DIU, the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 
(OUSD(R&E)) is also piloting a number of new initiatives to set the 
Department on a path towards faster and more agile technology 
development, prototyping, and transition, particularly by leveraging 
commercially available, mature technologies.
    While dual use technology offers much promise, many of the DOD's 
most needed capabilities are unique to the warfighter and will never be 
viable on the commercial marketplace. For those elements, the OUSD(R&E) 
has created additional programs offering funding to ensure that 
promising technology can bridge our conventional budgeting process. We 
look forward to continued conversation with lawmakers to identify 
additional avenues for accelerating technology adoption.
    Mr. Morelle. Recently, DOD completed a one-year assessment of 
supply chains in the defense industrial base. The assessment cites that 
the ``U.S.' reliance on sole-source suppliers and foreign sources pose 
risks to domestic capability and capacity to produce capabilities. 
Consequently, many domestic suppliers have exited the market due to 
unstable DOD procurement practices and competitive pressure from 
foreign nations, particularly China.'' Are you able to respond to how 
this impacts DOD's research and development efforts and are you aware 
of any solutions that mitigate this vulnerability?
    Secretary Shyu. The ``Securing Defense-Critical Supply Chains'' 
report, issued in February 2022, identified focus areas presenting 
critical vulnerabilities to the supply chain, named strategic enablers, 
to address gaps and reduce operational and strategic risk, and made 
recommendations to drive growth and security through specific actions 
in the industrial base. My organization and the entire Research and 
Engineering ecosystem is taking actions that align specifically to the 
recommendations contained in the report. For example, to assist in 
building domestic production capacity, our Manufacturing Technology 
(MANTECH) program leads the Department in improving capability and 
reducing cost in advanced manufacturing. The Research and Engineering 
organization engages with small businesses through the Small Business 
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer 
(STTR) programs to expand the scope of defense suppliers while 
signaling to industry the upcoming demand for critical technologies 
within the department. Small businesses were identified as a key 
strategic enabler in the report. We are also exploring existing and new 
mechanisms to stimulate investment in critical emerging technologies, 
which will both signal an aggregated demand to industry and investors 
(another recommendation) while simultaneously helping mitigate foreign 
ownership and influence across these fragile markets.

                                  [all]