Page 1       TOP OF DOC
[H.A.S.C. No. 109–5]



FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—H.R. 1815






 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


MARCH 10, 15, 17, AND APRIL 6, 2005




JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
ADAM SMITH, Washington
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RICK LARSEN, Washington
JIM COOPER, Tennessee

Thomas E. Hawley,Professional Staff Member
Jean D. Reed,Professional Staff Member
Uyen T. Dinh,Counsel
William H. Natter,Professional Staff Member
Brian R. Anderson, Staff Assistant



 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Thursday, March 10, 2005, Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act—Defense Science and Technology Policy Programs


    Thursday, March 10, 2005




    Meehan, Hon. Martin T., a Representative from Massachusetts, Ranking Member, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee

    Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative from New Jersey, Chairman, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee

 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Sega, Hon. Ronald, Director, Research and Engineering, Department of Defense

    Tegnelia, Dr. James, Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency

    Tether, Dr. Anthony, Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

    Killion, Dr. Thomas, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Research and Technology

    Cohen, Rear Adm. Jay, Chief of Naval Research

    Engle, James, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering



Sega, Hon. Ronald

Tegnelia, Dr. James

Tether, Dr. Anthony
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Killion, Dr. Thomas

Cohen, Rear Adm. Jay

Engle, James


[The Documents submitted can be viewed in the hard copy.]


[There were no Questions submitted.]


House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, March 10, 2005.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Saxton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Mr. SAXTON. Today the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities meets to receive testimony on Department of Defense (DOD) science and technology (S&T) policy and programs and the execution of those programs in support of the war on terrorism, defense, and the development of future capabilities for the U.S. armed forces. Today's hearing provides an opportunity for the members of the subcommittee to assess the status of the defense science and technology program and the administration's plans and priorities for the program as reflected in the fiscal 2006 budget.

    I have three or four or five pages of opening statement here. I am going to ask unanimous consent that it be placed in the record because I am having a terrible time talking. And so, let me turn at this point to my friend and colleague and teammate, Marty Meehan, for any comments he may wish to make at this time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton can be viewed in the hard copy.]


    Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to welcome all of our guests, especially Dr. Tegnelia, who is here for the first time before the panel. We welcome you.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman, to me, the topic of this hearing is perhaps the single most important topic for our panel's annual budget deliberations. As we all know, the development and future fielding of advanced capabilities is essential for enabling and protecting our nation's uniformed personnel. Yet without a sustained science and technology base, any such effort is doomed to fail.

    As in years past, I am concerned with the low level of overall DOD S&T investment relative to the total DOD budget. Two and-one-half percent of the DOD is not enough. To be blunt, I believe that the budget request from the administration is putting our nation's technological advantage at risk.

    In terms of the departmental S&T funding priorities, the fiscal year 2006 budget request is disappointing in that it does not emphasize affordability initiatives to reduce total ownership costs of weapon systems. If I have learned one thing throughout my tenure in this committee, it is the smartest, targeted S&T investments can potentially reduce the operations and maintenance costs of weapons to a significant manner.

    Better weapons designed to benefit everyone, not only the taxpayer, but also the soldiers, Airmen, sailors and Marines responsible for operating the product. Thus affordability should be an established priority. Despite specific pockets of promising innovation within this budget request, I have additional concerns. It sounds imperative to note investments in innovative propulsion, advance sensors, nanotechnology, new materials and aspects of the radio spectrum. Indeed, mention of these initiatives implies cutting-edge progress. But the truth is, no substitute exists for broad, expanding real-growth investment.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Only a real-growth S&T investment can insulate the research community from the inside the beltway budget battles that favor near-term funding shortfalls. The absence of a real growth in S&T accounts is even more disturbing when one considers the looming mass retirement of scientists and engineers in the defense field. If our S&T investment does not help foster an environment that stimulates and encourages intellectual growth, we will not only accelerate retirements, but discourage potential recruits.

    Mr. Chairman, I have read the testimony of today's panelists. My reaction is mixed. I am encouraged and disappointed, yet hopeful that at least one of the panelists can allay my fear of an approaching doomsday for the research community and the beneficiaries of the Department of Defense.

    And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Marty. And I know that this is an extremely important set of subject matters that you deal with. So I thank you for your interest and participation here.

    The panel members today will be the Honorable Ron Sega, Director of Research and Engineering; Dr. Tony Tether, Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA; Dr. Jim Tegnelia, director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency; Dr. Tom Killion, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology, Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen, Chief of Naval Research; and Mr. Jim Engle, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science and Technology Engineering.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Gentlemen, welcome.

    And, Dr. Sega, you may proceed as you see fit.


    Dr. SEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the defense fiscal year 2006 science and technology program. I request that my written testimony be entered into the record.

    Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.

    Dr. SEGA. First of all, thank you for the support that you have provided to the department's S&T program and the global war on terrorism. As a Director of Defense Research and Engineering serving in the role of the department's Chief Technology Officer, I want to highlight a few representative accomplishments within the S&T program and our planned efforts for fiscal year 2006 within the framework of five established priorities.

    They include: integrate DOD S&T and focus on transformation, enhance technology transition, expand outreach to the combatant commands and intelligence community, accelerate support to the global war on terrorism and strengthen national security science and engineering workforce.

 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Our fiscal year 2006 DOD S&T President's budget request is slightly less than requested last year but significantly higher than the 2001 request. The department has increased investment in chemical and biological defense S&T by nearly $200 million in this year's request from last year, increased investment in sensors, surveillance, radio frequency, electronic warfare systems by nearly $100 million and increased investment in combating terrorism technology activity, which could lead to new capabilities for force protection and provide explosive improvised explosive device (IED) mitigation and so forth and in hypersonic propulsion technologies and S&T and quick reaction special projects.

    The first priority, again, is to integrate DOD science and technology and focus on transformation. We have expanded the inputs to our decision-making process to include capturing more information about the global S&T activity. We have enhanced the defense technical information center, that is TTIC, in their role in electronic data collection analysis and realigned it under DDR&E.

    While the department continues to reshape its strategic planning and investment review process, we have continued to support basic research, ongoing technology initiatives and near-term technology acceleration. As a foundation for our S&T capability, the department's basic research program provides new knowledge and understanding in areas that underpin national defense. Basic research performed in universities and government laboratories is also important as an integral part of the education and training of scientists and engineers for the nation's defense workforce. We are bringing forward a legislative proposal in this area soon.

    We have sustained funding for three cross-cutting initiatives: the national aerospace initiative, energy and power technologies and surveillance knowledge systems. These initiatives address the development of critical DOD transformational technologies and continue to make good technical progress.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The national aerospace initiative, or NAI, is an integrated S&T effort for high-speed hypersonics, space access and space technologies. The National Research Counsel completed an evaluation of the national aerospace initiative in 2004, which supported the direction of NAI. Our progress in hypersonics was demonstrated in 2004 when the NASA X–43, which was supported by DOD, completed two successful test flights at speeds of mach seven and mach 10.

    The second area of energy and power technologies provides an enabler for a more electric force. We are testing five megawatt super-conducting motors and generators, developing new hybrid fuel cell battery systems for the individual soldier weighing less than half of our current systems and making significant progress in the areas of solid state lasers.

    In surveillance and knowledge, we provide the technical underpinning for C4ISR, (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance). Through a strong service and DOD collaboration, we are supporting operations in Iraq by transitioning acoustic sensing technology from the laboratory to the field to counter mortars and sniper threats. We are also providing forces in Iraq with a command post of the future technology allowing commanders to maintain greater command and control in all situations. Additional units are being requested in the supplemental.

    Also the quick reaction special projects program remains an important tool in addressing the reality of a rapidly changing world. The quick reaction fund supported an affordable dry lubricant effort for small arms—I have that on these bolts here—that cuts down significantly on logistics and maintenance in many of our rifles now.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Two is enhancing technology transition. We have several tools available to enhance technology transition from ideas to fielded capabilities. These tools include advanced concept technology demonstrations, ACTDs, technology transition initiative, defense acquisition challenge, quick reaction special projects, and defense production act Title III. The Title III authority was used to establish a production capability for eyewear that provides protection from lasers in the battlefield. I am holding one of those goggles up here.

    The domestic manufacturer had extensive coatings experience on a laboratory-scale production capability. Under Title III, a production process was developed resulting in a production facility capable of 32,000 laser eye protection spectacle goggle pairs per year.

    Mr. SAXTON. Excuse me, Dr. Sega. Are those goggles also resistant to physical objects?

    Dr. SEGA. I believe their focus is on laser protection.

    Mr. SAXTON. Yes. I saw a pair that looked just like them in the——

    Rear Admiral COHEN. Yes. Those are just lasers. We are doing separate work on exactly to prevent shrapnel injuries——

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Rear Admiral COHEN [continuing]. for the ground troops.

    Dr. SEGA. Our third priority area is expanding outreach to the combatant commands and intelligence community. An example here is the homeland security, homeland defense command and control ACTDs. It supports the U.S. Northern Command, addresses important communications and common operational picture challenges for federal, state and local communities. It includes several partners such as the Department of Homeland Security.

    The fourth area is it accelerates support to the global war on terrorism. The current third face of the combating terrorism technology task force, CTTTF, is focusing on technology for force protection and counter-insurgency operations on the global war on terrorism, particularly as Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    While many specific details on the programs are classified, actions are under way to mitigate affects stemming from terrorist use of weapons such as IEDs, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. The key focus is on detection and defeat of IEDs, predictive analysis capabilities, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and countering the IED kill chain. The CTTTF established a research development test and evaluation site at the Yuma proving grounds in Yuma, Arizona. The board on the side is pictures from this joint experimental range complex, over 10 miles of road. There are areas that represent urban environments, areas that represent a village and different types of roads and curves and so forth that are indicative of those that you would find in a desert environment.

    Promising technologies identified are funded through rapid reaction fund (RRF) within the quick reaction special projects program. The RRF continues to be a vital source to develop and rapidly transition many new technologies for the war on terrorism, to get it into the hands of war-fighters and therefore save lives. We appreciate the continued support providing this flexibility of funding for these emerging technologies for our war-fighter.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The fifth and final priority area is to strengthen the national security science and engineering (S&E) workforce. The future of the U.S. national security science and engineering workforce is a growing and increasing concern. The declining supply of U.S. citizens awarded degrees in defense-related S&T fields coupled with recent projections of domestic growth and demand for S&Es by 2010 suggests that DOD and other Federal agencies with national security functions will face increased competition with domestic and global commercial interests for top of their class, security-clearance eligible scientists and engineers.

    During 2004, the department was engaged in several activities to help understand and characterize the national security workforce situation both within the department and outside to include the inter-agency forums—for example, national security R&D subcommittee, which I co-chair. And that is part of the national science and technology council—also with industry. DOD along with the National Defense Industrial Association, and the Aerospace Industries Association, held studies and workshops in this area and also in areas of national competitiveness forums, such as the National Innovation Initiative. Congress last year provided Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation (SMART) legislation that authorized the department to carry out a starship program with an employment pay-back component. We propose to expand the SMART pilot and build a permanent program presented in the budget request as a legislative proposal entitled, ''Smart National Defense Education Act, Phase 1.''

    In conclusion, our science and technology investment is focused on technical, technological capabilities to enable the war-fighter to meet the challenges of today while preparing them to meet the challenges of the future. We recognize that our future technological advantage depends on the quality of our scientists, mathematicians and engineers. And thus we are building our workforce through the proposed National Defense Education Act.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you and the committee for the opportunity to outline our successes and to review our plans for the future. We appreciate your strong support for the S&T program. And I look forward to working with you as we transform our plans into actions. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Sega can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you, Dr. Sega. We appreciate very much the hard work that you do. And we recognize the importance of the subject matters that you deal with. And also we recognize—all of the members of the subcommittee recognize—that today the work you do is probably more important than ever before, given the rapidly changing threat that our men and women face in the field. So thank you for what you do.

    Dr. Tether.


    Dr. TETHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members. Thanks for inviting me to testify on the work DARPA is doing to support DOD's transformation and the war on terror. Please enter my written statement into the record.

    Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. TETHER. You have been interested several times in what we are doing for our current forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I thought I would spend a few moments going through those. Some of them are here today.

    Boomerang, for example, is a low-cost system to locate people shooting at convoys. Fifty units have gone to Iraq, and we continue to refine it. In fact, the current sample is here today.

    Our command post of the future technology, which Dr. Sega mentioned, is being used in Iraq as a new way to do command and control. It gives commanders and soldiers the ability to share information without physically having to get together. And this is a big deal. They can stay where they are. They communicate as sort of a John Madden draw-on maps. But everybody hears what is going on, and it really has worked far more effectively than we ever dreamed. In fact, Major General Chiarelli, the commanding General of the 1st Cavalry Division, if you ever meet him, will give you a story of how this is saving lives, in his opinion.

    Our gun truck technology is protecting convoys today. Today the truck uses steel plates, but we are looking at an exciting new material to replace the steel developed by Hardwire, a company in Maryland. It is lighter, stronger and can be formed into custom panels. If this works, and we have data that shows it possibly will, it will work at a much lighter aerial density. We will be able to mold the panels for these gun trucks very rapidly and solve some of the heavy weight problem. On the other hand, there is also some hope that we can use this for body armor, you know, for at least shrapnel and stuff like that.

    Our tactical language tutor quickly teaches deploying troops the Arabic needed to get the basic who, what and when. And, in fact, that is also here today—you might take a look at that—plus the gestures and social conventions in interacting with non-insurgents. They get them to not become insurgents because we are treating them wrongly.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Our concepts that you have heard before for defending against rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and mortars with such things are bar armor and nets are starting to gel. And we have tried hard here, but recent results at Yuma show that this is working. And we believe this will be on its way to Iraq very shortly.

    Our maritime airborne retransmission system, MARTS, which is an aerostat, will soon go to Iraq, probably next month, and will provide improved communications over a wide area for Marines in Iraq. In other words, they will be able to now with Single Channel Ground to Air Radio System (SINCGARS) radios and all talk to each other over the horizon, and not only that, be able to cross a great deal of domains where SINCGARS can now talk to a quick look and so forth and so on.

    Finally, a very new effort, which we do have some samples here, is called polymer snow, which when activated with water creates a very slippery surface. We actually were requested by the Marines to look at doing something like this so that if they were being chased by a vehicle and a vehicle was coming up behind them very fast—right now the only choice they have is to shoot it. But with this snow, they can actually spread it on the ground. This, in fact, is from Andover, Massachusetts. They can spread this on the road making the road very slick. And the vehicle obviously can not follow.

    The secret here is not that the snow, because we do have the ability to put oil and stuff, but the secret here is that we can quickly deactivate it by putting a chemical on it. This is very new, in the preliminary stages, but it looks like we can do it. And in about 3 months from now we will know, and we will be moving that over to Iraq also.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. MEEHAN. Tony, if it is from Andover, Massachusetts, it will work.

    Dr. TETHER. I am sure it will.

    Now, all of these efforts led us to create our newest strategic thrust in urban area operations. We were concerned about urban warfare even before the conflict in Iraq because it seemed logical for us that adversaries would move in the cities to resist us because it is easier to hide.

    The conflict in Iraq has brought urban operations centerstage to us and accelerated our move into this area and continues to shape it. We reviewed our urban operations plans with Commandant Mike Hagee and General Brown, Special Operations Command (SOCOM) commander. As a result, we have started a number of classified programs with SOCOM. In fact, I just met with General Brown last week to go over some of the more classified urban operations efforts. Your staff will hear all about these. That it is successful will undoubtedly create great surprise.

    Commandant Hagee spent 4 hours with us along with his senior staff at a government-only meeting reviewing our, at that time, proposed efforts. He said that what they really needed was better non-lethal weapons in order to be able to control situations when enemy troops were mixed in with local civilians. We are studying ideas in this area. It is a hard area, and we have not come up with anything as a silver bullet. But we are studying ideas.

    But Commandant Hagee told us that what they really needed more than anything else was situational awareness with respect to vehicles, people, et cetera so that the troops could deploy quickly to trouble spots. We responded by creating a major effort in obtaining situational awareness using small, unmanned air vehicles—and I believe in Commandant Hagee's testimony before the Congress he mentioned that what he really wanted was unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)—cameras and other sensors and even using the soldier on patrol as a sensor. Let me give you a few examples.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Imagine if we could systematically track back where suicide car bombers came from. While we could not stop that event, if we could quickly track back where they came from, it would help us destroy some of their supporters and deter the attacks because we had a way to get a return address very quickly and respond to it. The CENTCOM combat zones will be much different with this program.

    Now, imagine also if U.S. teams could prepare for raids using clear, 3-D images of the actual neighborhood and the specific building. The team could then use those images to practice and see their entire trip so they would be more likely to enter the right building and less likely to enter the wrong building, miss the bad guys and further alienate innocent civilians. The urban program is working on this. Also imagine if when our troops approached a building they had technology to quickly map the inside and even tell them where the bad guys were. They would be safer and more effective. And our building structure and activity assessment program is developing this.

    We are also working on collaborating with command and control systems that allow us to understand what is happening throughout an urban area and then direct actions in real time. This is really an enhancement to the command post of the future that is being used in Iraq today. Our strategic thrust and urban operations is gaining momentum. And we expect it to make major contributions in the very near future.

    Now, I could go through the other thrusts, but I would like to end on one particular subject. But I would like to close on one item that, to me, is the epitome of what DARPA is really all about. I visited Walter Reed last year and met some of the young folks coming home from Iraq whose lives were spared because of previous technology developments in body armor.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    However, while they lived, they suffered great injuries to their extremities. I talked with these young people and told them about DARPA's research in neural control where signals from the brain were being used to control devices such as computers and mechanical arms. I told them that I thought that this technology could be applied in creating neural controlled artificial limbs that will work like the ones they lost.

    I said that this might require implants in their brains and that it might also take a long time. They told me that they did not consider implants to be all that invasive compared to what they had experienced. They also said that I needed to remember that they were only 20 years old and that if it took me 20 years to give them this arm back, that they still were going to be a lot younger than most of us in this room, at least at this table.

    Mr. SAXTON. Well, you got a lot further with your monkey and the finger than I thought you would.

    Dr. TETHER. Well, I requested that our latest Army neurosurgeon, DARPA program manager, who was just onboard, to put together a program. And he did. We are focusing on arms because that is the harder challenge. But what we will do will be applicable to legs also. We hope to have a working prototype that responds partially to neural control by 2007 and a full-up version by 2009. Notice I did not say fiscal year or calendar year, but those are the years. Okay?

    We want prosthetics to go from something that amputees experience as a tool today to something that feels like a limb. This will require integrating many technologies, including materials, micro-electronic sensors, power systems and actuators. This integration is something that DARPA does, as Jean can tell you, extraordinarily well. We do this very, very well.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But the key new technology is neural control, the ability to control a device directly with the brain. This will allow amputees to control the prosthetics using their brain basically the same way you control your natural limbs. We believe that we can get sensory feedback from the prosthetic.

    In fact, it turns out that this is an easier problem than trying to control a device that is remote. By using the nerves already in the body—in fact, there is a major nerve that comes down your arm. And that nerve is really the feedback that closes the loop where you have this device moving and you basically send the signals back up that nerve to the brain. We believe that we will be able to have sensation of that prosthetic. And they will not only be able to use it, but feel it and control it like they used to.

    This will change prosthetics from a tool to a limb. We are working hard. I mean, we are not alone in this. We are working hard with both the V.A. and Walter Reed to develop this technology and ensure that it can be readily transitioned when it reaches the proper stage. So on that, to me, very upbeat note, I will close and look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Tether can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

    Dr. Tegnelia.

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Dr. TEGNELIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It is an honor for me to be here today representing the men and women of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. This is my first opportunity as director to present our science and technology program to you. I would like to summarize my written testimony and request that the full statement be made a part of the record.

    Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.

    Dr. TEGNELIA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to limit my comments to three topics. The first topic is I would like to summarize the DTRA mission. The second topic is I would like to provide a short synopsis of our fiscal year 2006 budget request. And then finally, I would like to discuss three difficult problems being addressed by DTRA that should we be successful, the solutions would be transformational in terms of their military significance.

    Let me begin with the first topic, and that is our mission. DTRA's key mission is easy to understand. And it is vital to the security of the nation. It is countering weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I will refer to that as WMD today.

    We focus on this mission full-time in DTRA. There is no other mission that competes for attention and resources within DTRA. We are guided by the national strategy to combat weapons of mass destruction as well as the direction provided by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    I want to emphasize that we are a combat support agency dedicated to meeting the needs of the war-fighter regarding the subject of combating WMD. We are the WMD bridge between science and technology and the war-fighter. We work hard to understand the needs of the war-fighter, locate the required expertise, no matter where it might be, integrate that expertise into useful products and services and oftentimes, deliver those products and services to the war-fighter within a matter of weeks or months. Science and technology underpin virtually all of the activities that are crucial to our mission. Our science and technology activities assist in providing defense against nuclear, chemical, biological and high explosive weapons. But we also provide support to the operational troops in the field to reduce their vulnerability to these threats.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I would like now to turn to my second topic. And that is a summary of our budget request. Performance of our mission requires a mix of appropriated funds. Of the approximately $2.7 billion in programs that DTRA would execute in fiscal year 2006, about $860 million is for science and technology.

    If this is approved, it would be a slight increase over the fiscal year 2005 level. It includes $450 million specifically for chemical and biological defense, science and technology. The balance of the S&T account of about $410 million is for nuclear and radiological defense programs.

    We also procure limited amounts of counter proliferation weapons and other specialized items as deliverables for advanced concept technology demonstrations. The cooperative threat reduction program accounts for another $416 million. About $320 million is for operations and maintenance funding, largely for support of combat—for combat support and arms control activities. In addition, DTRA serves as the funds manager for approximately $1 billion of chemical and biological defense acquisition program under the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense.

    The third topic that I would like to address and the final topic is what DTRA is doing on working on a wide range of challenges. And I would like to highlight three of those that would be transformational should we provide solutions.

    The first challenge is eliminating chemical and biological weapons as a military option. We have management responsibility for the science and technology portion of the Department of Defense's chem/bio defense program. We assist military commanders in minimizing the impact of chemical attacks. Our abilities to detect, assess, protect against and decontaminate chemical agents are rapidly improving.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    For example, we are making strides in modeling and simulation of capabilities, battlespace awareness and operational responses for decontamination. Biological defense remains a far more challenging problem. Our efforts in this area focus on early warning based on detection, medical surveillance, information dissemination and in particular, a broad spectrum of medical pre-treatments and therapeutics. This is our main emphasis.

    The second topic is interdicting WMD worldwide. We must be far more effective in interdicting the movements of WMD. This requires better ways to detect and track WMD agents and weapons, especially from distances that give more time for effective response. We also require better technology in operational concepts for seizing and rendering safe such weapons. The relationship between S&T and operational concepts is particularly important here. Our close ties to national and international S&T capabilities and the combatant commanders make DTRA central to meeting this continuing challenge.

    The last difficult problem I would like to address is that of denying hardened, deeply buried targets to our enemies as a sanctuary. Many potential adversaries believe that hiding military assets underground will protect them from U.S. military power. Underground facilities associated with WMD pose a unique but important threat. For example, an attack against such a target using current technologies could spread chemical and biological agents over a wide area. Obviously we wish to avoid that kind of a scenario. An example of something DTRA is working on is to provide a wider range of options for military actions against such weapons.

    Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with a few brief remarks. In January, the Secretary of Defense assigned responsibility within the Department of Defense for combating WMD to the U.S. Strategic Command. The commander of U.S. STRATCOM, General Cartwright, has turned to DTRA for assistance. DTRA has established an organizational element which will help in planning and assessing capabilities needed as a functional component of STRATCOM.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    DTRA also has a role in homeland defense. Working with NORTHCOM and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, we assist in civil operations for homeland defense. We are sharing our experience and expertise in the unconventional nuclear weapons defense program to provide assistance against this threat as part of the defense of U.S. cities.

    On request, we provide local authorities, the National Guard civil support teams assessments of potential or real WMD events. We also maintain rapidly deployable consequence management teams and provide exercise and training support for Northern Command and the Department of Homeland Security.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I conclude my remarks without a mention of the nearly 2,000 men and women of DTRA, both civilian and military. They are deployed around the globe from Iraq to Afghanistan to Russia, Japan and Europe. I brought along a poster that you can see on either sides of the room which shows where DTRA is working across the globe today. Every day, DTRA personnel work with all of our combatant commanders, with other DOD and U.S. Government agencies, the private sector and our allies and international friends to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction. As a newcomer to the agency, it is a pleasure to join their ranks.

    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to respond to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Tegnelia can be viewed in the hard copy.]

 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

    We are going to slide over to Dr. Killion. But before we do, I just want to say this. Unfortunately we have got a series of votes that we are going to have to go take in about 5 minutes. And there is a 15-minute vote followed by a 5-minute vote followed by a 10-minute debate followed by another 15-minute vote followed by a 5-minute vote, which means an hour. So unfortunately when we leave here, we will not be back for that period of time. So I am sorry about that.

    Dr. Killion.


    Dr. KILLION. I need to make my remarks brief then obviously.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to describe the fiscal year 2006 Army science and technology program and the significant role that Army S&T has in creating, adapting and maturing technologies to enhance the current force and enable the future force. I previously submitted written testimony and would ask that it be entered into the record.

    Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.

 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. KILLION. I want to thank the members of this committee for your support of our soldiers who are now at war and for sustaining the investments that will provide tomorrow's soldiers with the dominant capabilities they will need to defend America's interests and those of our allies throughout the world. Your continued advice and support are vital to our success.

    Army S&T is currently supporting our soldiers deployed to fight the global war on terror through three mechanisms. First, the soldiers benefit today from technologies that emerge from our past investments in things like body armor and uncooled sensors for owning the night. Second, we exploit transition opportunities from ongoing S&T efforts such as acoustic and radar sensors for providing enhanced situational awareness for force protection. And finally, we certainly continue to leverage the expertise and experience of our scientists and engineers to develop solutions for unforeseen problems and emerging threats. Good examples here are armor survivability kits for Humvees and flat armor for strikers to counter RPGs.

    Beyond those technologies already contributing to the current force, we are making progress on active protection systems to enhance the survivability of lightweight platforms. And we have been demonstrating close-in active protection capabilities to defeat chemical energy weapons such as RPGs and are looking forward to the capability to defeat kinetic energy weapons in the future.

    Our major commitment in S&T is obviously to the future combat system. Our investment in FCS is approximately 25 percent of our budget in technology for fiscal year 2006. We are working closely with DARPA in a partnership to develop technologies for Future Combat System (FCS), addressing a range of challenges such as network battle command, network lethality, semi-autonomous and autonomous ground and air systems and sensors across the spectrum.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In response to congressional direction, we have taken our future force warrior program and worked hard with the Program Executive Office (PEO) for Soldier to combine that and couple it with the Land Warrior program. And, in fact, we have implemented a business plan that establishes a single lead technology integrator common to the S&T efforts and the SDD program to speed transition and promote efficiency in those programs.

    Mr. SAXTON. I think what we will do is to suspend here, if you do not mind. And we will be back as soon as we can.

    Dr. KILLION. All right. Thank you.


    Mr. SAXTON. Dr. Killion, you were not quite finished with your statement, I think. And so, why don't you proceed?

    Dr. KILLION. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Now that I have finished covering the Navy and Air Force programs, I can go back to the department.

    Okay, just two final points here.

    On the Army program, first of all, we maintain our commitment to the fundamental research required for new understanding to enable revolutionary advances and paradigm shifts in operational capabilities to enable the Army's transformational goals. Our basic research program invests in world-class expertise in government, academia and industry and in state-of-the-art equipment to explore fundamental phenomena and exploit scientific discovery.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Finally, to maintain technological superiority now and into the future, we have to staff the Army laboratories and centers with top quality engineers and scientists. We recognize this is a challenge. The DOD and the Army must compete to obtain its workforce from a declining national pool of highly qualified candidates.

    We have already taken important steps to attract and retain the best science and engineering talent available. Our lab demo programs have instituted multiple initiatives to enhance recruiting and reshaping of the workforce. And to reverse the trends in smaller numbers of students pursing science and engineering, we have established an array of outreach programs to attract more students to math, science and engineering careers.

    In closing, the Army must have a diverse S&T portfolio to be responsive to current and future war-fighting needs. The S&T community seeks technological solutions that can be demonstrated in the near term, explores the feasibility of new concepts and mines the imaginable for an uncertain far-term future.

    The Army's S&T community has committed our intellectual resources, our people, our facilities and our funding to maintain the momentum of the Army's transformation while the Army is at war. Thank you for your attention and for your continued support to our soldiers and our Army.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Killion can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Let me at this point ask unanimous consent that Admiral Cohen's and Mr. Engle's statements be submitted for the record.

    And, gentlemen, if you would like to summarize them, that would be great.


    Admiral COHEN. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kline, first of all, let me say how honored and humbled I am to appear before you along with my colleagues. I would like to thank you on behalf of our Marines and our sailors who are in combat for your support in saving both life and limb.

    I am presently completing the fifth year of a nominal 3-year assignment. Eighteen months ago, the Secretary of the Navy, Gordan England, asked me as the Chief of Naval Research, to help equip and protect our naval forces who were then ordered to conduct follow-on combat operations on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq. On the 12th of December, 2003, we conducted at the Naval Research Laboratory what has become known as the county fair.

    Multiple services, government departments, industry and academia were represented. With strong support of the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark and the commandant of the Marine Corps, General Mike Hagee, along with the administration and the Congress, many of those capabilities—and we talked about them at last year's hearing—have been funded and deployed under what Secretary England has termed Operation Respond.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Last summer, in light of those accomplishments, Secretary England challenged me to initiate a ''manhattan project'', manhattan with a small m, as he likes to call it, to detect, defeat and destroy explosives at range and speed. This is a basic research challenge which I believe will take a few years to solve.

    But with your support, scientific and engineering expertise in America and around the world solve it, we will so that when we demonstrate this ability to detect, defeat and destroy IEDs and suicide bombers, we will deter their misguided actions. This basic research effort goes to the heart of why the Congress established the Naval Research Laboratory after World War I and the office of naval research after World War II.

    I look forward to your questions, sir.

    [The prepared statement of Admiral Cohen can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Admiral Cohen.

    I probably do not even need to—I know I do not need to say this, but I am going to say it anyway because your testimony touched on something that is near and dear to my heart every morning when I wake up and turn on the radio. And that is finding and disabling explosives.

    I happen to have spent a lot of time, as some other Members of Congress have as well, exploring what it is that we are doing. And I know that the Army, the Navy, the IED task force are all working. And I presume everybody is working in conjunction because I see the technological opportunities, and hopefully all that information is being knitted together and shared.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Admiral COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that the people sitting at this table have been, ever since 9/11, fully integrated. There is not duplication. There is competition of ideas.

    But I would like to emphasize that the last 4 years we have been picking the low-hanging fruit, the 90-day solutions. Those are critically important. They have been saving life and limb, no question about that. But they are fed by the sustained and unfettered basic research that the Congress and this country has supported for decades.

    And what this manhattan project is—and I salute the Secretary of the Navy. This takes real courage—is to go and invest again in the chemistry and the physics at the National Academy of Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation, Dr. Marburger, et cetera, so that we get the phenomenology right so we can detect these devices at range and at speed so then we can change the calculus and put the bomb-makers on the defensive instead of our brave troops.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Admiral.

    Mr. Engle.


 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ENGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee and staff. I also very much appreciate the opportunity to come and describe to you the 2006 Air Force science and technology program. The Air Force is focused on delivering the ability to effectively and affordably train, organize and equip our military forces. As you may be aware, the Air Force's integration capabilities review and risk assessment master planning process that encompasses the attempts and capabilities required for our war-fighters has made substantial progress and is maturing nicely.

    This master planning process is key to ensuring we have a high correlation between our S&T program and the war-fighting capabilities required by the needs of our war-fighter. At the same time, we are able to deal with the uncertainty of tomorrow because of a broad base of investment in S&T today, much as Admiral Cohen mentioned just previously, an investment geared toward winning decisively, protecting our forces and minimizing collateral damage at any time, any place in the world well into the future.

    Fiscal constraints, operational demands and ongoing peacekeeping operations and conflicts in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq continue to place great burden on our people, our already stressed operational systems and our supporting logistics. However, the Air Force is working to increase S&T funding to ensure we maintain our technology options in support of future war-fighting needs.

    The Air Force fiscal year 2006 President's budget request for S&T is $1.98 billion. This includes $1.4 billion in core S&T efforts, which represents an increase of over $60 million or almost 2.3 percent real growth compared to the President's budget request for the similar amount of core S&T efforts in fiscal year 2005.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Since the committee is focused on terrorism and unconventional threats, let me highlight some of our activities in this area. The Air Force S&T program is aggressively pursuing high-payoff technologies and is focused on current and future war-fighting capabilities to address not only traditional threats, but also the global war on terrorism. One prime example of this is our Air Force special tactics combat controllers battlefield air operation (BAO) kit. Lighter batteries, hearing protection, more efficient target designation are some of the examples of ongoing BAO kit technology enhancements.

    The battlefield air targeting camera autonomous micro-air vehicle or BATCAM, which we have brought with us today, replaces the current unmanned air vehicle system in the BAO kit with one that is five times smaller and 10 times lighter. It still provides covert reconnaissance. It is simple to operate and expensive enough to be expendable and can provide real-time battle damage assessment. These new BAO kits provide a joint capability that will help save American lives and the lives of innocent civilians.

    In close coordination with other services, the Air Force is utilizing its aircraft materials expertise in metal infused ceramics to develop more effective, lightweight armor. This new material was being developed by the Air Force for air vehicle application. It turns out, however, that the new advanced lightweight metal infused ceramic armor has additional applications and could be used in body protection armor as it had been shown to be effective against shrapnel and multiple small arms shots.

    The BombBot robot, which I have also with me today, provides a joint service capability to aggressively destroy explosive devices. The Air Force was selected to develop BombBot because of our expertise in ground vehicle robotics. The effort resulted in the development of this very small, reusable robot that has been deployed to Iraq for destruction of improvised explosive devices.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The robot is small, off-road, remote controlled vehicle equipped with a small explosive charged delivery system. It uses either video or feedback or simply line of sight radio frequency to find IEDs, drop the explosive destructive charge and move to safety. And, of course, there are many other highlighted global war on terrorism initiatives that are included in my written statement for your review. But in the interest of time, I will leave them there.

    Finally, the Air Force scientists and engineering workforce is another area we are meeting with great success. We work this area very hard. The Air Force is generating enough scientists and engineers at the present time to sustain our needs, give us developmental education programs in various recruitment and retention initiatives. However, we must be vigilant about the future science and engineering recruiting and retention needs. The Air Force is committed to continuing to shape its S&E force with the vision to enhance excellence and relevance of our S&T well into the 21st century and appreciates the support of Congress that they have already provided.

    In conclusion, the Air Force is fully committed to providing this nation with advanced air and space technologies required to meet America's national security interests around the world and to ensure we remain on the cutting edge of systems performance, flexibility and affordability. The technological advantage we enjoy today is a legacy of decades of investment in S&T.

    The Air Force S&T program continues to provide for the discovery, development, demonstration and timely transition of affordable technologies that keep our Air Force the best in the world. As an integral part of the Department of Defense's S&T team, we look forward to working with Congress to ensure a strong Air Force S&T program tailored to achieve our vision of a superior air and space force that can identify and defeat both traditional and global war on terrorism threats.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to present testimony. And thank you for your continuing support to the Air Force S&T program.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Engle can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Engle.

    Let me at this point ask unanimous consent that Mr. Turner of Ohio, who is a member of the full committee, be permitted to submit questions to the panel for the record. And we will also be submitting a number of questions to you for the record.

    Let me just ask you, Dr. Sega—and you can direct this to whomever you want or answer it yourself, one quick question. What keeps you awake at night, both in the current situation as well as 10 or 20 years down the road?

    Dr. SEGA. There is a clear near-term and long-term concern among many. And the near-term is force protection and counter-insurgency and what we as a science and technology community can bring to bear in the global war on terrorism. In the longer term, it is looking at the technical talent, scientists, mathematicians and engineers that will enable us to advance science and technology and technical capability for the war-fighter.

    Dr. KILLION. I think the other thing that is—and it certainly relates to a long-term issue in terms of technical talent is also something that is key to this success of our future systems because we are becoming a force of systems of systems. And that is going to depend upon the network that ties it all together, that allows for complete sharing of information and knowledge, ties together our platforms, both for lethality purposes as well as for survivability.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So in the long-term, that network is key, has to be scaleable, supportable in all kinds of extreme environments. It is an important issue for us, and it is critically dependent upon having that educated workforce that can provide the knowledge to maintain our dominance into the future.

    Mr. SAXTON. Great.

    Mr. ENGLE. I would offer only one thought. And although there are many technologies that we are working on that concern me and we should reflect, I think, extensively about, what I spend most of my time worrying about as a manager at the senior level in science and technology is stability and funding for our activities. The broad base of technology we enjoy today is a result of a commitment by our nation for many, many decades to give us the types of things that we mine today. And that comes only with that sustained commitment nationally for a strong S&T investment.

    There are many reasons why we should create turbulence into that funding stream. They are all good reasons. But in the end, it is what allows us to make the decisions at any given time for the types of things we need for our war-fighters today. Without that broad base and that sustained investment with some stability on the dollars that flow, we tend to erode the fundamental base of strength of, I think, our military forces.

    Mr. SAXTON. Admiral.

    Admiral COHEN. Mr. Chairman, just to follow up, I have become convinced that it is only the Congress that has the resources and the staying power and the continuity to ensure the underlying S&T basic research. You know, with quarterly profit reports today, et cetera, where are the great labs in this country? And who has the sustained ability to make those investments? It has been deferred in large measure to the Congress and to the government and especially the Department of Defense.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    As a Naval Academy graduate, we have been trained to sleep on demand, so very little keeps me up, even in Pentagon meetings—of course, not hearings. Hearings, I stay awake. But what I do not know is what keeps me up. It is the threat of technological surprise. I will tell you that if I could turn back the clock 5 years in my job, I would have given more emphasis to power and energy. I believe that we are at a point of inflection critically important. We may be past peak. We talk about the hydrogen economy. There are many other alternatives. But I believe until the Western nations are energy self-sufficient, that we will not have a stable security structure. And that is way beyond my pay grade.

    And finally, just to reemphasize what my colleagues have said, the downstream intellectual base, not just for the Department of Defense, but for the nation. We are in crisis. We are in crisis in science and math. This is on the front of all of the weekly magazines. And I was so pleased yesterday—I am rarely surprised anymore. But I was with the Consortium for Ocean Research yesterday morning where Congressman Allen and Chairman Ehlers had a chance to speak. And Chairman Ehlers talked about STEM. I had not heard about that. It is the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Caucus within the House. And I am so excited to know that the House—and hopefully the Senate will join in on that and we will have a bipartisan understanding and support for the way ahead in our schools and our education and our laboratories to sustain that workforce. And I look forward to working with the Congress in that area.

    Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you very much.

    Dr. TEGNELIA. Let me comment on your question, sir, about——
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SAXTON. Sure.

    Dr. TEGNELIA. The thing that keeps me up at night are the numbers that we see when we run simulations of somebody using a biological weapon either against our troops or domestically. I believe this is a long-term problem. But it is a serious problem. I know it is something that Jean Reed's put a lot of time and effort on.

    There is a lot of what I think is very innovative research which is going into that particular problem. And if I could, I would just give you one very simple example. When our children and grandchildren are very young, they get a shot called a DPT shot that basically takes care of three diseases simultaneously in one shot.

    The research community, biological research community, is now developing vaccine activities like that for biological weapons where they can wipe out a class of potential threats to our society and to our military people. And I would just suggest to you that not only is that a serious threat, but the research that is going into that is very innovative with very young people. And it is a good investment for us to make in our future.

    Mr. SAXTON. Let me just say I agree with you 100 percent, Doctor. And as a matter of fact, Dr. Tether and I have been working on some of these projects together for quite some time and are actually making some pretty good progress, as I am sure you know.

    And Admiral Cohen, I appreciate your perspective on the energy situation. Just last week, 20 of us, all Republicans, signed a letter and sent it over to the President making those very points. And that is extremely important. And hopefully we will be able to make some progress finding some alternative forms of energy. I have not supported the notion of further exploration in Alaska. I just do not think we solve the problem that way. I think it is through technology that we solve the problem. And I am committed to try to be one of the Members of Congress to help fund those who are pursuing the answers in that area.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I finally would like to say—before I turn to Mr. Kline—that, Dr. Sega, you and I had this conversation yesterday in the private meeting in my office. But I just would like to have it again for the record. Each of you in your testimony or in answering the previous question a minute ago talked about the need for expertise in military science and technology research. And in my notes, there is a note here that says that over the next 10 years we will have to replace 13,000 engineers or scientists that work in your area of pursuit.

    And as I contemplate what is going to happen in this year's round of base realignment and closure and because I am familiar with at least two of your facilities in New Jersey—Fort Monmouth, of course, and Picatinny—and we have a vested interest in Picatinny, as all of you know, I am just hopeful that if BRAC is going to close any of our research facilities, that we take into full consideration the loss of further numbers of engineers and scientists who will not, in most cases at least, follow the mission.

    And so, Dr. Sega, would you like to comment on that? I know that we had a good conversation about it yesterday.

    Dr. SEGA. Well, with regard to the BRAC process, we are working and have been working very hard for the last 2 years now. And I can assure you that we are following statute, that we are aligning our work with the eight approved criteria. And we will give full considerations for what will make the infrastructure best for the Department of Defense.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Dr. Sega.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Kline.

    Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you, gentlemen. Let me apologize again. What a mess. All of you come over here for a hearing, and it is a hearing that I look forward to an awful lot, perhaps because of my earlier life when I worked for three DDR&Es, including one that was acting. And so, this is a subject of not only great importance to us in defense of the nation, but just great personal interest. And so, I hate that we had to walk out and miss an hour. And now we are appraised that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff have arrived for another hearing. And so, we are squeezed down, and it is unfortunate because there is so much to explore.

    And I very much appreciate that you have got a wide range of subjects and issues and problems to solve. And you are engaged in considering basic research and making sure we get the math and the physics right and all of those things. But right now, we have troops engaged. And so, we are all looking for ways to compress from six, two to six, seven in—what is it—90 days, 45, if we could do it, 30. I do not know, but we want to do it very, very rapidly. And this is a subject we touched on last year, I think. And I know that we keep needling at it. And the combatant commanders and everybody wants to get rapidly from a good idea to something that we can put in the hands of the troops. And I think, Dr. Sega, you raised some goggles earlier that provides some laser protection. And the admiral mentioned that there are some that provide ballistic or shrapnel protection.

    When I was in Iraq 6 weeks or so ago and I was talking to the commanding general of the 1st Cavalry, it was also mentioned. And he was showing us some of those goggles. And we saw the results of the protection it can provide.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I am sort of amazed that we would have a situation where they are not both together. I would hate to think that there is any soldier, sailor, airman or marine out there trying to choose laser or ballistic. I have some confidence that we are going to solve that issue.

    But because time is so short, I want to use an example. And this is a parochial example. I have a small company in my district. And I want to use them as an example of what I think is a recurring problem and something we touched on last time. And this is a little company that is emerging as kind of a leader in electro-chromic materials, provides some of this sort of protection that you were showing there on the goggles. And increasingly program managers and major contractors are saying, ''Gosh, we would like to have that for everything from the atomic clock to the wind screens on Humvees.''

    But there does not seem to be a readily recognizable way for them to get into the system that is so cumbersome. And I know that my three previous bosses in the DDR&E were perplexed—and I know you are—that we have an acquisition system that is horrible. It is just way, way too slow.

    And so, we are caught now with people who have not only great technology, but the ability to start to apply it. And we do not know how to get it in the system and get it on those wind screens for Humvees and lower the temperature and provide laser protection. And so, these folks are in my office, and they are talking about the different discussions they are having with program managers. And it seems like in some of these cases you have a program manager or a major contractor that says, ''Great, I need it. Why don't you go get an earmark and let us get this funded?''
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    There has got to be a way—that is Polly Anna, I know. But really, I hope that we are looking for a way to take those good ideas—they may be a 6.2 kind of a level.

    But they are really ready to go quickly. It does not take that much to get it into production. We need that ability. I know that touches on DARPA. It touches on DDR&E. Each of the services—you have some efforts under way. But these small companies that have some capability like Sage in my district, they are sort of caught out there. They have something they want to offer. They want to bring it to us, and we do not seem to have the ability to say, ''Yes, by golly, let us get it going.'' And I can even submit it for the record, but I hope that—I do not know if we need a central clearinghouse or something to look at those.

    And, Dr. Tether, we talked about this last time, I think, in response to the Chairman's question. And I am just reporting to you that it is not yet solved. And we have some capability out there that we can not get from—I am not sure if it is 6.2 or 6.3, some early S&T—into the hands of the troops. And so, if you have got, you know, something you can offer now, I would like to hear it. And then I hope that you will be able to come back to us with what we can put in place to make that work.

    Dr. TETHER. Okay. Congressman Kline, I think we all share your concern that we can do better. But we are making progress. I want to thank Congress for supporting the quick reaction special projects. That has been an outstanding vehicle for us to act quickly within the execution year. The quick reaction fund and the rapid reaction fund has allowed us to bring resources quickly on a new idea. The pictures that I showed earlier of the test facility at the Yuma proving ground has been particularly effective. We have pretty much provided the testing environment out of those funds for someone that is going to go down and test out a new idea.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I would invite members and staff to visit the Yuma test facility and see some of these rapid turn checking out of technology that is occurring at the test site and to look at the interaction we have among the services and agencies as well as the users, central command and special operations folks that join us there. But that is a place that is enabling us to do the testing. And the funds that are available through the quick reaction special projects have enabled us to move rapidly, at least take a step in that direction.

    Perhaps some others would like to comment on this.

    Mr. KLINE. Do you have the ability—what seems to be lacking—and I know that the Chairman sort of got at this last time—is where do these people go besides coming in to their Member of Congress and saying, ''Look what we have here''? And so, then we are providing some constituent service and saying, ''Well, we think you ought to talk to the office of naval research or somebody.''

    There ought to be one place when somebody comes like that we could just say here is the number. You are going to talk to Dr. Tether or Sega or something.

    Dr. TETHER. Right. Well, quite frankly, I do not know if there is one place, but we do get a lot of calls.

    Mr. KLINE. I am sure you do. I think I have sent a few your way.

 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. TETHER. Yes, you have. And some of them have panned out. In fact, that really does bother me. I mean, it bothers me. We try hard at DARPA to be sort of like the statue of liberty. You know, send us your ideas, and we will look at them. And, you know, we seem to always—it always surprises me.

    In fact, there is this little company, Hardwire, which is going to do this material for the armored trucks that is in Maryland. That came to us from Congressman Gilchrist. He called me up and said, ''Hey, I have got these people. I do not know if they are worth anything, but they—'' and he sent them to us. We had them under contract within 2 weeks because they really did have something.

    Now, there are some people that are sent to us that do not have anything. But I am bothered, like you. How many other people out there do not know that DARPA is the place you go to, I mean, as well as these other places? But we have the ability to contract right away, which is something that you all gave us.

    Mr. KLINE. If you do not, and if it is something of interest, do you have the ability then to turn to the Army or the Navy or the Air Force and say, ''Pick this up and go''?

    Dr. TETHER. Yes, we act as a clearinghouse for a lot of these ideas. They come to us. And unfortunately they come to us too late in the game. In other words, they come to us with a product.

    Mr. KLINE. Right.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Dr. TETHER. And we say, well, you know, we are the guys that like to build those products. But we do try. And John Jennings is behind me. We try hard to find out where to send them when they come with—when they are in between is the toughest, you know, where they have got the product, but they do not quite have the platform or the application to put it on. And then who you send them to is always a problem.

    Dr. SEGA. And we are working on a more systematic and friendlier way for them to have a single point, at least to enter in terms of knowing where to go. I mentioned in my statement that the defense technical information center is now under DDR&E.

    And we are working on an R&E portal, which is a one-stop shopping for inside of the department. And shortly after this, we will have a similar portal for those outside to know where to go to help them out in terms of a Web-based approach to find the right person in Dr. Tether's organization or Admiral Cohen's and so forth to go to look. And so, that is another vehicle to help those on the outside bring new ideas forward.

    Mr. KLINE. We really need that. I mean, you are right, Dr. Tether. I am sure that I or some other members have, you know, sent somebody over to you. We do not have the ability to determine really how good this product is. It looks good to us, sounds good, looks like it would work to save some lives, whatever we are looking at. And so, we can do that. In fact, most of us—maybe there are only one or two Members of Congress who could qualify to serve on that STEM Caucus. You probably have to be able to solve a differential equation or something. And that would rule out Mr. Saxton and I and most everybody else I know.

 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But I just do not mean to let the frustration come bubbling out. But I just hate to think that we have the ability out there to provide some real relief and we do not quite know how to get it in the system.

    Dr. TETHER. But, you know, what you need to do and what you have done, at least with DARPA, you have given us the flexibility to react. And by that, I mean you have not required that every nickel, you know, be in some P.E. and—right, you know. I mean, and without that, when I was called on Hardwire, you know, I would have been afraid of having to go kill some program in order to get the money to do that one.

    And without that flexibility—we need that—and you have allowed us to have that flexibility. But there are forces of evil at work that are trying to take that flexibility away. So, you know——

    Mr. KLINE. I know them.

    Admiral COHEN. Congressman, we share your frustration because we are on the front line. We are the people who receive the call from the COCOMS and from the unit commanders, et cetera. But I would take a slightly different approach. And I would tell you the glass is half full. Now, to an engineer, a glass that is half full means that we over-engineered the glass.

    But be that as it may, you have given us SBIR, small business innovative research. And I can tell you across the services and out of cycle we have used that to answer exactly the issue you have raised with small, sometimes Maw and Paw $100,000 for phase one. We went out in June, got 39 respondents. We are now into the phase two on exactly anti-mortar, anti-RPG, anti-IEDs.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I must tell you honestly when I reviewed those last July, I had to swallow real hard as Chief of Naval Research because some of them were so out of the box, so out of the box. And I have had my gag reflexes surgically removed. I have got a pretty high tolerance. I said, ''You know, I am not sure I want to spend as a taxpayer the $100,000.'' I was wrong. We went forward with those, and we are seeing—and I am not going to bore you with the details—but some things that are going to be fielded within the next several months after that initial evaluation.

    But at the end of the day, at the end of the day, you pay us and the law provides for us to take risks. That is what S&T is about. We have the opportunity to try and fail. Regrettably in acquisition—and this is true across all the services—it may be true in industry—we reward cost, performance, quality and schedule.

    Any program manager who dares take risk, no matter how great the leap ahead capability for our troops, put his or her career at risk. And until the system encourages an acquisition a modicum of risk, a modicum of a chance to fail—and I am not talking about some of the big failures. I am talking about in terms of the degree of product improvement and spiral development—we are always going to have this not invented here.

    You have given us tools. Some of us use them better than others. There will always be missed connections. But we welcome those phone calls. And we spend a lot of time on them, sir.

    Mr. SAXTON. This has been a great conversation. Thank you for bringing this up, John. We were just talking here together, Jean and I. And looking at it from our perspective, it might be helpful if maybe you could coordinate, Dr. Sega, an effort to provide Members of Congress—because they are going to keep—they line up outside our doors—a brief description of each agency where you think it might be appropriate for us to send people with ideas, along with a contact and maybe a telephone number. That would certainly be helpful to us. And our MLAs could screen them out for us. And it would be a step in the right direction.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. KLINE. Particularly useful for one place. If Dr. Tether wants to add—you know, I am sure you are going to take care of funding that, Mr. Chairman. But it would be very helpful if there were one place to go. It really would.

    Dr. TEGNELIA. Could I comment just very briefly on that? In my short time in DTRA, one of the things that is unique about DTRA is it has everything from basic research funds through production funds through support funds to take care of projects like this.

    And so, I mentioned in my testimony we fielded a thermobaric new warhead on Hellfire in a matter of weeks and months. We also have our own organic contract shop that permits us to do these kinds of things. So we would welcome the opportunity to try to work something out.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

    Dr. SEGA. And I just want to point out that the rate of change going forward is going to simply increase. And so, that the need for some flexible resources, flexible funding to address new needs and new technical opportunities is simply going to increase. And we appreciate consideration in that area.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

    We appreciate all of you being here today. And as John said a few minutes ago, we apologize for the big, old hour-long interruption in the middle of our time. Thank you for being here. And keep doing the great job that you are.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]