National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
i [H.A.S.C. No. 113–30] HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES HEARING ON BUDGET REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS HEARING HELD APRIL 16, 2013 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 80–759 WASHINGTON : 2013 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES MAC THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman JEFF MILLER, Florida JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island JOHN KLINE, Minnesota SUSAN A. DAVIS, California BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida ANDRE´ CARSON, Indiana TRENT FRANKS, Arizona DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York DUNCAN HUNTER, California DEREK KILMER, Washington CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri SCOTT H. PETERS, California JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada KEVIN GATES, Professional Staff Member TIM MCCLEES, Professional Staff Member JULIE HERBERT, Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 2013 Page HEARING: Tuesday, April 16, 2013, Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Department of Defense (DOD) Science and Technology Programs ............................................................................................................... 1 APPENDIX: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 .......................................................................................... 25 TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013 FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities 1 Thornberry, Hon. Mac, a Representative from Texas, Chairman, Sub- committee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities ...................... 1 WITNESSES Klunder, RADM Matthew, USN, Chief of Naval Research, U.S. Navy .............. 6 Miller, Mary, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Engineering .......................................................................................................... 5 Prabhakar, Dr. Arati, Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency .. 10 Shaffer, Alan, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engi- neering .................................................................................................................. 3 Walker, Dr. David, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Acquisi- tion ........................................................................................................................ 8 APPENDIX PREPARED STATEMENTS: Klunder, RADM Matthew ................................................................................ 87 Miller, Mary ...................................................................................................... 61 Prabhakar, Dr. Arati ........................................................................................ 132 Shaffer, Alan ..................................................................................................... 29 Walker, Dr. David ............................................................................................ 103 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: [There were no Documents submitted.] WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: Mr. Nugent ........................................................................................................ 147 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: Mr. Carson ........................................................................................................ 156 (III) IV Page QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING—Continued Mr. Johnson ...................................................................................................... 154 Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 162 Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... 159 Ms. Sanchez ...................................................................................................... 153 Mr. Thornberry ................................................................................................. 151 FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION BUDGET REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT OF DE- FENSE (DOD) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES, Washington, DC, Tuesday, April 16, 2013. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:34 p.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mac Thornberry (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAC THORNBERRY, A REP- RESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES Mr. THORNBERRY. Let me call the subcommittee hearing to order, and let me welcome the distinguished ranking member and our witnesses and guests to this subcommittee hearing on DOD’s [De- partment of Defense] science and technology programs. I don’t think any of us need to be convinced that the money we spend on science and technology is the basis for our country’s fu- ture security. I was pleased, in the President’s budget, that if you take these accounts together, at least they are basically flat, and not going down. I guess that is looking for some good news. But, of course, it is not just how much money you spend, it is how you spend it. And those are some of the issues that we want to get into with our distinguished group of panelists. So without going any further, I am happy to yield to the gen- tleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, for any comments he would like to make. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTA- TIVE FROM RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUB- COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES Mr. LANGEVIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really do want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. All of you oversee a portfolio of issues that I have particular interest in. And obviously, defense research is an area of great im- portance to all of us, and I know that we can all appreciate the benefit of your testimony today. The health and vibrancy of our defense science and technology enterprise is critical not just to our national defense, but to our Na- tion’s innovative edge in the world’s economy. And I am pleased that the President’s budget request recognizes this and largely pre- (1) 2 serves the investments that our warfighters will depend on in fu- ture years. However, I am deeply concerned about the effect sequestration is having on our science and technology investment base. And I know you all touched on this in your prepared testimony, but I would ap- preciate it if you, in your opening remarks, you could speak to the long-term effects of sequestration, to the research and development being undertaken by the Department, as well as to the longer-term effects on your workforce. Sequestration is, of course, not occurring in a vacuum. And there are compelling longer-term trends toward ever more sophisticated technology for our warfighters, requiring ever more capable RDT&E [Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation] workforce. I believe that DOD has an important role to play in responding to those trends across the STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] spectrum, from the K–12 education efforts that prepare a pipeline of confident operators and maintainers of cut- ting-edge technology, to the basic research that expands our under- standing of disciplines affecting our national security. Mr. Shaffer, you mentioned these challenges in your testimony, and I certainly look forward to exploring how Congress might as- sist DOD in addressing those needs. It is imperative that, to pre- serve the vitality of the workforce. Similarly, Mr. Shaffer and each of the service representatives, I would be interested in an update on your examination of laboratory facilities and whether action is needed at the congressional level to ensure the vitality of those institutions. I would also appreciate an update on the Rapid Innovation Program. While I know that this is not the venue for detailed discussion of your entire portfolio, it certainly would come as no surprise to the chairman or to our witnesses that I am particularly interested in hearing your comments on just a few areas. Dr. Walker, Ms. Miller, and Admiral Klunder, you highlighted particular efforts within the directed energy field that show par- ticular promise, and I would be interested in hearing more from my panel on DOD efforts in that regime. I would also welcome com- ment, Admiral, on your development of unmanned undersea vehi- cles, which you and I have had a chance to talk about many times. And, finally, I recognize you have all highlighted the critically important role that cyber innovation plays in our defense