Senate Hearing on Defense Research Request
“This issue never seems to go away.” -- Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
The Senate Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee held a hearing earlier this month on the FY 1999 budget request for defense science and technology programs. Both Republican and Democratic members of this subcommittee expressed concern about Defense Department R&D funding. As Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) said, “there is no partisan difference here at all.”
Subcommittee Chairman Rick Santorum (R-PA) opened by saying the Senate Appropriations Committee has not been as strong a supporter of defense R&D as his authorization subcommittee has been. He bemoaned the continual decline in research spending, despite the prominent role DOD gave it in last year’s Quadrennial Defense Review. He did not spare the administration from criticism, saying it should have been more aggressive in seeking higher levels of funding in the past. Also coming under his fire were the witnesses from the Defense Department, who Santorum said should have been working harder within the department. The chairman predicted that funding constraints will be severe this year.
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology Jacques S. Gansler in his written testimony stated that the FY 1999 request for Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) is up $200 million over the current year to $36.1 billion. He continued, “Our investment funding strategy reflects a careful prioritization of resources.... Readiness and quality of life for military personnel continue to be our highest priorities. The investment budget, limited by an essentially fixed top line, reflects these priorities.” Congress how shown in its recent appropriations bills that it shares these priorities.
Gansler said that the Future Year Defense Program “maintain[s] our basic and applied research efforts -- the seed corn’ of our future military capability.” The Science and Technology budget is 20%, or $7.2 billion, of the total RDT&E request for FY 1999. Gansler identified Joint Warfighting Experimentation - the ability to “mesh...new technologies with current resources” - as one of the program’s priorities in the upcoming year. Also described was the Manufacturing Technology Program that is “designed to develop process technology to make defense weapons and material better, faster, and cheaper.” In his oral testimony, Gansler identified three major overarching priorities: modernizing current systems, developing and deploying new systems, and supporting these new systems. All of this must be done with drastically less money, he said.
Santorum asked why DOD is spending less in this area. Gansler replied that DOD is maintaining or increasing 6.1 and 6.2 spending, which is the most critical to the support of university research. There are, however, “problems of near term v. long-term...[and the] constant dilemma of trying to balance the two,” comparing aircraft parts procurement with R&D. Santorum told Gansler, “this committee wants you to fight for those numbers.”
Lieberman worries that while DOD’s strategy relies heavily on the U.S. having a technological edge on the battlefield, its R&D spending “remains at a particularly low level,” especially in the case of the services -- particularly for the Army. Lieberman cited physics-related technological developments in the commercial sector, and wants the government to do more in participate in the development of these and other technologies. Gansler admitted that the “commercial world is ahead of the defense world,” and called for more partnering. Senator Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) questions revolved around procurement reform, and reducing redundancies in testing and evaluation facilities.
Santorum remarked that the committee is now writing the defense authorization bill, which will serve as the foundation for the FY 1999 appropriations bill. While both Republican and Democratic members of this subcommittee support R&D funding, it remains to be seen how this sentiment will carry over into the final appropriations bill. Last fall, Congress provided the Department of Defense with only 91% of its original 6.1 request -- although the 6.3 budget, funded at 113% of the request, and the 6.2 budget, at 109% of the request, did considerably better.
