Both the Senate and House authorization committees with jurisdiction
over the Defense Department have held hearings on the Administration's
FY 2005 request for defense science and technology programs. While
support was given to allocating 3 percent of DOD's budget for science
and technology programs on both sides of the witness tables, no firm
indications were given about what the authorizers will recommend in
their forthcoming bills.
In the last few years, support has been building to devote 3 percent
of the DOD budget for 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 defense S&T programs. This
figure was first recommended by the Defense Science Board, and later
included in the Quadrennial Defense Review issued in late 2001 (see http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2001/130.html.)
While there is a range of opinion about the usefulness of this rule-of-
thumb figure, it has become an often-cited benchmark when discussing
defense S&T funding levels. The Coalition for National Security
Research, to which AIP and several Member Societies belong, adopted
an FY 2005 funding statement based on this 3 percent figure, which "encourages
Congress to ensure the future safety and technological superiority
of the U.S. fighting force by providing at least 3 percent of DOD spending
to core S&T programs, or $12.05 billion in FY05. We further recommend
that the Administration and Congress undertake a five-year program
to reverse the declining percentage of funding within the S&T portfolio
that supports basic research." (See http://www.aip.org/gov/cnsr05.html for
the full text of this statement.) The FY 2005 Administration S&T
request is 2.61 percent, down from the 2.68 percent figure that was
requested a year ago. The S&T budget request for next year is $10.5
billion, down from $12.1 billion this year.
The 3 percent figure was cited several times at the March 3 hearing
of the Senate Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, chaired
by Pat Roberts (R-KS). In his opening remarks, Roberts spoke of "how
important it is if we can somehow meet the goal of 3 percent of defense
spending for science and technology and maintain the technological
lead that is absolutely essential if we are going to be successful
or continue to be successful in the global war on terrorism." He
later told the DOD witnesses that "I have questions on the long-term
viability of our current investment strategy and concern about the
department's apparent deviation from its projected 3 percent goal for
S&T. I know that Senator [Jack] Reed [D-RI] and Senator [Susan]
Collins [R-ME] share my view that that is a goal we should meet."
Reed, who is the subcommittee's Ranking Member, also spoke of how
he shared the chairman's concern, saying that the Administration's
FY 2005 request would cut S&T spending by $1.5 billion from the
current budget (see http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2004/013.html.) "The
reductions in these programs may severely impact the work that is done
by our nation's high-tech small businesses, as well as the university
research programs that are training the technical workforce of the
future," Reed said. Wayne Allard (R-CO) also spoke of the importance
of the 3 percent allocation goal.
The senior military and civilian DOD witnesses indicated their support
of this goal. Rear Admiral Jay Cohen, Chief of Naval Research, also
spoke of the importance of basic research. He stated, "I have
learned the value of sustained investment in basic research at a critical
level." The proportion of the DOD S&T budget devoted to 6.1
basic research has been declining, from nearly 20 percent in the early
1980s to now less than 12 percent of the portfolio.
Yesterday's hearing of the House Terrorism, Unconventional Threats
and Capabilities Subcommittee touched on many of the same themes as
the Senate hearing. Chairman Jim Saxon (R-NJ) mentioned the level of
S&T spending as one of several important questions the subcommittee
is grappling with in its deliberations. His concern was shared by other
members of the subcommittee, who all expressed support for defense
science and technology programs. Members' questions at this House hearing
focused more on combating threats and specific weapons systems.
Last November, the House and Senate defense authorization committees
wrote in the report accompanying their FY 2004 authorization bill:
"Despite the positive aspects of the Department's
Science and Technology Program, the conferees are concerned about
long-term projections for reductions in DOD science and technology
as a percentage of total obligation authority, which are well
below the three percent level, and in short-term trends in the
science and technology accounts of some of the military departments
and defense agencies." They also remarked, "The conferees
remain concerned that the level of investment in basic, long-term
research remains anemic. This account will provide the next generation
of warfighters with the equipment, training, and protection they
will require in future conflicts. As the investment in science
and technology continues to grow towards the Secretary's three
percent goal, the basic research accounts must grow at comparable
rates. In the face of growing near- term requirements and budget
pressures, the Department must work to preserve its long range
view of technology development and embrace the role that fundamental
research plays in the future of our military. The recent successes
of the technology base in the Global War On Terrorism should
not lead to an expectation of science on demand."
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl