A March 9 hearing by the Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities demonstrated the great potential of the Department of Defense's
science and technology programs, while highlighting some of the current
and future limitations under which these programs could operate.
The subcommittee is chaired by John Cornyn (R-TX) who is serving his
first term in the Senate. The chairman's opening remarks touched on
the inherent difficulty of allocating resources between current requirements,
which are intensified because of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and future needs. Cornyn cited decades of investment in basic research
at laboratories and universities resulting in technologies, such as
advanced materials, that have saved lives on the battlefield. The chairman
outlined his concerns about ensuring a scientifically and technically
trained workforce to support future defense programs. Cornyn also wanted
to know what was the strategy behind the FY 2006 request since it fell
short of the 3% goal for defense S&T funding.
Cornyn and Ranking Minority Member Jack Reed (D-RI) both referred to
the goal stated in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review that 3% of total
defense spending should be allocated to the 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 programs.
Said Reed, reiterating Cornyn's point: "I hope the witnesses can
explain how it was decided to reduce investments in science and technology,
especially at a time when the benefits of those investments are becoming
so easy to see." The Administration requested a cut of almost $3
billion for science and technology programs in FY 2006 as compared to
the current year (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/018.html.)
Reed told Ronald Sega, Director of Defense Research and Engineering,
that the "budget is not keeping up." The senator wanted to
know if there was a plan to increase the request to 3% for the three
defense S&T programs in the FY 2007 budget request. (The current
fiscal year's comparable figure is 2.6%; the FY 2006 request would reduce
this figure to 2.5%.) Sega acknowledged the 3% figure as a goal, said
a balanced investment is required across all components of DOD's budget,
and then summed up in nine words the predicament that the Administration
and Congress face: we are "in a time of a lot of competing demands."
Also discussed during this hearing, in response to a question from
Senator John Corzine (D-NJ), were possible shortfalls in the future
defense S&T workforce. The witnesses lauded a pilot program authorized
by Congress last year. Known as the SMART (Science, Mathematics and
Research for Transformation) program, the Administration has requested
that the program be expanded and made permanent in FY 2006. Twenty-five
students, selected from 600 applicants, will enter the two-year program
this fall.
Corzine, like Cornyn and Reed, was interested in knowing what was the
overall defense S&T investment strategy. Both Corzine and Reed asked
for a written list of unfunded science and technology opportunities
that were left out of the FY 2006 request. During his round of questions,
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) spoke about the importance of the EPSCoR program
to Nebraskan researchers, and was critical of the requested 30% reduction
in FY 2006 funding for the program.
The written testimony of the five senior officials from the Department
of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency outlines overall defense S&T objectives and programs
in the proposed FY 2006 budget. Readers interested in specific details
of the various requests can read the testimony at http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=1408
.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl