Outlook on Defense R&D Spending
When Congress returns to Washington next week, efforts to formulate the FY 1998 federal budget will intensify in the House of Representatives. One of the areas likely to receive considerable attention is the Clinton Administration’s request for the Department of Defense. Of interest to the physics community is spending for two portions of DOD’s budget: 6.1, research; and 6.2, development (see FYI #31 .)
The relationship between the national security authorizing and appropriations committees is somewhat different than that for most federal programs. The House National Security Committee sets specific spending limits in its annual authorization bill that are largely followed by the House National Security Appropriations Subcommittee as it drafts the actual funding bill. This is also true in the Senate. FYIs #50 and # #51 provide rosters for both the House and Senate authorizing subcommittees with jurisdiction over defense research and development.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), chairman of the House Military Research and Development Subcommittee, held a hearing on DOD’s R&D budget request. He started the hearing explaining that “in constant FY97 dollars, the science and technology program has been reduced approximately 13% since FY94, to its lowest level since FY80. The Defense technology base (6.1 basic research and 6.2 exploratory development) is at an 18 year low, while that of the military departments is at a 35 year low.” He called this trend a “serious concern,” comparing these accounts to the military capability’s “seed corn.”
Anita K. Jones, Director of Defense Research and Engineering (who is returning to the University of Virginia in May), described how many of the systems employed in Desert Storm were based on basic research performed in the 1960s. She described in similar terms to those of Weldon’s cuts made in federal defense R&D spending, adding that defense industry independent research and development funding is down 52% since 1989 (constant 1997 dollars.) Jones said initial federal investment is critical to ensuring later private development. She called the administration’s S&T budget request the “minimum” needed to ensure battlefield dominance. Jones highlighted what she called “significant initiatives,” including mine programs, anti-terrorism, nonlethal technologies, demilitarization of munitions, Gulf War Illness, battle-space information system and focused logistics capability, distribution simulation, Manufacturing Technology program, Government-Industry-University programs, and DARPA technology priorities. In concluding her written testimony, Jones stated, “I believe we cannot reduce our overall investment in basic and applied research any further and still maintain the breadth and depth of research necessary to create the ideas that give new military capability to systems that we will develop in the future.”
Also testifying was DARPA Deputy Director Lee Buchanan, who described the work of this 200 employee, $2.0 billion agency. He outlined how the agency has been reorganized, and offered that the current budget was “about right” (down from $2.8 billion).
Subcommittee members asked many questions of the witnesses, with Jones explaining at one point that the Navy’s highest priorities were ocean sciences and acoustics. She described the development of smart materials for monitoring airframe weaknesses. Michael Pappas (R-NJ) asked about the status of DOD university programs, while Neal Abercrombie (D-HI) expressed reservations about restructuring efforts.
In response to questions about what concerned her the most, Jones said she would like to see the erosion of her activity’s buying power redressed, calling for Congress to “fund a robust program” that will both sustain and provide stability for DOD’s R&D program. The extent to which that will occur is unknown: Republican defense hawks have expressed frustration over the higher priority many of their colleagues give to deficit reduction, while Democratic liberals criticize the size of the administration’s over-all DOD request. Defense Secretary William Cohen earlier cautioned the House and Senate defense authorization committees that “I don’t think there are going to be massive increases in the defense budget. Many of the American people do not see [any] identifiable threat on the horizon.”
