Defense 6.1 and 6.2 Funding in FY 2000 -- Not Very Impressive

The relationship between defense R&D and success on the modern battlefield is a given. Despite this, DOD R&D is not receiving the kind of increase that is being proposed for other components of the defense budget. The reasons for this are varied, starting at the Pentagon and continuing through the White House and on up to Capitol Hill.

There are many different ways to look at the defense R&D budget: it is broken down by various categories (6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and so on), service, and DOD-wide. Complicating it even further is the fact that the defense budget cycle includes both authorization bills (which contrary to most authorization bills are actually passed, and serve their intended purpose) and appropriations bills. The numbers are endless, which is why this FYI will concentrate on two numbers: 6.1 (basic research) and 6.2 (applied research), combining all of the 6.1 funding into a single number and 6.2 funding into another number.

The defense budget cycle for 6.1 and 6.2 did not get off to a very auspicious start. The White House proposed a 0.5% cut in 6.1 spending, and a 6.1% cut in 6.2 spending. With starting numbers of this magnitude, it is difficult to get significant increases.

The Senate has passed both its authorization and appropriations bills. The appropriations bills actually provide the money. The Senate voted a total of a 3.6% increase in 6.1 funding. This is a fairly good number, considering the budget caps. It did not treat 6.2 spending the same way, as it would cut total funding by 1.1%

. The House passed its authorization bill last night. It will serve as guidance for the appropriators, and authorized an increase in combined 6.1 funding of 1.1%. It would cut combined 6.2 funding by 0.7%. Expect the appropriations bill to provide funding around these numbers. The House is scheduled to take-up its appropriations bill in about two weeks.

Expect, as well, the final figures for FY 2000 to be between these numbers, and in many cases to “split the difference.” That would mean an increase in 6.1 funding between 1.1% and 3.6%, and a cut in 6.2 funding between 0.7% and 1.1%.

Congress is aware that over-all Defense Science and Technology Program funding has declined - about 24 % from peak spending in 1993 after adjusting for inflation - but has done little to significantly increase it. During yesterday’s House consideration of the authorization bill, it adopted a sense-of- the-Congress amendment offered by Rep. Tony Hall (D-Ohio) stating the DOD’s S&T budget request is “jeopardizing the stability of the defense technology base and increasing the risk of failure to maintain technological superiority in future weapons systems.” The Hall amendment seeks an increase of at least 2% above inflation per year in defense science and technology spending. An interesting component of Hall’s amendment, and one which seems certain to attract attention when the conference committee meets later this year, is a requirement stating, “If the proposed budget fails to comply with the [2% above inflation] objective...the President shall certify to Congress that the budget does not jeopardize the stability of the defense technology base or increase the risk of failure to maintain technological superiority in future weapons systems.”This certification process could be interesting.

During Senate consideration of its authorization bill, Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) described the bill’s provisions requiring DOD to look ahead 20-30 years at technological threats and opportunities. Report language accompanying this bill and the House authorization bill also criticize the Defense Department’s S&T program budget request. The House report was particularly critical of the Air Force request, saying that “While the committee recognizes the importance of sustaining the existing capability inherent in today’s weapons systems, it views sacrificing the research essential to open the door to future modernization without full acknowledgment at the high levels of leadership as irresponsible and unacceptable.”

There are many expressions of support for defense R&D on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. What is lacking are the hard numbers in next year’s authorization and appropriations bills.