Defense S&T Spending: Outlook, Developments

It is still an open question whether recent bipartisan efforts to increase the Department of Defense’s S&T budget in FY 2000 are going to be successful. There has been considerable activity from all quarters to put more money into defense S&T how this will translate into the defense appropriations bill will not be known for another few months.

The Department of Defense is being caught in the same budget squeeze as that affecting civilian agency budgets. Compounding this problem is the increasing rate of deployment of U.S. forces, creating major pressures on the defense budget. In the 40 years following World War II there were ten major deployments. In the next 10 years there were 29 major deployments. The military, with more limited financial and human constraints, now has broader mission requirements, such as peacekeeping operations and counter terrorism.

The Administration and Congress agree that over-all DOD spending should increase, and have put defense spending on an upward projection. However, little if any of that new money would go to defense S&T. One official explained this by citing the case of the Air Force, which is struggling with the availability of spare parts to keep its planes flying. S&T spending is lower on the priority list, the official stated.

Congress is setting the stage for consideration of its thirteen appropriations bills. Before leaving for Easter, both the House and Senate passed budget resolutions, which are broad brush spending plans. The Senate agreed to an amendment to its budget resolution “which expresses a sense of the Congress that for each of those fiscal years [FY 2000 - 2008] it should be an objective of the Secretary of Defense to increase the budget request for the Defense Science and Technology program by at least 2 percent over inflation.”The ten Senate cosponsors of this amendment were Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), John Chafee (R-RI), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Bob Graham (D-FL), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Rick Santorum (R-PA), and Charles Schumer (D-NY). In introducing this amendment, Bingaman stated:

“This sense of the Senate amendment reemphasizes Congressional support for modest but needed increases in the Defense Science and Technology program budget. It reinforces that the Senate, honoring its responsibility for maintaining the long-term strength of our national defense, intends to see that the DoD places a greater priority on this high payoff investment in our national security.”

"...despite the widely acknowledged and proven value of Defense S&T, despite the fact that new technology will help us counter the new threats we see emerging, despite the fact that overall Defense spending will significantly increase, the DoD plans to cut and continue cutting S&T. The fiscal 1999 S&T funding is $7.8 billion, whereas the budget request for fiscal 2000 is $7.4 billion, down around 15% in real terms since 1995. Moreover, that request includes the lowest level of S&T by the military services in 22 years. Worse yet, S&T is slated to decline to around $7 billion in constant dollars in the outyears -- $1 billion less than the level recommended just last summer by the independent Defense Science Board. To my mind, that is just not consistent with maintaining the long term technological edge of our military.

“Now, both houses of Congress have recognized this problem. Last year, we included in the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act a sense of the Congress provision, Section 214, calling on the Secretary of Defense to increase the S&T budget request by at least 2 % a year over inflation during fiscal 2000 through 2008. That provision was designed to be a flexible way of urging the DoD to place a higher priority on S&T. It contemplated they would plan sensible, gradual increases in S&T, which would reach the Defense Science Board target in real terms by fiscal 2005 or so.

“Unfortunately, the DoD may be falling into a classic trap that can catch the best of managers, that of focusing so hard on the short term problems that they short change the future. This year’s plans continue to show declines for S&T in the outyears, and are largely unchanged from last year’s plans.

“That’s where we come in. The Senate is perhaps uniquely suited to take the long term view, to look after those things that require patience, yet lie at the very foundation of our national security -- like Defense S&T. We have the luxury of not being subject to the day to day pressures of DoD managers, but we have the responsibility to make sure they don’t short change the future.

“Hence, this amendment says that within the budgetary levels for National Defense, function 050, we assume the DoD will increase the S&T budget as called for in last year’s Defense authorization act. This assumption, in turn, signals that we continue to be very serious about our long term investment in S&T, and will not just let the issue slide. Over time, I believe the DoD will hear our message and begin placing a higher priority on S&T and fix this problem.”

This amendment passed the Senate by unanimous consent. How this will affect future DOD R&D requests is still to be seen. Last month, fourteen Members of the House and Senate wrote to Defense Secretary William Cohen expressing extreme concern about an Air Force decision to fund the Space Based Laser and Discoverer II (space based radar) programs within the FY 2000 S&T budget. This was not how these programs had been funded previously, the letter stating, “This equates to a significant cut to all other Air Force S&T programs in FY 2000 and the outyears. This decrease in real S&T spending will result in drastic cuts to critical Air Force research programs, force potentially severe reductions in force, and weaken the overall Air Force technology base.”

It is now up to the House and Senate to decide at what level defense S&T should be funded in FY 2000.