House Boosts Defense R&D; Briefing on DOD R&D

In good news for supporters of DOD R&D funding, the recently- passed House Defense Appropriations bill for FY 2000 (H.R. 2561) provides more for Defense Department science and technology than President Clinton’s request or the Senate’s bill. The House’s combined total for DOD’s Basic Research (6.1), Applied Research (6.2), and Advanced Technology Development (6.3) equals $8,250.8 million.

This amount surpasses a 1998 recommendation by a Defense Science Board Task Force, which called for defense R&D spending of at least $8 billion. Earlier this year (see FYI #78 ), AIP and two of its Member Societies, the Optical Society of America and the American Physical Society, joined in a statement by the Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR) which reiterated the Defense Science Board’s recommendation.

The House bill was approved on July 22. It would, with a few exceptions, provide higher funding levels for all three budget categories across the services than the current FY 1999 appropriation, the FY 2000 budget request, and the Senate bill. The House recommendations are provided below:

DOD House Senate FY 2000 FY 1999

Category Bill Bill Request Appropriation

(In millions)

Army

6.1 $186.9 210.2 186.9 183.7

6.2 782.0 635.1 555.3 628.1

6.3 649.8 587.4 524.9 653.0

Navy

6.1 376.8 376.8 376.8 361.5

6.2 597.3 588.3 523.8 566.8

6.3 721.8 598.5 519.5 593.2

Air Force

6.1 216.5 209.5 209.5 209.7

6.2 613.0 574.8 507.6 592.3

6.3 526.4 542.2 465.7 465.6

Defense-wide

6.1 366.5 351.0 340.0 353.0

6.2 1389.3 1386.6 1372.3 1363.6

6.3 1824.5 1813.5 1798.0 1820.6

TOTAL 8250.8 7872.9 7380.3 7791.1

In a surprise move, the House canceled the F-22 fighter before passing its bill. The Senate bill retains the fighter. There is concern that, as the two chambers try in conference to reconcile their priorities, R&D funding might be shifted to other programs. Some Senate sources have indicated that Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) may look to the R&D accounts for additional funds. The conference is not expected until Congress returns from its summer recess on September 7.

CNSR BRIEFING: In an effort to educate lawmakers on the importance of R&D to the Defense Department, CNSR on July 27 held a briefing for Members of Congress and their staffs. Attendees included the Chairmen of three House Armed Services Subcommittees: Curt Weldon (R-PA; Military Research and Development Subcommittee), who spoke at the briefing; Herbert Bateman (R-VA; Military Readiness); and Joel Hefley (R-CO; Military Installations and Facilities).

Rep. Weldon commented on the decline in S&T spending from 20 percent of the defense budget under President Reagan to approximately 8 percent now. The reason, according to Weldon, is frequent deployments and a shortfall in resources for nearer-term needs such as large weapons systems, modernization, readiness and quality of life. The R&D funding problem will not be solved, he declared, “until we deal with the bigger issue” of the entire defense budget. Weldon encouraged the science, industry, university, and labor communities to form coalitions for support, “like you represent today,” but he chastised some in the academic community, in particular, for asking for more DOD research funding while refusing to support increases for the rest of the Defense Department.

“Examples abound,” said Retired Marine General Alfred Gray, of how basic research ideas ultimately made a difference on the battlefield. Noting that the military funds a significant amount of development but very little long-term basic research, he warned of the futility of expecting industry to fill in the gap. “Their idea of a long-range plan is three years; five at the most,” he said. Gray called for an unbiased panel to address this issue of balance in defense R&D. Basic and exploratory research (6.1 and 6.2) cost very little but “get people thinking about the future,” he said: “this is a wise, wise, wise idea.” Randy Isaac, an IBM Vice President and a Fellow of the American Physical Society, who served on the Defense Science Board Task Force, said there is a disconnect between the U.S. military’s vision of itself in the future, and the support of R&D today that will enable it to get there. In many areas, he said, “there is nothing growing up to replace current technologies.”

This year, it appears as though House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and other House appropriators are hearing the message. It remains to be seen whether their funding priorities will carry the day in conference, or whether supporters of the F-22 and other programs will raid R&D to free up more money.