IP: DOD R&D Appropriations; Briefing

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> FYI
> The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
> Number 117: July 29, 1999
>
> 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
> 63           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.
>
> ###############
> Audrey T. Leath
> Public Information Division
> The American Institute of Physics
> fyi () aip org
> (301) 209-3094
> http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/
> ##END##########