IP: FY 2001 DOD S&T and Beyond

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>
>FYI
>The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy
>News
>Number 170: December 21, 1999
>
>Looking Ahead at the DOD S&T Budget: 2001 and Beyond
>
>If the prediction of a senior defense official is correct, the
>Clinton Administration will seek a FY 2001 budget for defense
>science and technology that is $1 billion less than what
>Congress appropriated this year. Given the fiscal constraints
>facing the Administration, still operating under the budget
>caps, it is "not realistic," this official explained, to expect
>a request equal to this year's appropriation of $8.4 billion.
>If this official is correct, who was speaking on a "non
>attribution" basis, spending for 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 would decline
>11.9% in the next fiscal year.
>
>These remarks were presented on December 16 at the first meeting
>of the National Research Council's "Committee on Review of the
>Department of Defense Air and Space Systems Science and
>Technology Program."   The defense authorization bill for FY
>1999 required that a NRC committee be established to "result in
>recommendations on the minimum requirements for maintaining a
>technology base that is sufficient, based on both historical
>developments and future projections, to project superiority in
>air and space weapons systems and information technology."   The
>committee is also to "address the effects on national defense
>and civilian aerospace industries and information technology of
>reducing funding below the goal" that will be determined under
>the first charge.  Staffing issues at the Defense Department are
>also to be examined.  The committee has 14 members, is chaired
>by Eugene E. Covert of MIT, and is to report by December 2000.
>
>Committee members were briefed by congressional defense
>staffers, also speaking on a non attribution basis.  They
>explained that peacekeeping costs are up significantly, while
>the "top line" for the department continues to shrink.  In such
>circumstances, R&D and procurement are the first budgets to be
>cut.  Defense R&D, they charged, is down 14% over the last five
>years.
>
>The congressional staffers said that the Defense Department
>justifies the decline by saying that big systems are moving into
>the procurement phase.  The staffers could not, however, find
>"big ticket items" that would support this contention.  They
>explained that cuts in procurement were more easily identified
>in industrial job losses that were noticed by Members of
>Congress.  In contrast, the impacts of cuts in R&D were more
>difficult to "capture."  The legislative provision requiring
>this NRC committee to examine the level of defense spending was
>a result of bipartisan frustration with cuts in defense R&D.  An
>independent assessment is needed, the congressional staffers
>said, to answer the question, "Is this enough?"  At the
>conclusion of their presentation, they cautioned that there were
>"red flags" in the upcoming FY 2001 budget request.
>
>The NRC members then heard from the senior defense official.  He
>told the committee that reductions in R&D were the equivalent of
>eating the Defense Department's seed corn.  Beginning his
>presentation with a graph showing declines in constant dollars
>since FY 1989 in some 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 budgets, he said that it
>had been "death by a thousand cuts."  Until recently, he
>explained, there had been little support for defense S&T on
>Capitol Hill.  The situation on the Hill has changed, he
>contends, because of 480 jobs that were lost in several
>important states resulting from a $95 million cut in the Air
>Force's core S&T program.  The official said that stability in
>the S&T budget was critical.
>
>The NRC committee clearly has a major task to accomplish, as the
>presenters agreed that no one has yet devised a satisfactory
>system to allocate defense S&T dollars.   The committee's
>overall objective would seem to be aligned with the Department
>of Defense S&T Mission: "To ensure that the warfighters today
>and tomorrow have superior and affordable technology to support
>their missions, and to give them revolutionary war-winning
>capabilities."
>
>###############
>Richard M. Jones
>Public Information Division
>American Institute of Physics
>fyi@aip.org
>(301) 209-3095
>##END##########