Prepared by:
The DOD Task Force of the Inter-Council Committee on Federal Research and Development,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee to present our views on the importance of the science and technology accounts at the Department of Defense. Out of all of the engineering disciplines, mechanical engineering claims the largest share of DOD engineering research funding, at 23 percent.

The 125,000-member ASME is an international engineering society focused on technical, educational, and research issues. It conducts one of the world's largest technical publishing operations, holds over 30 technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and guides the setting of many industrial and manufacturing standards and codes. Our Inter-Council Committee on Federal Research and Development assesses federal investment in R&D, examines the President's budget request, and to presents views to the Congress on agency R&D budgets.

Role of Research at the Department of Defense

Over the past decade or so, an increasing number of peacekeeping deployments to various parts of the globe, and steadily declining budgets, have combined to put a severe strain on the ability of the Department of Defense to appropriately plan for its future technology needs through investments in basic and applied research. This situation is viewed by the DOD Task Force as extremely serious, one that could jeopardize the ability of the United States to maintain air and ground superiority over adversaries in the coming decades of the 21st Century.

As engineers know well, the research of today, particularly the basic research of today, largely determines the technological advancements of a decade or more from now. Research takes a lot of time to bear fruit. Take, for example, technological advancements of such military equipment as the F-117A Stealth Fighter, or the B-2 Bomber, or the "smart" bombs, all of which were used so successfully in the Gulf War and in Kosovo. The research that led to such technological wonders was funded by the Department of Defense in the 1960s and the 1970s, yet bore fruit only in the early 1990s.

The repercussions of a short-sighted research policy today will inevitably extend in the future to the private sector as well. Without question, America's civilian aviation industry has benefited greatly from the strength and technological advancement of the U.S. military. In short, the situation facing the United States in 2020 could be a technologically deficient military that resulted in a sub-par civil aviation industry. Neither scenario is obviously in the interest of Congress or the nation.

Our testimony today will focus primarily on the Technology Base program at the Department of Defense, which is comprised of the Basic Research account and the Applied Research account, known to you as the 6.1 and 6.2 accounts. This program is widely referred to as the "seed corn" for our nation's future military capabilities. We come before you today gravely concerned that the administration and the Department of Defense are nibbling at that seed corn, at the expense of our nation's future military preparedness.

An Air Force Example

In a report released earlier this year, the White House laid out its "National Security Strategy for a New Century." While the report did not include a specific section on science and technology, several areas of the report refer to the ability of the future military to be technologically prepared. In the section of the report entitled "Advancing U.S. National Interests," under the heading "Military Activities," the administration states, "We will maintain our technological superiority in space systems, and sustain a robust U.S. space industry and a strong, forward-looking research base." The same section also states that, "Investment in research and development while closely monitoring trends in likely future threats are important elements of our transformation efforts."

We are concerned that the administration's budget this year does not reflect the noble goals outlined in that report. For example, the Air Force S&T program would be reduced in 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, by a total of $97 million from current funding levels. This reduction continues an unfortunate trend that has seen the Air Force S&T budget decline 53 percent in real terms over the past decade. That rate is far greater than the overall decline in defense spending (30 percent). Included in this reduction is advanced aeronautics R&D with the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, whose budget would decline from $216 million in FY2000 to $206 million next year, if the budget request were followed.

The Air Force and NASA are responsible for ensuring that the United States "maintains…technological superiority in space systems," as stated in the White House National Security Strategy. Unfortunately, NASA's budget has been reduced over the past several years, and the Air Force's S&T budget is constantly under attack, not only from the administration, but also within the Department of Defense and within the Air Force itself.

The U.S. aerospace industry, which is largely DOD funded, has dramatically declined just in the past decade. Where there once were eight prime airframe contractors, now there are barely three. The companies that built the majority of our military aircraft have gone, and with them much of the spirit of innovation that led the U.S. to technological prominence in aerospace. The short-sighted approach that has been apparent in the Air Force S&T budget requests since 1993- and those of the other services -- must not be allowed to continue if the U.S. intends to continue its technological preeminence into this century.

Congress Calls for Increases

We are not alone in this view. Congress itself, in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act, reiterated the call made in FY1999 for annual defense science and technology budget increases of at least 2 percent above inflation. In a 1999 letter to the President, a bi-partisan group of 76 Members of Congress and 20 Senators warned that the "projected levels of spending are insufficient to ensure that the defense technology base remains strong and capable of providing the necessary foundation for the national defense." They went on to state that the "continued long-term erosion of defense science and technology funding will have a devastating impact on the future capabilities of the armed forces of the United States." The lawmakers urged the President to increase spending on defense research by the target amount set in the FY1999 authorization.

Furthermore, in a 1998 report, DOD's well-respected independent advisory group, the Defense Science Board, concluded that ideally about 3.5 percent of the total defense budget should consistently be invested in science and technology. Thanks to strong support by the Congress, the FY2000 S&T level is nearly 3 percent of total DOD spending. We urge Congress to continue this positive trend in FY2001.

The Technology Base Budget Request for FY2001

The Defense Basic Research Account, the so-called 6.1 account, received its first increase in seven years in FY2000, and that was only because Congress dramatically increased the President's request. We are heartened that the administration has decided to build upon that increase for FY2001, requesting an increase of $56 million. Not dramatic, but certainly an improvement from previous years. We urge the Subcommittee to, at the least, honor the President's request for this program and, ideally, to increase that amount. After nearly a 10 percent decline, in real terms, over the past seven years, we have a lot of catching up to do in this area. It is only through a robust 6.1 program that innovative, cutting-edge 6.2 programs in the future, as one account naturally follows another.

The situation with the Defense Applied Research account, the so-called 6.2 account, is not nearly as promising, due in large measure to many years of neglect in the 6.1 account. After Congress wisely increased the 6.2 account nearly $500 million over the administration's request in FY2000, the administration has once again made applied research an also-ran in its defense research priorities, proposing a decrease of $266 million from the FY2000 level. These decreases will not be made up by industry, as some have erroneously assumed in the past. No, Congress must again step forward to make the statement that applied research in the Department of Defense is a priority to maintain the future superiority of our nation's armed forces.

The benefits of research, and the consequences of neglect

The benefits of defense-funded research extend far beyond simply maintaining U.S. military superiority, as vital as that is. Research within the Department of the Air Force on highly efficient gas turbine engines has, for example, been transferred successfully for use in U.S.-built commercial aircraft, in U.S.-built commercial ships, and for emergency electric generation in critical buildings.

It is important to note that serious declines in defense-funded research and development have resulted in a disruption of the cycle of highly skilled, highly motivated scientists and engineers who have been the mainstay of our military strength, and who also have contributed significantly to our current economic prosperity. As research and development budgets are reduced, the job market for these highly skilled scientists and engineers shrinks, leaving little incentive for college students to choose careers in these fields. Simply put, reduced R&D funding equals fewer employed graduate students, who are the future DOD R&D workforce. The unmistakable result is already being manifested in the dramatic increases in foreign high-skilled worker visas being requested by business in the past couple of years, and being granted by the Congress. Add to the mix the fact that irreplaceable facilities are being destroyed to reduce corporate overhead costs, and it is easy to see where we are headed if we don't take steps now to reverse the trend.

Furthermore, the defense agencies have been the single largest source of federal funding for engineering research at the nation's universities. The decline in this support has led many engineering departments to seek other sources of support, thereby threatening the historically important contributions of the nation's universities to the U.S. defense technology base. A severe enough disruption, such as could conceivably occur if defense R&D funding continues to be neglected, could result in the U.S. losing its formidable technological edge.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the science and technology budget request of the Department of Defense. ASME's DOD Task Force will be pleased to respond to requests for additional information on this or other aspects of our nation's defense posture.

ASME International is a non-profit technical and educational organization with 125,000 members worldwide. The Society's members work in all sectors, including industry, education, and government. This statement represents the views of the DOD Task Force, of the Inter-Council Committee on Federal Research and Development, and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.