Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization: Science and Technology Programs

FDCH TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Mar. 31, 2003
Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization: Science and Technology Programs

REED:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me also join you in thanking the witnesses for responding among their busy schedules to this delayed and deferred hearing. I appreciate that very much. The subject of the hearing, DOD's S&T programs and Defense laboratories may be the furthest thing from our minds as we watch current military operations all over the world, but we need to remember that the superior military technology that we depend upon to fulfill critical missions and protect our service members grows from these very investments and from the organizations that we will discuss today.

Every day, we are seeing how advanced technologies like GPS, guided munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles and night vision devices can be used with great success. All of those systems grew out of Defense research programs and are being used as we speak in military operations all around the world. But technological innovations and the military capabilities that they enable only occur if we faithfully invest relatively small but stable resources in S&T. They only occur if we have the best technical minds in our labs and tech centers working on ways to overcome the threats of today and tomorrow, threats like chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles, and cyber- attacks.

I look forward to hearing our witnesses describe their views on how well we are funding the innovation that will produce tomorrow's military capabilities, and how well we are supporting and growing our innovation centers, the Defense labs and technical centers. In particular, I am anxious to learn their plans for ensuring that we have the finest quality work force in our Defense laboratories.

Secretary Rumsfeld, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Defense Science Board, and Congress have all endorsed the idea of investing 3 percent of the Defense budget in S&T programs. I note with concern that this year's request does not achieve that goal and is projected to fall to 2.4 percent of the budget by 2009. And that is moving in the wrong direction. In fact, the S&T request has been cut $1 billion from last year's appropriate level. This includes reductions to many of the programs that support the activities of Defense labs, as well as fundamental research programs conducted by universities and small, high-tech businesses. I look forward to learning how these budget decision have been made.

I hope that in this hearing we can also discuss how we can work together to create a funding process and entrepreneurial environment that reward innovation and risk taking among program managers. This will help us transition the best technology into the hands of our war fighters as quickly as possible. Our early hearing on joint experimentation made it clear that this transition step is key to transformation.

I once again welcome all of our distinguished witnesses to the hearing. I look forward to discussion, and again thank the chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REED:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today. And let me start off by asking each of you if you agree with—and this is not a trick question—if you agree with the Secretary of Defense, that the goal for S&T should be three percent of the DoD budget—Secretary Wynne?

WYNNE:

Sir, I think we need a benchmark. Against that benchmark you measure yourself for progress. And three percent is an appropriate benchmark.

REED:

General Kern?

KERN:

Senator, I think the three percent is a good goal for us all to meet. Each year it has its challenges as we try to reach those levels. But I think that as Mr. Wynne has suggested, that they were a good benchmark.

REED:

And General Lyles, (inaudible) there (ph)?

LYLES:

Senator, I also agree. I think it also is a great benchmark. Personally, I hope we can exceed it one day in the future, but it's a great benchmark for us to try to achieve right now.

REED:

And Admiral Dyer?

DYER:

Short answer, yes, but with a comment, if I may.

REED:

Yes, sir.

DYER:

We are blessed in the Navy right now with the products of S&Ts that are supporting us in programs like JSL, and into the E2 program, and to emergence in network-centric warfare.

So, too, in a sense, our success in S&T in previous years is presenting us with opportunities to transition and actually procure those technologies today, such that there's an ebbing and flowing of S&T and the product of it.

We are challenged with the affordability of doing everything all the time, but we are enjoying today the previous investment for the S&T.

REED:

Thank you, Admiral Dyer. Let me begin now with a follow- up question for each of the panel.
Projections suggest that the S&T funding will go down by '09 to about 2.4 percent. And question I have, what are the risks that we're going to run if this level of funding is projected over the next several years?

I think you suggest that—and everyone suggested—that we have a problem retaining scientists. That's one risk. We might have potential risk that other countries that are developing high-tech sectors, like China or India, just for example, can begin to match our efforts in certain—and begin to erode our advantages.

I don't know if you want to comment on those points. There might be other risks, too. But, Admiral Dyer? And then everyone else?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REED:

Thank you Mr. Chairman. During the first round, several comments were made about the national security personnel systems and also about the laboratory workforce demonstration programs. These demonstration programs have a sign (ph) to be very, very popular.

The Naval Undersea Warfare Center at Newport has such a demonstration program they find extremely useful in retaining and sciences having the flexibility to run a lab, which is much different than any other military organization.

The fear I think I've heard expressed is that this national security personnel system will be one size fits all and will really leave the labs out in terms of the flexibility, creativity, the uniqueness that they have, so Mr. Secretary and then gentlemen, can you comment upon these issues?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REED:

Thank you very much, Admiral.

Mr. Secretary, the total information awareness program started off with some rather grandiose goals, sort of all encompassing mega database, which presumptuously would be manipulated to do with interesting things. Since that time, there's been I think some discussion about what these goals might be.

Senator Aldridge (ph) was before the committee and he talked about well, so it's just some connections between airline tickets and other publicly commercial databases. What are the goals right now from your perspective?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REED:

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Secretary Wynne, last year the Congress enacted legislating creating a defense test resource management center in order to help coordinate plan rationalized the joint use of test (inaudible) and evaluation facilities to be headed by a three-star general officer, can you tell us when we can expect that nomination to come before the Senate?

WYNNE:

Sir, we are on track, I think, to construct such a directorate. The problem is, is the solicitation of a three-star general, which is the flag officer was the stipulation, is somewhat difficult these days with the services all engaged in an active engagement. We are hoping, as everyone else is, for a relatively quick end, if you will and intend to resubmit that nomination to the Joint Chiefs when we feel like there could be a little bit more fertile ground for the three-star nomination.

We have yet—we recognize that the Committee might be kind to give us relief and perhaps substitute a senior executive service member or something along those lines. We have not yet given up on the initial direction.

REED:

If there was some relief that civilian would be of the equal rank to a 010 -- 09 rather, the three-star?

WYNNE:

Sir, I'd have to go look at what we have available in that regard and that sometimes the capabilities far outnumber the rank and I don't know what we have available, sir.

REED:

But your intention is to still try to find a military officer?

WYNNE:

Yes, sir, right now it is.

REED:

Thank you.

Admiral Dyer, if I can ask one final question, I noted that the Navy's S&T budget requests includes a number of programs that transfer for it to it by OSD, other that pass through to GIFCOM (ph) and I understand without those programs, the DOD interested program and the GIFCOM (ph) programs that the S&T request this year, is down by 50 million from last year's request, down nearly 25 percent or $400 million from last year's appropriated level and what specific areas in investment do you to cut back because the money that the Navy actually has the Navy initiated programs has been decreased?

DYER:

Sir, to get the detail of what was cut back I'd like to take that for the record, so...

REED:

Absolute here. Absolute here. Just let me add, for the record, too, that I have a very keen interest in the unmanned underwater vehicles and those are issues, which I hope are top priority and not on that list of the things that had to be foregone.

Thank you much, Admiral.

Gentlemen, thank you.