{"id":22015,"date":"2020-03-12T19:51:41","date_gmt":"2020-03-12T19:51:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/c4isrnet\/uncategorized\/2020\/03\/12\/lawmakers-criticize-pentagons-funding-plan-for-science-and-tech-official-also-talks-star-trek\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T22:34:18","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T22:34:18","slug":"lawmakers-criticize-pentagons-funding-plan-for-science-and-tech-official-also-talks-star-trek","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/c4isrnet\/battlefield-tech\/2020\/03\/12\/lawmakers-criticize-pentagons-funding-plan-for-science-and-tech-official-also-talks-star-trek\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawmakers criticize Pentagon\u2019s funding plan for science and tech; official also talks \u2018Star Trek\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 Members of the House Armed Services Committee expressed deep frustration with the levels for early science and technology funding in the fiscal 2021 budget request<\/a> on Wednesday, in what could be a precursor to Capitol Hill increasing those numbers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appearing before the HASC subcommittee on intelligence and emerging threats, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin defended the S&T funding request as the result of a budget that was effectively flat year over year<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the second straight year, S&T funds for early technology development (the Pentagon\u2019s 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 accounts) is requested at $14.1 billion; that includes $3.5 billion for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Congress, unsatisfied with that same request in FY20, increased the funding to $16.1 billion for that fiscal year, meaning the FY21 request is $2 billion less than what the Pentagon last received.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mood for the hearing was set early on, with both the chairmen and ranking member of the committee using their opening comments to make it clear they expected to see more<\/a> S&T funding from the department.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chairman Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., expressed frustration that investments in future technology continues to be sacrificed for current needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHow is it that this year, with an undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, created for the very purpose of looking past the horizon, and with a National Security Strategy that claims to be focused on deterring the wars of the next two to three decades, the department was able to submit a budget request that was less proposed S&T funding than last year?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Table showing the Pentagon’s S&T funding request for FY21. (Department of Defense budget materials)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Rep. Elise Stefanek of New York, the top Republican on the subcommittee, also expressed \u201cconcern\u201d that S&T investments are \u201ca decreasing percentage of our total RDT&E [research, development, test and evaluation] budget.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis Congress and this committee particularly recognize the importance of research and development to our long-term technological superiority. Any degradation in these investments places the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage and, more importantly, risks skipping a generation of domestic science and engineering expertise that is so desperately needed and already in such short supply in disciplines like AI, mathematics, computer science, and aerospace engineering,\u201d she said, using an acronym for artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For his part, Griffin denied that the department has \u201cwalked away\u201d from S&T funding, saying it is highly valued by the department.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is a tough budget environment. We don\u2019t have top-line growth and we have many, many priorities. As we went through our budget work, I, in fact, was an advocate in R&E for S&T top-line growth. But in reality there are no bad programs,\u201d Griffin said. \u201cAnd in an environment where we didn\u2019t have any bad programs, we were inevitably, in order to close our budget, we were going to have to make priority choices, and we did.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He added that the military\u2019s S&T has grown, with the Army\u2019s up 6 percent, the Navy\u2019s 1 percent and the Air Force\u2019s flat, even as the Office of the Secretary of Defense\u2019s S&T accounts took a 4 percent cut.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI’ll only conclude by saying we did the best that we thought we could,\u201d Griffin said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWell, Secretary Griffin, I appreciate your perspective. I see it a different way,\u201d Langevin responded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Making Starfleet real<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The acquisition heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force were all in attendance alongside Griffin at the hearing, and at times they faced similar questions about whether there has been enough investment in early S&T.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Will Roper, the Air Force acquisition head, told Langevin that \u201cI share your concern; taking risk in basic research may not put the military at risk today or tomorrow, but it is eroding that foundational layer that creates the game-changing technologies in future.\u201d He also notably stated there was a \u201csizable\u201d increase in classified S&T projects, something that is not reported in the unclassified budget numbers.<\/p>\n\n\n\t