Budget Committee Additional Views REP CURT WELDON Chairman, Military Research & Development Subcommittee During the past five years, the House Armed Services Committee, under Chairman Floyd Spence's leadership, has led a bi-partisan effort to increase defense spending by over $43 billion in order to address a portion of the unfunded requirements identified each year by the service chiefs. It has been a continual source of frustration for Members that the Department of Defense has not acknowledged any negative impacts resulting from the steady decline in requests for defense spending and in particular, R&D funding. As the Chairman knows, we have been facing a growing level of concern for years. The level of money and forces devoted to national defense is insufficient to permit the services to execute the national military strategy. The strategy calls for our military forces to be able to successfully fight two nearly-simultaneous major theater wars. However, in recent years, risk due to the combination of inadequate resources, shrinking forces, and extensive operational deployments. In fact, the Department of Defense announced three years ago that R&D funding was programmed to decline annually throughout the FY 1999 thru FY 2003 Future Years Defense Plan by a total of 14%...and that those reduced levels of funding were sufficient to meet requirements. Also adding to our frustration, the Department of Defense has briefed the Congress on its annual budget request the last two years and announced increases in modernization funding.... and yet only procurement funding numbers were actually increased. In fact, R&D funding was decreased over $3 billion from the previous year's appropriated levels. The sad fact is that R&D funding is at a historic low. I had always thought that the term modernization meant both procurement and R&D. As the Chairman of the Research and Development Subcommittee of HASC, I and members of the Armed Services Committee are concerned that the continual reference to procurement as modernization is further evidence that the DoD does not place sufficient emphasis on the importance of the R&D investment. This is our future. Fortunately, for the Department and the services, over $8 billion of the $43 billion in increases during the last five years were provided to correct R&D shortfalls. With this year's budget request, we have some good news...and some bad news. The good news is that DOD has apparently reconsidered the need for R&D funding and has increased the FY 2001 R&D request by over $3.6 billion over its own projection provided to Congress just last year. We now can consider a relatively healthy request for R&D funding that is only slightly lower than the level appropriated for FY 2000. The bad news is that the "modernization train wreck" appears to have already happened in R&D, as well as in procurement. In this year's request, we are only beginning to see the early casualty figures in the form of cancellations or significant decreases in high priority R&D programs (such as the Air Force ABL program) cut by over 50%. The Army's number one priority just last year "the Crusader program” now has been directed to undergo major program restructuring. Maybe the concerns recently expressed by several respected defense budget analysts are unfounded, and this growing string of canceled and curtailed programs is misleading. Just yesterday, Dr. Jack Gansler testified before my subcommittee to examine the R&D funding. The DoD provided charts for this hearing and when examined collectively they identify some disturbing imbalances within R&D. Several of the charts appear to confirm year's requested modernization funding, is focused on buying yesterday's and today's technologies, while only about 8% is left to fund science & technology for the future. I do acknowledge that many important programs such as F-22, Joint Strike Fighter, Comanche and missile defense programs are included in the 92% near term modernization. But what about those future technologies needed to prepare our military services to face the changing, uncertain, and dangerous world referred to so often by DOD leadership? Clearly, the answer is for Congress to once again take a leadership role and provide greater funding this year to our national security. I urge the Committee to add more funding to the Defense accounts. The "train wreck" is already here and the Administration has not done anything about it. Only this Congress can set things straight. Finally, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, it is the commitment of the Caucus to promote greater awareness about fire/EMS and life safety issues among legislators. With more than 300 Members, the Caucus has grown to become the largest such organization in Congress and has a successful record of passing legislation important to the fire community. With the Caucus and assistance of other organizations, I have led the effort in Congress to assist the fire/EMS community and pass legislation that promotes fire safety. Providing our nation's First Responders with the best equipment is of critical importance. It should be our goal never to bury another firefighter or victim of fire again. To this end, I would respectfully request the Committee seek to fund fire safety and procurement to $100 Million dollars. |