[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 61 (Thursday, May 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4909-S4911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2081. A bill to guarantee the long-term national security of the 
United States by investing in a robust Defense Science and Technology 
Program; to the Committee on Armed Services.


        THE NATIONAL DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1998

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the 
National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998. In line 
with the clear bipartisan support for Defense research I am very 
pleased to be joined by Senator Santorum and Lieberman in introducing 
this important bill.
  The National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998 
will lay the fiscal framework for the Defense research needed to 
achieve, early in the next century, what the Department of Defense call 
``Full Spectrum Dominance''--the ability of our armed forces to 
dominate potential adversaries in any conceivable military operation, 
from humanitarian operations through the highest intensity conflict. 
The bill creates a plan that would achieve the equivalent of at least a 
$9 billion Defense Science and Technology Program budget in today's 
dollars within the next 10 years--an increase of 16% over today. The 
bill also sets similar increases for the non-proliferation research of 
the Department of Energy.
  Much of the technology that gave the United States a quick victory 
with so few casualties in Desert Storm came from DoD's research of the 
1960s and 1970s. More Defense research is needed today to prepare for 
the next century for a number of reasons.
  First, as the DoD has noted, the two key enablers of ``Full Spectrum 
Dominance'' will be information superiority and technological 
innovation. The DoD has been the preeminent federal agency funding the 
disciplines undergirding these enablers, for example, supporting

[[Page S4910]]

roughly 80% of the federally sponsored research in electrical 
engineering, and 50% of that in computer science and mathematics. No 
other organizations, public or private, can be expected to substitute 
for the unique role of the DoD in these research areas. Second, the 
global spread of advanced technology and a nascent revolution in 
military affairs are creating new threats to the United States which 
will challenge our ability to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance. These 
include: information warfare; cheap precise cruise missiles; and the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction. Finally, we are now in a 
relatively secure interlude in our international relations, a time when 
we can afford to work on transforming our military forces. While the 
world is still a dangerous place, it will be even more dangerous in the 
future. So now is the time to undertake the Defense research needed to 
secure our future.
  Yet, the DoD's current Science and Technology budget plans do not 
reflect these realities. The outyear budgets are basically flat in real 
terms out to 2003, at a level $200 million lower than 1998's level. 
This money pays for the research and concept experimentation needed to 
invent and experiment with new military capabilities. Worse yet, the 
Department of Energy's budget for non-proliferation research will 
decline by around 20% in real terms by 2003. Simply put, Mr. President, 
these budget plans are just not consistent with the vision of Full 
Spectrum Dominance, the threats on the horizon, and the opportunity we 
have today.
  National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act creates budget 
plans that are consistent with the vision, threats, and opportunity. 
Starting with fiscal year 2000, the Act calls on the Secretary of 
Defense to increase the Defense Science and Technology budget request 
by at least 2% a year over inflation until fiscal year 2008. The end 
result will be a Defense Science and Technology budget that reaches at 
least $9 billion in today's dollars by 2008, an increase of $1.2 
billion or 16% over today's level. The Department of Energy's non-
proliferation research would also increase the same 2% over inflation 
yearly.
  These budget increases are significant for research, yet modest and 
achievable; they will be an excellent investment. While they may 
require some shifting of funds within DoD's budget, the total amount 
shifted will be around half a percent of that total budget over ten 
years. I am extremely confident that the Secretary of Defense will be 
able to make this gradual shift in the budget without damaging other 
priorities. I am also quite sure its something we need to do.
  Imagine, if you will, a large company in the most ferociously 
competitive high tech business in the world--a company that has done 
very well over the years, but faces downstream a series of new, highly 
aggressive, innovative and unpredictable competitors. Would we, as 
shareholders, say that shifting half a percent of its revenue into 
research over ten years would be something it couldn't afford to do? 
No. It would be clear that is something it couldn't afford not to do. I 
suggest the DoD is in a similar position.
  Technological supremacy has been a keystone of America's security 
strategy since World War II. Supporting that supremacy has been Defense 
research, one of the highest return investments this nation makes. This 
coming decade is the time to start increasing this investment in our 
national security. The National Defense Science and Technology 
Investment Act of 1998 is a modest approach to making this investment, 
but one, I am sure, which will yield immodest returns to our military.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Santorum, 
Lieberman, and myself in support of this important bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2081

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Defense Science and 
     Technology Investment Act of 1998.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress of the United States finds the following:
       (1) To provide for the national security of the United 
     States in the 21st century, the U.S. military must be able to 
     dominate the full range of military operations, from 
     humanitarian assistance to full-scale conflict. The keys to 
     achieving this ``Full Spectrum Dominance,'' as described in 
     the Department of Defense's ``Joint Vision 2010,'' are 
     technological innovation and information superiority.
       (2) The global spread of advanced technology is 
     transforming the military threats faced by the United States 
     and will challenge our ability to achieve Full Spectrum 
     Dominance. Some of the major technological challenges our 
     military face include information warfare; proliferating 
     weapons of mass destruction; inexpensive, precise, cruise 
     missiles; and increasingly difficult operations in urban 
     environments.
       (3) The United States is now in a relatively secure 
     interlude in its international relations, but the future 
     security environment is very uncertain. Thus, now is the time 
     to focus our Defense investments on the research and 
     experimentation needs to meet new and undefined threats and 
     achieve Full Spectrum Dominance.
       (4) The Department of Defense has been the preeminent 
     federal agency supporting research in engineering, 
     mathematics, and computer science, and a key supporter of 
     research in the physical and environmental sciences. These 
     disciplines remain critical to achieving information 
     superiority and maintaining technological innovation in our 
     military. The Department of Energy has played a critical role 
     in supporting the research needed to limit the spread of 
     weapons of mass destruction. No other organizations, public 
     or private, can be expected to substitute for the role of the 
     Department of Defense and Department of Energy in these 
     research areas.
       (5) However, the current budget plan for the Defense 
     Science and Technology Program is essentially flat in real 
     terms through fiscal year 2003. The planned budget for 
     nonproliferation science and technology activities at the 
     Department of Energy will decline.
       (6) These budget plans are not consistent with the vision 
     of Full Spectrum Dominance, the threats or uncertainties on 
     the horizon, or the opportunity presented by the current 
     state of international relations. The planned level of 
     investment could pose a serious threat to our national 
     security in the next 15 years, given the usual time it takes 
     from the start of Defense research to achieving new military 
     capabilities.
       (7) Consequently, the Congress must act to establish a 
     long-term vision for the Defense Science and Technology 
     Program's funding if the United States is to encourage the 
     research and experimentation needed to seize the current 
     opportunity and begin transforming our military to meet the 
     new threats and achieve Full Spectrum Dominance early in the 
     next century.
       (8) The Congress must also act to establish a robust long-
     term vision and funding plan in support of nonproliferation 
     science and technology activities at the Department of 
     Energy.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE AND FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to create a ten-
     year budget plan to support the disciplines, research, and 
     concept of operations experimentation that will transform our 
     military and reduce the threat from weapons of mass 
     destruction early in the next century.
       (b) Funding Requirements.--
       (1) Defense science and technology program budget.--For 
     each year from fiscal year 2000 until fiscal year 2008, it 
     shall be an objective of the Secretary of Defense to increase 
     the Defense Science and Technology Program budget by no less 
     than 2.0 percent over inflation greater than the previous 
     fiscal year's budget requests.
       (2) Nonproliferation science and technology activities 
     budget.--For each year from fiscal year 2000 until fiscal 
     year 2008, it shall be an objective of the Secretary of 
     Energy to increase the budget for nonproliferation science 
     and technology activities by no less than 2.0 percent a year 
     over inflation greater than the previous fiscal year's budget 
     request.

     SEC. 4. GUIDELINES FOR THE DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Synergistic management of research and development.--
     The Secretary of Defense may allocate a combination of funds 
     from Department of Defense 6.1, 6.2, or 6.3 accounts in 
     supporting any individual project or program of the Defense 
     Science and Technology Program.
       (b) Relationship of the Defense Science and Technology 
     Program to Commercial Research and Technology.--
       (1) In supporting projects within the Defense Science and 
     Technology Program, the Secretary of Defense shall attempt to 
     leverage commercial research, technology, products, and 
     processes for the benefit of the Department of Defense to the 
     maximum extent practicable.
       (2) Funds made available to the Defense Science and 
     Technology Program must only be used to benefit the 
     Department of Defense, which includes--
       (A) the development of defense unique technology;
       (B) the development of military useful, commercially viable 
     technology; or

[[Page S4911]]

       (C) the adaption of commercial technology, products, or 
     processes for military purposes.
       (c) Relationship of Defense Science and Technology Program 
     to University Research.--The following shall be key 
     objectives of the Defense Science and Technology Program--
       (1) the sustainment of research capabilities in scientific 
     and engineering disciplines critical to the Department of 
     Defense;
       (2) the education and training of the next generation of 
     scientists and engineers in disciplines relevant to future 
     Defense systems, particularly through the conduct of basic 
     research; and
       (3) the continued support of the Defense Experimental 
     Program to Stimulate Competitive Research and research 
     programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 
     Minority Institutions.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) Defense science and technology program.--The term 
     ``Defense Science and Technology Program'' means work funded 
     in Department of Defense accounts 6.1, 6.2, or 6.3; and
       (2) Nonproliferation science and technology activities.--
     The term ``nonproliferation science and technology 
     activities'' means work related to preventing and countering 
     the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that is 
     funded by the Department of Energy under the following 
     programs and projects of the Department's Office of 
     Nonproliferation and National Security and Office of Defense 
     Programs:
       (A) the Verification and Control Technology program within 
     the Office of Nonproliferation and National Security;
       (B) projects under the ``Technology and Systems 
     Development'' element of the Nuclear Safeguards and Security 
     program within the Office of Nonproliferation and National 
     Security;
       (C) projects relating to a national capability to assess 
     the credibility of radiological and extortion threats, or to 
     combat nuclear materials trafficking or terrorism, under the 
     Emergency Management program within the Office of 
     Nonproliferation and National Security;
       (D) projects relating to developing or integrating new 
     technology to respond to emergencies and threats involving 
     the presence, or possible presence, of weapons of mass 
     destruction; radiological emergencies; and related terrorist 
     threats, under the Office of Defense Programs; and
       (E) program direction costs for the programs and projects 
     funded under subparagraphs (A) through (D).

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with 
Senators Bingaman and Santorum, the National Defense Science and 
Technology Investment Act of 1998. I have been concerned for some time 
now that our investments in defense R&D are not commensurate with the 
opportunity that new technology developments afford. I recognize, Mr. 
President, that relative to the procurement budget, defense R&D has 
fared well in recent years. While the ratio of R&D funding relative to 
procurement was an appropriate benchmark during the Cold War, I would 
argue that it is a misleading indicator in the current environment.
  We find ourselves in a comparatively peaceful historical interlude in 
which we face no peer military competitors. How likely is it that this 
set of circumstances will last? We don't know the answer to that 
question. The future is uncertain and, if history is our guide, will be 
considerably more dangerous than today. At the same time, the ongoing 
technology revolution is creating revolutionary new capabilities that 
will change the nature of warfare itself. These new capabilities would 
enable our forces to engage an enemy in a coordinated fashion across an 
entire theater of operations and thereby rapidly and totally dominate 
the battlespace. By aggressively exploiting the new capabilities that 
technology has to offer, the U.S. can assure its decisive military 
superiority over any potential adversary, even with numerically smaller 
forces than are fielded today. Our ability to realize this vision of 
the future, however, depends on the research and development we conduct 
today.
  All of the assessments, both internal and external, of our nation's 
defense posture concur that we must transform our force structure 
through greatly accelerated rates of technology insertion. The 
transformed military force envisioned in, for example, General 
Shalikashvili's Joint Vision 2010 requires a much higher level of 
research, development, prototyping, and testing than we are engaged in 
today. Our current defense R&D budgets simply don't support the 
accelerated rates of technology insertion and integration that these 
assessments imply.
  Mr. President, I realize that our military has many needs today that 
compete for scarce defense dollars. But we cannot mortgage our future 
security to short-term demands. Increased funding for our nation's 
defense R&D enterprise is essential if we are to realize the vision of 
a transformed force structure that takes advantage of the new 
opportunities that the high-tech revolution has to offer. The National 
Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998 would put us on 
the path of higher defense R&D budgets by outlining a plan for real 
increases of 16% over ten years. This is a modest proposal, Mr. 
President, and one that holds the promise of very significant future 
returns. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Bingaman, Santorum, and 
me and support this important piece of legislation.
                                 ______