[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 23705-23707]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 23705]]

       AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. TONY P. HALL

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 18, 2000

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Air Force 
Science and Technology for the 21st Century Act, a bill to strengthen 
the Science and Technology (S&T) program of the U.S. Air Force.
  Today, the Air Force S&T program is a shadow of what it once was. 
Spending has been slashed from its high water mark a decade ago. 
Research focus has shifted from long-term topics with the potential for 
revolutionary advances to projects that have only short-term, 
incremental payoff. Morale among scientists in the Air Force Research 
Laboratory is down as a result of layoffs, budget cuts, and an 
uncertain future for the S&T program. In recent years, we've seen a 
pattern where research programs are funded, then cut by the Air Force, 
then restored by Congress. This roller coaster trend results in 
inefficiency and loss of continuity.
  The decline has begun to set off alarm bells outside the Air Force. 
Earlier this year, the Air Force Association--one of the Air Force's 
strongest allies--issued a blistering report, concluding that by not 
treating research and development as a high priority, the Air Force has 
``shortchanged the nation's future military-technological edge'' which 
``could cost the nation dearly on future battlefields.'' Last month, a 
coalition representing one million scientists and engineers warned that 
the ``chronic decline in Federal funding going to aeronautics 
research,'' including Pentagon spending, could result in a 
``catastrophic loss.''
  Prodding by Congress apparently has failed to move scientific 
research to a higher Air Force priority. In 1998, Congress passed a 
resolution urging an increase in the science and technology budget of 
the Defense Department by 2 percent (adjusted for inflation). When the 
Air Force refused to comply, I offered legislation the following year 
repeating the request, singling out the Air Force for jeopardizing the 
stability of the defense science and technology base. Though the 
legislation was enacted into law, the Air Force still failed to meet 
the standard in this year's budget request (using last year's 
appropriated level for S&T funding as the baseline).
  Even guidance within the Defense Department hasn't shaken the Air 
Force's determination to siphon off scientific research funds for other 
purposes. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) 
issued guidelines for supporting S&T funding which the Air Force did 
not follow. The Air Force also ignored Defense Science Board 
recommendations to maintain a viable science and technology program by 
halting cuts and stabilizing the annual budgets.
  What this means is that in a world of increasingly uncertain threats, 
the Air Force weapons systems of the future may not give us the 
technological edge that the tomorrow's warfighter will need. Many of 
the Air Force technologies that have played starring roles in recent 
conflicts are the result of science and technology investments made 20 
or more years ago. A few of these technologies include stealth 
aircraft, the Global Positioning System (GPS), night vision devices, 
and guided munitions (smart bombs). If the Air Force of the 1960s and 
1970s had followed the same direction as today's Air Force, some of 
these technologies would not be available today.
  The Air Force was established by leaders who recognized that a long-
term commitment to science and technology was the key to maintaining 
air supremacy in warfare. While technology is important to all the 
services, it is uniquely critical to the Air Force's mission. The Army 
and the Navy strategies for winning a war rely on mass and troop 
numbers. The Air Force strategy, as shown in recent conflicts, relies 
on massing warfighting effects by exploiting technological advantage. 
However, beginning in the late 1980s, organizational changes within the 
Department of Defense and the Air Force had the inadvertent effect of 
reducing the influence of scientists and their advocates in shaping Air 
Force policy.
  In 1986, Congress passed the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act, which mandated sweeping and impressive improvements 
in the planning, organization and responsiveness of the military 
services. In response to the requirements of the Act, the Air Force--
unlike the other services--relegated key science positions to lower 
levels within the organization.
  Prior to Goldwater-Nichols, the top advocate for science under the 
Secretary of the Air Force was the Assistant Secretary for Research, 
Development, and Logistics. Subsequently, the equivalent slot became 
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, and 
Engineering, buried deeper in the bureaucracy. Prior to Goldwater-
Nichols, a Deputy Chief of Staff for Development, Research, and 
Acquisition--with the rank of Lieutenant General (3-star)--reported to 
the Chief of Staff. That position was eliminated after Goldwater-
Nichols.
  Another major organizational change occurred when Air Force Systems 
Command (AFSC) was abolished in 1992 and its functions were merged with 
Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC). AFSC, headed by a general officer 
(4-star), had been responsible for supporting science, technology, 
research, and development. The new merged organization, Air Force 
Materiel Command (AFMC), had far more duties. Since then, the AFMC 
commanders have not been as forceful advocates for science and 
acquisition issues as the AFSC commanders had been.
  As a result of these changes, when high level Air Force decisions are 
made there is no one at the table who has an intimate knowledge of 
scientific research and whose principal mission includes defending 
science and technology. As the Air Force Association reported, ``The 
focus of the major commands, and that of Air Force headquarters, is 
apparently now on near-term payoff and relevance to the existing 
mission. There is no countervailing Air Force entity arguing for long-
term investment and long-term payoff.''
  The most observable consequence of these organizational changes is 
plummeting science and technology funding as the advocates of other Air 
Force needs divide up the budget pie first. In 1989, the Air Force 
spent almost $2.7 billion on science and technology (in fiscal year 
2000 constant dollars). In fiscal year 2001, the Air Force proposed 
spending under $1.3 billion, a drop of 55 percent. Though some decline 
in science and technology might be expected due to the defense draw 
down of recent years, this does not justify the dramatic drop in Air 
force S&T funding. During that same period, the Army cut its science 
and technology budget by only 20 percent, and the Navy actually made a 
substantial increase.
  These numbers do not tell the full story of the Air Force's efforts 
to divert S&T dollars for higher priorities. In the late 1990s, 
internal Air Force budget planning documents proposed much deeper 
reductions. However, DDR&E forced the Air Force to submit higher 
numbers and Congress increased the funding levels even more.
  There are other more subtle effects of a reduced Air Force priority 
on science and technology that do not show up in the S&T budget 
figures. More and more, the Air Force Research Laboratory devotes 
resources to short-term engineering projects tied to enhancing current 
weapons systems instead of long-term science topics with the potential 
for dramatic results. For example, last year the Air Force tried to 
eliminate the hypersonics (high-speed aircraft) program because it had 
no direct weapon system application even though it had significant 
military application in the future. Congress overruled the Air Force 
and restored the funding.
  Other signs of a lower priority for science and technology include 
fewer advanced technical degrees among officers and civilians, layoffs 
in the Air Force Research Laboratory, and reduced support for the Air 
Force's graduate school of engineering, the Air Force Institute of 
Technology (which the Air Force tried to abolish a few years ago). A 
1999 Air Force report titled ``Science and Technology Workforce for the 
21st Century'' noted, ``There is a problem with the [Air Force Research 
Laboratory] being underappreciated in what it accomplishes and has 
provided to the force'' and that this is ``particularly true at the 
highest levels of Air Force leadership.''
  The consequence of a lower priority on science and technology will 
not show up for many years, but it will certainly have a devastating 
effect on the future capabilities of the Air Force. With an ever 
smaller force and a desire by Americans to keep their military 
personnel out of direct danger, a reliance on technological superiority 
is a requirement that will only grow in importance.
  Merely restoring a robust funding level to science and technology is 
not enough without a commitment by the Air Force to maintain stable 
support for the programs. In the last two years, Congress restored many 
of the Air Force's S&T cuts. However, the action was completed late in 
the budget process after already disrupting programs, delaying 
contracts, and reducing morale. Also, by that time, the Air Force was 
well into the process for the following budget year with new damaging 
cuts, and the cycle was repeated.
  Further, accounting gimmicks can be used to mask real cuts while 
maintaining the fiction of stable funding. For example, in the fiscal

[[Page 23706]]

year 2000 budget request, the Air Force cut about $90 million in 
applied research. Because of a controversial budget scoring decision 
the overall top line of the S&T account showed only a slight decline.
  Institutional support for S&T is required to deal with the hiring and 
retention issues that are particularly challenging to the technical 
workforce within the laboratory. An understanding of the need for long-
term science is critical to targeting research areas that will 
ultimately result in the strongest national defense. For all of these 
reasons, maintaining or even increasing the S&T top line without 
increasing the commitment to the S&T program from the Air Force 
leadership would be a hollow victory.
  As a result of outside pressure, the Air Force submitted an S&T 
budget for fiscal year 2001 that reflected a modest gain over the slim 
proposal it submitted the year before (though significantly below the 
level appropriated by Congress the year before). Still, the projected 
budget for the next five years shows a continued downward drift in 
funding levels (adjusted for inflation).
  Congress, unfortunately, cannot mandate a change in the corporate 
culture of the Air Force. As I have explained, we cannot fix the basic 
problem through the annual funding process. Since the problem has its 
roots in legislative and administrative organizational action, I am 
proposing a series of organizational changes to correct it.
  The bill I am introducing, the Air Force Science and Technology for 
the 21st Century Act, establishes an Office of Air Force Research 
within the office of the Secretary of the Air Force. This will give a 
clear line of responsibility for the development and implementation of 
Air Force science policy and ensure that the S&T program has visibility 
at the level of the Secretary of the Air Force. Also, it requires that 
the program be managed by a major general (2-star). The current head of 
the Air Force Research Laboratory is a brigadier general (1-star).
  The bill also establishes the Air Force Science and Technology Policy 
Council chaired by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The 
purpose of the Council is to aid the Air Force in prioritizing research 
needs against operational and acquisition needs and provide the senior 
level endorsement of the Science and Technology program that is so 
desperately needed to maintain the program as an Air Force priority. By 
adding scientific duties to the job of the Vice Chief of Staff, who is 
a general officer (4-star), the Air Force will be guaranteed a powerful 
science and technology advocate.
  Finally, the bill provides statutory authority to the Air Force 
Scientific Advisory Board, a panel of 15 civilians. This provision is 
intended to strengthen the board's independence and tie it directly to 
the Air Force Secretary and the Director of Air Force Research.
  My proposal is intended to create an organizational structure that 
will permit excellence and not stifle it. The legislation is based on 
the best ideas and thoughtful recommendations of current and former Air 
Force and Department of Defense military and civilian technologies and 
industry specialists. All three of the recommended changes are similar 
to the successful model instituted by the Navy for science and 
technology.
  We cannot go back to the days before the Goldwater-Nichols Act and 
the era of AFSC. However, the modest changes I am proposing might re-
create some of the earlier features of Air Force organization that made 
the Air Force the technological powerhouse that it once was.
  Near the close of World War II, General Henry H. ``Hap'' Arnold, the 
``father'' of the Air Force, remarked, ``For twenty years the Air Force 
was built around pilots and more pilots. The next Air Force will be 
built around scientists.'' The vision of General Arnold and the 
founders of the modern Air Force has been proven in battle time and 
time again. Unless we can restore that vision to the Air Force of the 
future, we will lose the technological magic that so much sets our 
fighting forces above all others. That is a vision we cannot afford to 
lose.

                                H.R. --

       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 ``Air Force Science and 
     Technology for the 21st Century Act''.

     SEC. 2. OFFICE OF AIR FORCE RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 803 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sections:

     ``Sec. 8023. Office of Air Force Research

       ``(a)(1) There is in the Office of the Secretary of the Air 
     Force an Office of Air Force Research, at the head of which 
     is a Director of Air Force Research.
       ``(2) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of 
     the Secretary of the Air Force, the Director of Air Force 
     Research serves as--
       ``(A) the principal advisor to the Secretary of the Air 
     Force on all research matters;
       ``(B) the principal advisor to the Chief of Staff of the 
     Air Force on all research matters; and
       ``(C) the principal Air Force representative on research 
     matters to other Government, academic, scientific, and 
     corporate agencies.
       ``(3) Unless appointed to higher grade under another 
     provision of law, an officer, while serving as Director of 
     Air Force Research, has the grade of major general.
       ``(b)(1) There is a Deputy Director of Air Force Research, 
     who shall be an employee in the Senior Executive Service and 
     shall be located at and assigned to a major laboratory or 
     field installation.
       ``(2) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of 
     the Director of Air Force Research, the Deputy Director of 
     Air Force Research is--
       ``(A) responsible for the execution of the Air Force 
     Research Laboratory technical program; and
       ``(B) responsible for operational aspects of the Air Force 
     Research Laboratory.
       ``(c) The Office of Air Force Research shall perform such 
     duties as the Secretary of the Air Force prescribes relating 
     to--
       ``(1) the encouragement, promotion, planning, initiation, 
     and coordination of Air Force research;
       ``(2) the conduct of Air Force research in augmentation of 
     and in conjunction with the research and development 
     conducted by the bureaus and other agencies and offices of 
     the Department of the Air Force; and
       ``(3) the supervision, administration, and control of 
     activities within or for the Department relating to patents, 
     inventions, trademarks, copyrights, and royalty payments, and 
     matters connected therewith.
       ``(d) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of 
     the Secretary of the Air Force, the Director of Air Force 
     Research shall ensure that the management and conduct of the 
     science and technology programs of the Air Force are carried 
     out in a manner that will foster the transition of science 
     and technology to higher levels of research, development, 
     test, and evaluation.
       ``(e) Sufficient information relative to estimates of 
     appropriations for research by the several bureaus and 
     offices shall be furnished to the Office of Air Force 
     Research to assist it in coordinating Air Force research and 
     carrying out its other duties.
       ``(f) The Office of Air Force Research shall perform its 
     duties under the authority of the Secretary, and its orders 
     are considered as coming from the Secretary.

     ``Sec. 8024. Air Force Science and Technology Policy Council

       ``(a) There is in the Department of the Air Force a Science 
     and Technology Policy Council consisting of--
       ``(1) the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, as 
     chairman, with the power of decision;
       ``(2) the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force with 
     responsibilities for acquisition;
       ``(3) the Director of Air Force Research;
       ``(4) the commander of the Air Force Materiel Command; and
       ``(5) The Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force with 
     responsibilities for installations.
       ``(b) The responsibilities of the Council include the 
     following:
       ``(1) To advise the Secretary of the Air Force and the 
     Chief of Staff of the Air Force on matters of broad policy 
     and budget relating to the Air Force science and technology 
     program.
       ``(2) To identify, set priorities among, and endorse future 
     Air Force technological capabilities.
       ``(3) To oversee and review major science and technology 
     programs as they relate to meeting capabilities identified 
     pursuant to paragraph (2).
       ``(4) To determine the appropriate balance between programs 
     for the purpose of meeting requirements and programs for the 
     purpose of pursuing long-term technologies.
       ``(5) To identify, set priorities among, and endorse 
     planning and budgeting for the transition of science and 
     technology to higher levels of research, development, test, 
     and evaluation.
       ``(c) Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Air 
     Force, the Council shall appoint, from among personnel of the 
     Department of the Air Force, a staff to assist the Council in 
     carrying out its responsibilities.

     ``Sec. 8025. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board

       ``(a) The Secretary of the Air Force may appoint an Air 
     Force Scientific Advisory Board consisting of not more than 
     15 civilians preeminent in the fields of science, research, 
     and development work. Each member serves for such term as the 
     Secretary specifies.
       ``(b) The Board shall meet at such times as the Secretary 
     specifies to consult with and advise the Chief of Staff of 
     the Air Force and the Director of Air Force Research.
       ``(c) No law imposing restrictions, requirements, or 
     penalties in relation to the employment of persons, the 
     performance of services, or the payment or receipt of 
     compensation in connection with any claim, proceeding, or 
     matter involving the United

[[Page 23707]]

     States applies to members of the Board solely by reason of 
     their membership on the Board.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new items:

``8023. Office of Air Force Research.
``8024. Air Force Science and Technology Policy Council.
``8025. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.''.

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8014(b) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) The Director of Air Force Research.''.

       

                          ____________________