Department of Defense's Assessment Addresses Congressional	 
Concerns but Lacks Detail on High Energy Laser Transition Plans  
(28-JUL-05, GAO-05-933R).					 
                                                                 
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,  
Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a	 
laser master plan to include identification of potential weapon  
applications, critical technologies, a development path for those
critical technologies, and the funding required to carry out the 
master plan. In response to this legislation, the High Energy	 
Laser (HEL) Executive Review Panel was formed and issued the HEL 
Master Plan on March 24, 2000. The Master Plan recommended	 
establishing a management structure for HEL technologies,	 
including a HEL Joint Technology Office (JTO) to execute	 
development and day-to-day management of a joint program to	 
revitalize HEL technologies. The plan also recommended		 
establishment of a HEL Technology Council--composed of senior	 
science and technology executives from the military services and 
agencies--to provide oversight and approval authority for JTO's  
programs. As a result of the Master Plan, JTO was formed in June 
2000. JTO collaborates with the military services and defense	 
agencies in order to develop and execute an investment strategy  
for HEL science and technology (S&T) development. In the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001,  
Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to implement the	 
management and organizational structure specified in the Master  
Plan. The legislation also required the Secretary of Defense to  
designate a senior civilian official to head the HEL Technology  
Council as well as carry out responsibilities for HEL programs by
establishing priorities, coordinating the services' and defense  
agencies' efforts, identifying promising high-priority		 
technologies for funding, and preparing a detailed technology	 
plan to develop and mature those technologies. DOD's Deputy	 
Undersecretary of Defense for Science and Technology was	 
designated that official. In the conference report that 	 
accompanied the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization  
Act for Fiscal Year 2005, the conferees expressed concern that	 
the JTO may not be accelerating progress in HEL technology and	 
providing incentives to the services to invest in such		 
technologies. Accordingly, they required the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to Congress on the implementation of the	 
fiscal year 2001 legislation and directed that the report	 
specifically address (1) the effectiveness of JTO in meeting its 
statutory goals, (2) whether JTO's structure has been effective  
in transitioning technologies to the warfighter, and (3) the	 
impact of DOD's decision to shift funding responsibility for JTO 
efforts from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the 
Air Force. The conferees required the Secretary of the Defense to
provide this report by January 15, 2005, and asked GAO to review 
the report and provide an assessment to the Congressional	 
Committees by March 15, 2005. We received DOD's report in May	 
2005 and are providing our assessment of the report's		 
responsiveness to the conferees' three requirements with this	 
correspondence. 						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-933R					        
    ACCNO:   A31417						        
  TITLE:     Department of Defense's Assessment Addresses	      
Congressional Concerns but Lacks Detail on High Energy Laser	 
Transition Plans						 
     DATE:   07/28/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Defense budgets					 
	     Defense capabilities				 
	     Investments					 
	     Military research and development			 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Weapons research and development			 
	     Lasers						 
	     Program implementation				 
	     High-Energy Laser Technology Program		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-933R

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

July 28, 2005

Congressional Committees

Subject: Department of Defense's Assessment Addresses Congressional
Concerns but Lacks Detail on High Energy Laser Transition Plans

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,1 Congress
directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a laser master plan to
include identification of potential weapon applications, critical
technologies, a development path for those critical technologies, and the
funding required to carry out the master plan. In response to this
legislation, the High Energy Laser (HEL) Executive Review Panel was formed
and issued the HEL Master Plan on March 24, 2000. The Master Plan
recommended establishing a management structure for HEL technologies,
including a HEL Joint Technology Office (JTO) to execute development and
day-today management of a joint program to revitalize HEL technologies.
The plan also recommended establishment of a HEL Technology
Council-composed of senior science and technology executives from the
military services and agencies --- to provide oversight and approval
authority for JTO's programs. As a result of the Master Plan, JTO was
formed in June 2000. JTO collaborates with the military services and
defense agencies in order to develop and execute an investment strategy
for HEL science and technology (S&T) development.

In the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001,2 Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to implement the
management and organizational structure specified in the Master Plan. The
legislation also required the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior
civilian official to head the HEL Technology Council as well as carry out
responsibilities for HEL programs by establishing priorities, coordinating
the services' and defense agencies' efforts, identifying promising
high-priority technologies for funding, and preparing a detailed
technology plan to develop and mature those technologies. DOD's Deputy
Undersecretary of Defense for Science and Technology was designated that
official.

In the conference report that accompanied the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005,3 the conferees expressed
concern that the JTO may not be accelerating progress in HEL technology
and providing incentives to the services to invest in such technologies.
Accordingly, they required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to
Congress on the implementation of the fiscal year 2001 legislation and
directed that the report specifically address (1) the effectiveness of

1Pub. L. No. 106-65, sec. 251, Oct. 5, 1999.
2Pub. L. No. 106-398 (Appendix -H.R. 5408), sec. 242 and 243, Oct. 30,
2000.
3H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-767 at p. 520, Oct. 8, 2004.

JTO in meeting its statutory goals, (2) whether JTO's structure has been
effective in transitioning technologies to the warfighter, and (3) the
impact of DOD's decision to shift funding responsibility for JTO efforts
from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the Air Force.

The conferees required the Secretary of Defense to provide this report by
January 15, 2005, and asked GAO to review the report and provide an
assessment to the congressional committees by March 15, 2005. We received
DOD's report in May 2005 and are providing our assessment of the report's
responsiveness to the conferees' three requirements with this
correspondence.

To address the report objectives, we reviewed DOD's 2005 report on the
effectiveness of the HEL JTO and drew upon our May 2005 correspondence
that addressed the

4

extent to which DOD implemented the recommendations of the HEL Master
Plan. To determine whether JTO has been effective in achieving its
statutory goals, we reviewed the fiscal year 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act and the HEL Master Plan. To identify the impact of
shifting JTO funding from OSD to the Air Force, we reviewed funding trends
and reductions levied on JTO budgets. In particular, we discussed the
impact of such reductions on JTO as well as the reductions in the context
of overall OSD and Air Force budgets. To determine whether JTO was
effective in transitioning laser technology to the services, we discussed
JTO's role in moving HEL technologies to the warfighter with officials
from OSD. We also reviewed DOD's draft Directed Energy Technology Roadmap
to gain insight into DOD's future strategy for HEL-related work as a
whole. We conducted our work from May 2005 to July 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

The Department of Defense's report on the effectiveness of the HEL JTO is
generally responsive to congressional direction but lacks detail on how
and when it plans to eventually transition laser technologies to the
warfighter. Specifically:

o  	The DOD report describes the actions DOD has taken to meet the
statutory goals and cites an increase in funding as evidence of its
commitment to advance HEL technologies. We agree that, in large part, JTO
has been effective in achieving the statutory goals outlined in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. In addition, on
the basis of our previous work, we believe that DOD's implementation of
the recommendations of the HEL Master Plan has increased the focus on
critical HEL issues.

o  	While the DOD report discusses efforts to transition JTO-sponsored
technologies to the services and agencies, it does not address the broader
issue of how HEL technology will eventually transition to the warfighter.

4Department of Defense Initiatives on High Energy Lasers Have Been
Responsive to Congressional Direction, GAO-05-545R (Washington, D.C.: May
18, 2005).

The Department's Directed Energy Roadmap, currently in draft, may provide
the detailed technology plan to develop and mature HEL technologies, as
Congress directed in the 2001 legislation, but it has not yet been
implemented as official department policy or guidance.

o  	DOD reports that devolving funding responsibility for JTO from OSD to
the Air Force has had no negative impact on the program. Judging from the
information provided by OSD, the financial impact appears minimal thus
far. The office is continuing to use the same processes for its day-to-day
operation, with OSD retaining responsibility for management oversight of
the office.

JTO's Effectiveness in Meeting Its Objectives

The Secretary of Defense's report assessing JTO's effectiveness cites an
increase in HEL science and technology funding since 2002 as evidence of
DOD's commitment to advancing HEL technologies. The report explains (1)
how JTO manages its programs and executes its responsibilities, (2) how
JTO funds for developing HEL technologies are allocated across six HEL
technology thrust areas based on recommendations from HEL experts from the
services and agencies, and (3) how JTO solicits and awards individual
technology projects. The report also identifies the members of the
Technology Council who provide direction to JTO and approval of JTO's
plans and investments.

We found that DOD has, in large part, met the statutory goals. In
responding to the statutory goals, DOD has:

o  	Set up JTO and the HEL Technology Council and established the
management and organizational structure required by the 2001 legislation.

o  	Implemented the recommendations of the HEL Master Plan and increased
the focus on critical HEL issues.

o  	Increased overall investment in HEL efforts and the percentage of the
overall investment represented by the S&T base.

o  	Provided opportunities via the Technology Council and JTO's Technical
Area Working Groups for more collaboration among the HEL community as well
as opportunities for key HEL experts to discuss goals and objectives and
share project information.

o  	Included criteria in the JTO process to determine funding for projects
that address the most critical technical issues: these criteria are
clearly defined, objective and based on input from a wide range of experts
in the HEL field. While JTO has a process for establishing its funding
priorities-as we previously reported-the services and agencies fund their
own HEL S&T projects based on their specific needs.

Plans for Transitioning Technology to Services

The conferees directed DOD to report on the effectiveness of the JTO
structure in transitioning laser technologies to the warfighter. The DOD
report points out that JTO does not transition technologies directly to
the warfighter, but rather transitions technologies to the services, which
insert these applications into new or existing research and development or
acquisition programs. The report then briefly discusses how certain
JTO-developed technologies could be inserted into such programs and states
that by providing funding and partnerships to government, industry, and
academia, JTO supports state-of-the-art advancements in laser development.
The report provides five examples of service or agency programs and
projects that have benefited from JTO's efforts:

o  the Special Operations Command Advanced Tactical Laser program,

o  the Navy Free Electron program,

o  the Joint Army and Air Force High Powered Solid State Laser program,

o  the Directed Energy Lethality program, and

o  the Directed Energy Modeling and Simulation program.

While the DOD report discusses some specific efforts to transition
JTO-sponsored technologies to the services and agencies, it does not
address the broader issue of how HEL technologies will eventually
transition to the warfighter or provide a strategy for maturing the
technologies. Progress has been made in setting up the management
structure and processes to facilitate HEL technology development, but it
is not clear what, if any, progress has been made in furthering the
transition of these technologies to the warfighters. Further, DOD does not
have a detailed, department wide strategy for maturing the technologies- a
strategy that could ensure the efforts of the services, agencies and JTO
are coordinated and focused on goals achievable within a reasonable
time-frame. In that regard, DOD has not yet satisfied the statutory goal
of the 2001 legislation regarding the preparation of a detailed technology
plan to develop and mature HEL technologies.

DOD officials are currently drafting a Directed Energy Roadmap that may
provide the detailed strategy to develop and mature HEL technologies, as
Congress directed in the 2001 legislation. It identifies the promising HEL
technologies for which funding should be a high priority and the planning
appropriate to evolve the HEL technology. However, the roadmap is a draft
and has not been issued as policy or guidance.

Impact of Shifting JTO Funding Authority to the Air Force

In 2002, in an effort to streamline and downsize the number of
organizations managed by OSD, the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics proposed the transfer of JTO's
funding authority from OSD to the Air Force. Under a memorandum of
agreement finalized in early October 2004, responsibility for JTO's
funding devolved to the Air Force. The Air Force executed funding
responsibility for JTO in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. The previously
established management structure, along with the influence of the HEL
Technology Council, continues unchanged. According to the memorandum, the
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Science and Technology retained
responsibility for oversight of JTO, with the HEL Technology Council
providing input on JTO program strategy and direction.

However, the Air Force became administratively responsible for the
planning, programming, budgetary, and execution process activities for the
JTO. As stated in the agreement, the Air Force would not move funding from
any JTO program element to another Air Force science and technology
program element. The agreement further noted that the Air Force would
attempt to exempt JTO funds from being used for other corporate Air Force
expenses, and, if this exemption was unsuccessful, would take no more than
a "fair share" assessment.

DOD's report on JTO stated that there had been no negative financial
impact on the JTO program as a result of shifting funding responsibility.
The report noted that the Air Force did reduce JTO's funding by what the
report termed a "fair share" of certain reductions directed by Congress or
OSD. In fiscal year 2004, these reductions amounted to approximately $2.3
million out of a total JTO budget of about $64.8 million and, in fiscal
year 2005, approximately $2.7 million out of a total JTO budget of about
$72.9 million. According to an OSD official, OSD also applied similar
mandated reductions to JTO funding in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
The official indicated that JTO anticipated these mandated reductions and
thus suffered no significant impact as a result of the adjusted funding.

We have not seen any evidence to indicate that the shifting of JTO funding
authority to the Air Force has had a negative financial impact on the JTO
programs, particularly since the previously established management
structure remained the same.

Agency Comments

The Department of Defense reviewed a draft of this report, but had no
comments on the draft.

We also are sending copies of this correspondence to the Secretary of
Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Director,
Missile Defense Agency; and the Director, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the correspondence will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this correspondence,
please contact me at (202) 512-4841. Contact points for our offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report.

Paul L. Francis, Director
Acquisition and Sourcing Management

Enclosure

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable John Warner
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
Chairman
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

(120449)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

                                 GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

                           To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***