Key Decision on Future DOD Basic Research Funding

“The Committee questions whether never-ending budget growth in basic research is wise, particularly in the context of the Administration’s failure to adequately address the Defense Department’s weapon system modernization needs.” - House Appropriations Committee

During the next few weeks, a handful of senators and representatives will determine whether Department of Defense basic research funding for Fiscal Year 1998 will continue its historical downward slide, or if it will reverse course. The outcome will be set behind closed doors by a conference committee for the Department of Defense appropriations bill for the new fiscal year starting on October 1.

As described in FYI #97 , in late July House appropriators set basic research funding (6.1) at $1.028 billion. The Senate earlier voted a substantially higher figure of $1.174 billion; the administration requested $1.164 billion. The House number proposed for next year is lower than the comparable budget this year ($1.080 billion) and last year ($1.099 billion.)

This is not the first time House appropriators have made cuts in DOD’s basic research budget request. In 1994, they cut the $1.8 billion request in half because of budget constraints, displeasure over criticism about congressional earmarking and concerns about waste and abuse. The Senate bill restored $821 million of this cut. Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), then chairman of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, remarked that no single issue in the bill had generated as much mail (see 1994’s FYI #117 and 146.) The House and Senate compromised with a $200 million cut to the $1.8 billion request.

House appropriators did not single out basic research funding for reductions next year. By making cuts in selected programs, they could stay under their over-all budget ceiling, and increase spending on programs they deemed had a higher priority. Other spending cuts included dual use programs, NATO cooperative development programs, and an army radar device, among many others.

So what is the outlook for DOD’s basic research budget for next year? On the positive side, three of the four key defense committees support an increase in basic research funding. Both the House and Senate authorization committees supported the administration’s request for increased funding. For instance, the House authorization bill included an 8.2% increase in basic research funding over the current year. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill increased the administration’s budget request by almost another 1%.

On the other hand, there is mounting concern about military readiness. Floyd Spence (R-SC), chairman of the House Committee on National Security (which authorized the above cited 8.2% increase in basic research) issued a report in April on readiness. Spence concluded that “Declining defense budgets, a smaller force structure, fewer personnel and aging equipment, all in the context of an increase in the pace of operations, are stretching U.S. military forces to the breaking point.”

While stating support for a “robust basic university research program,” the Appropriations Committee criticizes the misallocation of resources in the administration’s DOD budget request for “underbudgeting of many critical programs and activities.” The report continues, “The Committee believes these actions are clearly unconscionable given the direct threat to the lives of service personnel should such programs not be adequately funded or ultimately fielded.... This budget proposes that the Congress ignore these high priority programs, and, instead, approve sizable budget increases for efforts less relevant to immediate military requirements, such as consultants, basic research, and generic technology demonstrations.” Later, the report states, “The Committee wishes to serve notice...that such misallocation of resources and budget gamesmanship will simply be self defeating in the future.”

The gap between the House and Senate bills for basic research funding is $146 million. House conferees, who were just named yesterday, and Senate conferees will decide how to close this gap. The Senate conferees are:

Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) (Chairman of Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee)
Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi)
Alren Specter (R-Pennsylvania)
Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico)
Christopher (Kit) Bond (R-Missouri)
Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)
Richard Shelby (R-Alabama)
Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) (Ranking Minority Member)
Ernest Hollings (D-South Carolina)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Dale Bumpers (D-Arkansas)
Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey)
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota)

Individuals wishing to contact these senators should use the following address: The Honorable _____, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. Cite bill number S. 1005.

The House conferees are:

C.W. Bill Young (R-Florida’s 10th District) (Chairman of House National Security Appropriations Subcommittee)
Joseph McDade (R-Pennsylvania’s 10th District)
Jerry Lewis (R-California’s 40th District)
Joe Skeen (R-New Mexico’s 2nd District)
David Hobson (R-Ohio’s 7th District)
Henry Bonilla (R-Texas’s 23rd District)
George Nethercutt (R-Washington’s 5th District)
Ernest Jim Istook (R-Oklahoma’s 5th District)
Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-California’s 51st District)
Robert Livingston (R-Louisiana’s 1st District)
John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania’s 12th District) (Ranking Minority Member)
Norm Dicks (D-Washington’s 6th District)
W.G. “Bill” Hefner (D-North Carolina’s 8th District)
Martin Olav Sabo (D-Minnesota’s 5th District)
Julian Dixon (D-California’s 32nd District)
Peter Visclosky (D-Indiana’s 1st District)
David Obey (D-Wisconsin’s 7th District)

Individuals wishing to contact these representatives should use the following address: The Honorable _____, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515. Cite bill number H.R. 2266.

See FYI #69 for guidance on writing to a Member of Congress. Your letter must be timely; send it within the next few days.