House Committee Hearings on NIST and Defense R&D Requests

Last week, three House authorizing committees held hearings on the President’s FY 1999 budget request. The outlook for the National Institute of Standards and Technology is good, while that for the Department of Defense’s R&D programs is more guarded.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST):

On February 26, the House Subcommittee on Technology of the House Science Committee had a relatively brief and noncontroversial hearing to review the administration’s FY 1999 request for the Commerce Department’s Technology Administration and NIST. Testifying were Acting Under Secretary for Technology Gary Bachula, NIST Director Raymond Kammer, Commerce Acting Inspector General Johnnie Frazier, and GAO Associate Director Susan Kladiva.

Chairwoman Constance A. Morella (R-MD) is a strong NIST supporter, with its main campus in her district. She started by saying “We can only hope 1998 is as good a year for NIST as 1997.” Morella said Congress and the Administration have narrowed their differences in policy and funding.

Morella’s major concern was the seeming reliance on tobacco settlement money for funding NIST and the other components of the administration’s Research Fund for America. Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) expressed similar concerns about the tobacco money, saying there was “not a great deal of confidence” in Congress about the settlement. Kammer replied that while the long-term financing situation is somewhat unclear, FY 1999 funding is not dependent on this money. That is not true for the following years. Kammer added that the administration would support NIST’s budget projections despite the settlement outcome, for which Ehlers expressed appreciation.

Frazier, Kladiva, and some committee members raised points about unspent program money, the desirability of advancing money for some campus construction, the degree to which ATP applicants first seek private funding, and program duplication. While important, none of these issues seem to be “show stoppers.” At the hearing’s conclusion, Morella told the Commerce and NIST witnesses, “You’re not in bad shape.”

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE:

Last week, the House Military Procurement Subcommittee and Military Research and Development Subcommittee, both under the National Security Committee, held a joint hearing to receive testimony from Jacques S. Gansler, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.

The pairing of these subcommittees for this joint hearing was useful. Last year, Congress cut the administration’s request for some portions of its R&D budget because of concerns about lagging procurement. The House Appropriations Committee made this clear when it said in a 1997 report that it “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 weapons system modernization needs.” After adjusting for inflation, procurement spending has fallen 70 percent since 1985. This downward trend was reversed with the submission of the FY 1999 weapons procurement request, which is up almost 9 percent over the current year.

Opening the hearing, Chairman Curt Weldon (R-PA) praised the end of the “procurement holiday” in DOD Secretary William Cohen’s first budget. However, he said it was very disturbing that DOD R&D was projected to decline 14 percent over the next five years. Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) was critical of the procurement numbers, and the past use of procurement money to pay for operations.

Weldon has “major problems” with the modernization request. He said deployment costs have risen dramatically, as have environmental remediation expenses. He faulted budget projections for the Ballistic Missile Defense system. He offered more about the procurement budget: “I don’t see how we get from here to there.... I don’t see the rosy scenario coming together... I think we’re facing a train wreck.... I say it’s time [for the administration] to make some tough choices.” Weldon specifically mentioned R&D spending as being among those tough choices.