The Congress and R&D

The Congress of the United States is often thought of only as the lawmaking branch of the federal government. The popular mental image of the Congress is one of 435 representatives and 100 senators, assembled in their respective chambers, voting yea or nay on new laws for the nation. While this image is accurate for the final Congressional action on legislation, it ignores the bulk of the Congressional workload that lays the groundwork for the climactic voting. This work often involves detailed study and analysis by individual congressmen and their staffs on committee-related business; more frequently, it involves subcommittee and committee studies, hearings and investigations that culminate in legislation, resolutions, and major contributions to national policy. Through these activities the Congress maintains itself as an informed body that can speak with a loud and authoritative voice. Insofar as the Air Force is concerned, the voice of the Congress is heard most clearly through the authorization and appropriation of funds.

Most people recall that federal funds must be both authorized and appropriated by both houses of Congress, but not everyone recognizes this process as four separate committee actions. The Congress is, in effect, a bicameral tandem body on money questions. AF witnesses appeared before four different committees to justify the fiscal year 1967 money for Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). In February 1966, Chairman Melvin Price and his Subcommittee No.3 of the House Armed Services Committee held authorization hearings on the program for 1967 and reported their recommendations to Chairman L. Mendel Rivers of the House Armed Services Committee. One month later Chairman Richard Russell’s Senate Armed Services Committee and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee held their hearings. Since Senator Russell is chairman of both these committees, he is able to hold simultaneous authorization and appropriation hearings when both committees are involved. Then in April Chairman George Mahon’s Defense Appropriations Subcommittee held hearings on the Air Force request for appropriations. Using the information obtained at the authorization hearings, the House and Senate passed separate authorization bills and then conferred to iron out differences. The result, after approval by the President, is an authorization act that places a ceiling on subsequent appropriations. In similar fashion the House and Senate appropriations committees act separately, within the constraints of the authorization, then confer and compromise, and finally appropriate, subject to the approval of the President. On questions as vital as national security, the Congress has an enviable record of being most thorough.

The interests of the Congress are, of course, also directed at areas other than the national defense, though their legislative approach remains essentially the same. The diverse interests of the Congress routinely cover those areas for which standing committees have been established, plus additional areas of public concern. Although not really a new interest, the Congress has recently focused a large amount of its attention in the area of research and development, generally referred to as “R&D.” This added interest has been stimulated by a growing awareness of the vital role played by science and technology, and in no small measure by the large amount of federal and private resources allocated to pursuits that are currently classified as R&D.

Today the federal budget stands at about $16 billion for research and development. Although this dollar value is much more precise than the definition of what constitutes R&D, the figure is certainly large enough to attract considerable attention from both the public and the government. From an Air Force point of view, so-called R&D budgets have appeared to increase over the past decade; and while the dollar level has climbed, corresponding increases in the number of programs or the level of effort have been difficult to identify. In many instances, as shown in Figure 1, the apparent rapid growth is attributable to changes in what is encompassed by the definition of R&D. As an example, the Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation budget, often referred to as Air Force R&D, constitutes $3.058 billion of the President’s FY 1967 budget—a substantial sum indeed. Yet of that amount, $675 million is for management and support activities that include, for example, housekeeping functions at Air Force Systems Command bases. As shown in Figure 2, this amounts to some 20 percent of our budget. While the functions carried out in this area are essential for the conduct of our overall activities, their inclusion in R&D is more or less arbitrary.

Figure 1. Apparent growth of Air Force RDT&E budget

Figure 2. Allocation of R&D dollars

In reality, then, the $16 billion federal R&D figure attracts a great deal of attention and is often quoted, but much of the subsequent public and Congressional interest seems really to be directed at that narrower field of research—laboratories and scientists—which is funded at a much lower level. As recorded by the National Science Foundation, the federal budget contains about $2 billion for basic research; and within the Air Force we identify less than $100 million for the conduct of basic research. A similar situation exists within industry, where, according to a recently published survey, over $15 billion is allocated to R&D* but with only $1.1 billion of it going for basic research to seek new scientific discoveries. One of the consequences of imprecise and varying definitions is that the interest attracted to R&D, however it is defined, is that associated with a $25 to $30 billion price tag, while much of the subsequent activity by Congressional committees is that associated with the much smaller aggregate of $2 to $3 billion in research.

This apparent concentration of close to $30 billion in public and private R&D funds has not escaped the watchful eyes of our congressmen, charged as they are with lawmaking, overseeing administration, appropriating funds, and serving their constituents. In recent years the Congress has assigned broad R&D responsibilities to established standing committees, such as the Armed Services Committees; to newly created standing committees, such as the House Science and Astronautics Committee; and to at least one select committee on government research. In addition, many of the executive agencies that engage in R&D justify their programs before separate authorizing committees and appropriating subcommittees. A recent count of R&D budget authorizing committees totaled no less than eight in the House of Representatives alone. Indeed, the Congress has not neglected its stewardship of federal funds in the broad area of research and development.

The current level of Congressional interest in R&D appears to be at a high point, but it is by no means a new or unique interest. Some might argue that the 1803 Congressional grant of $2500 for the Lewis and Clark expedition represented the first Congressional interest in research, whereas others might point to the 1830 Congress-sponsored study of boiler explosions as the first research grant. Certainly most would agree that the 1843 grant of $30,000 to Samuel F. B. Morse for telegraphy studies marks an early interest in R&D by the Congress.

Over the years the Congress has continued to express its interest in the important areas of science and technology. The 1849 Senate select committee that investigated and recommended in favor of a $20,000 grant to work on electromagnetic motive force was perhaps the first select committee on research; it may also have been the first to call the attention of the Congress to the risk of failure in the conduct of research. A decade and a half later—in 1863 and two years into the Civil War—the Congress established the National Academy of Sciences in full recognition that national security and science are closely related. In 1887 the Hatch Act provided for agricultural experiment stations. Other research mileposts are marked by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1915; the National Research Council in 1916; and the National Cancer Institute Act in 1937, which authorized research grants. Subsequent legislation approved research grants for all National Institutes of Health in 1944, for the National Science Foundation in 1950, for the Atomic Energy Commission in 1956, and finally, by Public Law 85-934 in 1958, for all federal agencies conducting R&D. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was also established in 1958, confirming space as a major field of federal research. Thus it is evident that the interest of the Congress in research and science is not new; rather, it has evolved with the times.

When the Russians put their Sputnik into orbit in 1957, the Congress reflected the concern of an aroused public. Recognizing the impact of technology on the conduct of national affairs and the international consequences of Soviet space firsts, the Congress moved rapidly to create Senate and House standing committees. Paralleling an equally fast-moving executive branch, the newly formed House Science and Astronautics Committee and the Senate Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee teamed with the new National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to breathe new life into the land-locked national space program. For the longer run, the Congress, which had joined with the executive branch in the creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950, placed renewed emphasis on strengthening basic research and education in the sciences. To move even closer to the executive branch, the Congress suggested in 1961 that a focal point be established within the executive branch to provide a clear communication channel between the executive and legislative branches on science and technology—a suggestion that led to creation of the Office of Science and Technology the following year.

In the past three years alone, the Congressional interest in R&D has manifested itself in unparalleled scope and depth. Some of the highlights include the 1963 Congressional requirement for specific authorization of Defense RDT&E funds prior to appropriation (Public Law 87-436). In that same year the House of Representatives also created its Select Committee on Government Research, chaired by Representative Carl Elliott. The Elliott Committee reports provide a most comprehensive analysis of the federal research situation. Then in 1964 the Congress established a Science Policy Research Division in the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. Also in 1964 Chairman Emilio Daddario’s subcommittee of the House Science and Astronautics Committee began its penetrating study of the geographic distribution of federal research funds. In the following year Chairman Henry Reuss’s Subcommittee on Research and Technical Programs, of the House Government Operations Committee, examined the breadth of federal science and technology, while a corresponding subcommittee was created in the Senate Government Operations Committee, under Chairman Fred Harris. The R&D interests of the Congress are not only perceptive and widespread but also focused in several different committees.

By virtue of the committee system and the variety of applications for the R&D process, the Congress has found that much of R&D is strongly mission-oriented and not an easy subject to handle. Summing up this point of view, Congressman Daddario said, “The fragmentation of Federal Science among committees of Congress poses a problem of congressional management of its own affairs so that it can give better attention to the whole of federal scientific activities.” Put another way, Congressman Joseph Karth stated, “I won’t pretend that the present congressional machinery is entirely adequate for our work in these new areas of technological concern; we are, I think, fragmenting our overall responsibility too severely. However, we are seriously examining improvements.” The Congress is now trying to evolve the ways and means to focus its pluralistic structure on what some would find convenient to view as a monolithic federal R&D program. Looking at the entire operation of the government, the Joint Reorganization Committee—co-chaired by Senator A. S. Mike Monroney and Representative Ray J. Madden—is addressing the major problem areas of matching the government to the demands of today’s society. Other committees are focusing their attention specifically on technology and its interaction with society.

As viewed by the committees, there are fundamental questions that should be answered, and each of the committees is contributing in its own way to those answers. Paramount among the questions is that of a national science policy. Although national policies are frequently the aggregate effect of public statements, federal budgets, and concentrated resources, the all-pervasive nature of R&D obscures a definitive, concrete policy. Under such circumstances, the absence of clearly identifiable broad strategy for science and technology is less surprising than frustrating. The very nature of the mission-oriented executive agencies and the parallel Congressional committee structure highlights the alignment of policies with mission areas rather than with functional areas. As a consequence, committee views often conflict. For instance, one authorizing committee may view research grants as the preferred method for government support of research while another committee may be opposed to their general use. The result is that a national policy in the functional area of research tends to be fragmented and lacks clear definition whereas policy for research in the mission areas, such as the defense research sciences, is centralized and relatively well defined.

Another question deals with the determination of research priorities—that is, Are resources being allocated to those research areas that offer the greatest potential benefits to our society? Although this is a different question, its answer is clouded by the same considerations that tend to restrict overall research policy determinations. Certainly the Department of Defense and the Congressional Armed Services committees would evaluate priorities in a substantially different order than the Health, Education, and Welfare groups. As an example, the priority accorded water pollution research is much higher in HEW than it is in Defense. While the military departments certainly appreciate the importance of all research, they are obligated to concentrate on those sciences that offer breakthroughs and innovations that will benefit national defense. Most certainly the other executive agencies take a similar view of research in their mission areas. Small wonder, then, that the Congress is concerned over the possibility of research gaps and duplications or that it has taken on itself the role of exploring and correcting what may appear to be deficiencies in an elusive overall federal research program.

Congressional involvement in R&D is one of continuing interest rather than any new concern. What is new is the breadth of Congressional interest in R&D, primarily in science and research. In this area, the Congress has begun to come to grips with the deceptive nature of’ “R&D” monies and the conflicts between the mission-oriented view of agencies such as the Department of Defense and the function oriented view of the science and technology groups. In this latter sense, the Congress is as aware as the executive branch that R&D is not a mission area itself but rather is one of the more important means of achieving mission objectives. So the problem of a fragmented federal R&D program, consistent with correspondingly aligned executive agencies and legislative committees, is perhaps more apparent than real. The development programs, with their heavy demands for R&D dollars, are inseparable from the mission areas that they must support; and these development programs are, in turn, dependent on a sound mission-oriented research base. Still, there are questions of research gaps and possible unwarranted duplication that must be explored in the national interest, and it is the role of the Congress to do this.

Lieutenant Colonel Arthur D. Barondes (USMA; M.B.A., George Washington University; M.S., University of Michigan) is Chief, Special Activities Division, DCS/Research and Development, Hq USAF. After graduation from the Military Academy in 1948, he was assigned to Hamilton AFB, California. Upon completing the guided missiles course at the University of Michigan in 1951, he was assigned to the Matador flight test program at Patrick AFB, Florida, for one year, then to the Hughes Aircraft Company for a year’s training on the Falcon air-to-air missile. Other assignments have been as Chief of Air-to-Air Missile Flight Test, Holloman AFB, New Mexico,1953-55; as student, navigator and radar observer schools; in the Directorate of Targets, Intelligence, Hq USAF, 1957-61; as student, Air Command and Staff College; and with the Concepts Division, Aerospace Studies Institute, Air University, from 1962 until his present assignment in 1964.

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.