Prepared Statement Of
WALTER E. MORROW, JR.
26 June 2001
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to address the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Research and Development. My name is Walter E. Morrow, Jr. I am currently Director Emeritus of MIT Lincoln Laboratory which I directed for more than twenty years. My experience with defense research extends back for more than 50 years.
Today I would like to give you a brief summary of my views on the Defense Science and Technology Program derived from my personal observations as well as from participation on recent related Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Forces. To do this, I will address three topics: funding of the DoD Science and Technology Program; focus of the DoD Science and Technology Program; and professional personnel for the Military Service Laboratories, Service Research Offices and Defense Technology Agencies.
I. FUNDING OF THE DOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
The DoD Science and Technology (S&T) Program lays the foundation for future U.S. military capabilities. Past DoD science and technology investments have resulted in the development of critical capabilities such as radar, stealth and precision weapons. Today, the Nation and its allies face new potential threats such as weapons of mass destruction delivered from rogue nations by ballistic missiles or other means.
In the early 1990s, S&T funding reached a peak of nearly $10 billion in today's dollars. By 1998, the proposed funding had decreased to about $7.4 billion. A study in 1998 by the DSB found that typical high technology companies devoted about 3.3% of revenue to research with a much larger percentage to development of new products. The study suggested that if U.S. military forces were to maintain their technical advantage, a minimum of 3% of the DoD budget should be devoted to research and technology development.
I am pleased to see that in recent years, the Congress as seen fit to increase the Appropriations for defense research by the order of a billion dollars. However, it is my belief that current and especially potential future threats to U.S. national security will require funding for DoD science and technology of at least 3% of the DoD budget or the order of $9.0 billion or perhaps even more.
II. FOCUS OF THE DOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Some people mistakenly assume that tremendous technology advances in the civil sector can more than make up for the decreased level of DoD S&T Program funding. However, a number of critical military technologies are not being addressed by developments in civil-sector technology. In addition, because of a focus on current profits, most civil-sector technological developments have a relatively short-term focus on evolutionary improvements and do not address potential quantum jumps in technology. Because of decreases over the past decade in military research, there has also been a tendency for focus on short-term evolutionary improvements in current military systems.
As a result, one of the DSB studies recommended that the order of one third of the S&T budget be focused on revolutionary military technology with the remainder continuing to focus on evolutionary improvements in current systems. Examples of potential revolutionary technologies include:
- Development of electrically powered high power laser defensive systems for aircraft, ships and land combat vehicles.
- Sensor systems capable of detecting and identifying military targets concealed under foliage, in buildings and in under-ground facilities.
- High energy density fuels combined with high efficiency propulsion systems leading to much longer range and higher speed combat and logistic vehicles.
III. PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL FOR THE MILITARY SERVICE LABORATORIES AND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AGENCIES
The military service laboratories play an important role in the execution of the DoD Science and Technology Program. While only about 20% of this program is carried out by these laboratories, much of the remaining 80%, which goes to industry and universities, is administrated by the professional staff of the service laboratories, science offices and defense agencies.
During World War II and the early days of the Cold War these laboratories made important contributions to military technology such as the initial development of radar, night vision systems and stealth. Of course, during World War II and the early Cold War periods, the urgency of the national security situation attracted many talented professionals into military research. However, in recent years there has been increasing concern about the ability of these laboratories to recruit and retain high quality professional staffs and as a consequence jeopardizing the Service Laboratories ability to lay the technology foundations for future U.S. military capabilities.
In addition, very substantial staff reductions have occurred that are mostly focused on younger staff because of Civil Service Personnel seniority regulations. These younger staff are of great importance because of their recent training in newer fields such as information sciences and semiconductor devices which play an important part in advanced military systems.
The Civil Service Personnel system salary structure and regulations make it extremely difficult to recruit and retain high quality professional staff. The principal problems with this system are:
- The salaries offered under the Civil Service Personnel system are significantly lower than salaries in the private sector. For recent graduates with advanced degrees, offers by the government are $10,000 to $20,000 per year lower than for private sector offers. For experienced professionals, the difference is much greater-as much as $200,000 per year for directors of large laboratories.
- Delays between interviews and offers of a position in a military-service laboratory can extend to many months while private sector offers are made in a few weeks or less time.
- Promotional opportunities, and the higher salaries that go with them, are extremely limited because of fixed ceilings on the number of higher level grades and positions.
- It is also extremely difficult to dismiss unproductive staff under Civil Service Personnel procedures. The continued presence of such staff at service laboratories is a serious impediment to productivity as well as making it very difficult to attract high quality staff.
To address these serious problems in the Civil Service Personnel system, Congress has authorized experiments in personnel policy over the past two decades. These experiments have generally taken the form of broader bands for salary levels, salary increases related to realistic performance appraisals, and more rapid offers made at the laboratory level. These changes have been helpful at the margin, but they have never been universally applied; and in the end, they have done little to solve the basic problems with the Civil Service Personnel system. Meaningful reform of the Civil Service Personnel system will require the adoption of private sector salary levels, private sector staff appraisal and promotion processes, and dismissal processes for unproductive staff comparable to those used by industry and university laboratories. These changes seem very unlikely given the failure at past attempts to significantly change the Civil Service Personnel system.
Given the difficulties cited above with the Civil Service Personnel system, various suggestions have been made in the past by DSB Task Forces for alternative means of staffing the military laboratories with high quality staff. Two principal options have been advanced:
- Operating military service laboratories as Government Owned-Contractor Operated (GOCO) organizations using either industry or universities as contractors. The Department of Energy has successfully used this mechanism to operate its laboratories for many decades. This option as been repeatedly recommended to the military service laboratories but has been rejected because of concerns for the employment security and pensions of the current civil service employees.
- Alternatively, another possibility is to have the majority of the professional staff provided by industry or universities under their private sector personnel practices, while the leadership and operation of these laboratories remained under government control. This option has the added attraction of permitting rotation of the staff back to their parent organizations after a few years thus providing a continual supply of fresh talent. Transition to this form of staffing could include a provision that allows the current civil service personnel to stay on until they retire.
To sum up, advances in U.S. military technology are essential if the U.S. is to remain a guarantor of world security. The DoD Science and Technology Program is vital to ensuring that those advances occur. In order to bring this about it will be necessary to:
- Fund the DoD S&T program at no less than 3% of total Defense budget
- Focus at least one third of the S&T Program on revolutionary military technology.
- Staff the military service laboratories, defense science offices and technology agencies with professionals supplied by private sector industries and universities.
Reference Material
Report of the 1987 Defense Science Board Summer Study on Technology Base Management. December 1987. Washington D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Science and Technology Base for the 21st Century. June 1998. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Human Resources Strategy. February 2000. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Report of the Defense Science Board 1999 Summer Study Task Force on 21st Century Defense Technology Strategies. Vol. 2, Supporting Reports. March 2000. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Technology Capabilities of Non-DOD Providers. June 2000. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Efficient Utilization of Defense Laboratories. October 2000, Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
