I
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2659
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance science and technology
planning and budgeting by the Air Force, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 26, 2001
Mr. HALL of Ohio (for himself, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. HOB-
SON, and Mr. BOYD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on Armed Services
A BILL
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance science
and technology planning and budgeting by the Air Force,
and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Air Force Science and
Technology for the 21st Century Act of 2001’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The development of science and technology
has been a core mission of the Air Force since its
inception as an independent service.
(2) From fiscal year 1989 to fiscal year 2001,
spending on Air Force science and technology pro-
grams dropped significantly, from $2,720,000,000 to
$1,460,000,000 when measured in constant fiscal
year 2001 dollars and from 2.2 percent to 1.7 per-
cent when measured as a percentage of the total
obligational authority of the Air Force.
(3) In recent years, the focus of Air Force
science and technology has shifted to include a
smaller 
percentage 
of 
long-term, 
revolutionary
projects with the promise of significant payoff and
a higher percentage of short-term projects with the
possibility only of incremental technology advances.
(4) The steep decline over the last decade in
spending on Air Force science and technology pro-
grams and the absence of long-term science and
technology planning are the result of factors includ-
ing:
(A) The Air Force organization has not in-
cluded, at a sufficiently high level, a single offi-
cial with clear responsibility for advocating the
development of science and technology.
(B) The science and technology program
has had inadequate visibility at the highest lev-
els of Air Force decisionmaking.
(C) The Air Force does not have a plan-
ning process that clearly links long-term
warfighting requirements with planning for
science and technology development within the
budget planning process.
(D) The methodologies used to determine
the overall budgetary requirements for Air
Force science and technology programs and to
prioritize among those programs are ineffective.
(5) The decline in Air Force science and tech-
nology development will likely diminish national se-
curity in the future, because important technologies
may be unavailable to be incorporated into weapon
systems.
(6) In recent years, Congress has made efforts
to reverse the decline in Air Force science and tech-
nology 
development 
by 
appropriating 
greater
amounts for such development than requested in the
budget submitted by the President.
(7) The Air Force is in the process of making
fundamental changes in how it makes budgetary and
nonbudgetary policy decisions with respect to its
science and technology development programs and
how it carries out those programs.
(8) The Air Force has made a significant effort
over the past two years to increase the emphasis on
science and technology development by senior-level
decisionmakers through the use of science and tech-
nology summits, applied technology councils, and a
new advocacy process for science and technology.
(9) The Secretary of the Air Force has des-
ignated the commander of the Air Force Materiel
Command with the grade of general as the budget
advocate for science and technology programs.
(10) The Secretary of the Air Force has imple-
mented a new planning process for science and tech-
nology development that is linked to the Air Force
Strategic Plan.
(11) The Air Force is, in a good faith effort,
conducting a comprehensive review of the long-term
challenges and short-term objectives of the Air Force
science and technology programs, as specified in sec-
tion 252 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted
by Public Law 106–398; 114 Stat. 1654A–46).
(12) Despite the recent Air Force efforts, addi-
tional measures are needed to ensure that advocacy
for Air Force science and technology development is
at its highest and that planning and technology in-
vestment prioritization is at its best.
SEC. 3. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT AND DE-
VELOPMENT PLANNING.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that the Secretary of the Air Force should carry out
each of the following:
(1) Continue and improve efforts to ensure
that—
(A) the Air Force science and technology
community 
is 
represented, 
and 
the 
rec-
ommendations of that community are consid-
ered, at all levels of program planning and
budgetary decisionmaking within the Air Force;
(B) advocacy for science and technology
development is institutionalized across all levels
of Air Force management in a manner that is
not dependent on individuals; and
(C) the value of Air Force science and
technology development is made increasingly
apparent to the warfighters, by linking the
needs of those warfighters with decisions on
science and technology development.
(2) Complete and adopt the policy directive that
provides for changes in how the Air Force makes
budgetary and nonbudgetary decisions with respect
to its science and technology development programs
and how it carries out those programs.
(3) At least once every five years, conduct a re-
view of the long-term challenges and short-term ob-
jectives of the Air Force science and technology pro-
grams that is consistent with the review specified in
section 252 of the Floyd D. Spence National De-
fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as en-
acted by Public Law 106–398; 114 Stat. 1654A–
46).
(4) Ensure that development and science and
technology planning and investment activities are
carried out for future space warfighting systems and
for future nonspace warfighting systems in an inte-
grated manner.
(b) REINSTATEMENT
OF
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN-
NING.—(1) The Secretary of the Air Force shall reinstate
and implement a revised development planning process
that provides for each of the following:
(A) Coordinating the needs of Air Force
warfighters with decisions on science and technology
development.
(B) Giving input into the establishment of pri-
orities among science and technology programs.
(C) Analyzing Air Force capability options for
the allocation of Air Force resources.
(D) 
Developing 
concepts 
for 
technology,
warfighting systems, and operations with which the
Air Force can achieve its critical future goals.
(E) Evaluating concepts for systems and oper-
ations that leverage technology across Air Force or-
ganizational boundaries.
(F) Ensuring that a ‘‘system-of-systems’’ ap-
proach is used in carrying out the various Air Force
capability planning exercises.
(G) Utilizing existing analysis capabilities with-
in the Air Force product centers in a collaborative
and integrated manner.
(2) Not later than one year after the date of the en-
actment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall
submit to Congress a report on the implementation of the
planning process required by paragraph (1).
(3) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry
out paragraph (1) $20,000,000 for each fiscal year begin-
ning with fiscal year 2002.
SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF AIR
FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRO-
GRAM CHANGES.
(a) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of the Air Force,
in cooperation with the National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences, shall carry out a study to
determine how the changes to the Air Force science and
technology program implemented during the past two
years affect the future capabilities of the Air Force.
(b) MATTERS STUDIED.—(1) The study shall inde-
pendently review and assess whether such changes as a
whole are sufficient to ensure the following:
(A) The concerns about the management of the
science and technology program that have been
raised by the Congress, the Defense Science Board,
the Air Force Science Advisory Board, and the Air
Force Association have been adequately addressed.
(B) Appropriate and sufficient technology is
available to ensure the military superiority of the
United States and counter future high-risk threats.
(C) The science and technology investments are
balanced to meet the near-, mid-, and long-term
needs of the Air Force.
(D) Technologies are made available that can
be used to respond flexibly and quickly to a wide
range of future threats.
(E) The Air Force organizational structure pro-
vides for a sufficiently senior level, effective advocate
of science and technology to ensure an on-going
presence of the science and technology community
during the budget and planning process.
(2) In addition, the study shall independently assess
the specific changes as follows:
(A) Whether the biannual science and tech-
nology summits provide sufficient visibility into, and
understanding and appreciation of, the value of the
science and technology program to the senior level of
Air Force budget and policy decisionmakers.
(B) Whether the Applied Technology Councils
are effective in contributing the input of all levels
beneath the senior leadership into the coordination,
focus, and content of the science and technology pro-
gram.
(C) Whether the designation of the Commander
of the Air Force Materiel Command as the science
and technology budget advocate is effective to assure
that an adequate budget top line is set.
(D) Whether the revised development planning
process is effective to aid in the coordination of the
needs of the Air Force warfighters with decisions on
science and technology investments and the estab-
lishment of priorities among different science and
technology programs.
(E) Whether the implementation of section 252
of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law
by Public Law 106–398; 114 Stat. 1654A–46) is ef-
fective to identify the basis for the appropriate
science and technology program top line and invest-
ment portfolio.
(c) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the date
on which the study required by subsection (a) is com-
pleted, the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to Con-
gress the results of the study.
(d) AUTHORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There
are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$950,000.
SEC. 5. GRADE OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY.
It is the sense of Congress that the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force, Science, Technology, and En-
gineering, shall be paid at the highest rate of basic pay
payable for a member of the Senior Executive Service.
Æ