Today, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Chairwoman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, made the following remarks, as prepared for delivery, on the Subcommittee's hearing titled "A Review and Assessment of the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request for the Department of Defense Science and Technology Programs." For testimony and to watch the hearing click here.
"Welcome everyone to this important hearing entitled: 'A Review and Assessment of the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request for the Department of Defense Science and Technology Programs.'
Defense Secretary James Mattis recently testified that, 'our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare – air, land, sea, space and cyber.' I couldn't agree more. Our committee, and the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee in particular, has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing and understanding adversarial threats most notably from China and Russia, while also keeping an eye on emerging technologies such as quantum science, Artificial Intelligence, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, autonomy, and robotics.
We have seen troubling adversarial advances in warfighting systems like hypersonics and directed energy; and adversarial advances in enabling technologies to include high-performance computing and artificial intelligence.
We have also learned that many of our adversaries continue to increase their research and development budgets, and implement National-level, strategic plans. Russia has increased their basic research budget by nearly 25%, and the Chinese have National-level plans for Science and Technology, as well as an approach to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence by 2030. All of these signs point to top-down, government-driven agendas that provide resources and road-maps for strategic collaboration between industry, academia, and civil society. These efforts could propel Russia and China to continue to leap ahead in many of the technology sectors we will talk about today.
But adversarial dominance is not a forgone conclusion. What we learn today and in future hearings must be translated into action – to inform and reform the Department of Defense in support of national level efforts, in order that the United States remains home to the world's leading experts, researchers, and technological breakthroughs.
Artificial Intelligence is one sweeping area that I am particularly interested in from a national security perspective. Next week, I plan to introduce stand-alone legislation that will start the discussion on how we should better organize our government to understand and leverage AI. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee – and also with the Department of Defense – as we craft solutions for this year's NDAA.
Given these challenges, I am very pleased to see a total of $13.7 billion dollars for Science and Technology in the Department of Defense's budget request, an approximate $500 million increase, and 2.3% of the total Defense Budget.
But despite this increase, I remain concerned that our S&T investments represent a small percentage of our overall defense budget. To truly increase lethality and provide a superior technological edge for our warfighters, we should ask ourselves if 2.3% of the total Defense Budget is the correct balance. A properly resourced Science and Technology enterprise, in the long run, reduces risk and – when properly executed – can generate efficiencies within the Department – something we need to keep in mind amidst debates on Sequestration and continuing resolutions.
Now, more than ever, our Science and Technology enterprise and investments play a strategic role and are central to our national and economic security.
This hearing also marks our first open S&T event since the National Defense Authorization Act directed the re-establishment of the position of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering within the Department.
As I have said in previous statements, I firmly believe that the Under Secretary for R&E needs to be the prime mover to drive change and foster innovation within the Department. A primary mission of this office should be to provide distinct direction and leadership to energize the Defense Industrial Base, the military services, combatant commanders, and the Department of Defense labs.
It must also guide newer initiatives such as the Strategic Capabilities Office, the Defense Innovation Unit – Experimental (or DIUx), and even the Algorithmic Warfare Working Group, and the Defense Digital Service. And while many of these new initiatives have created tremendous momentum and energized a conversation about changing 'the culture' of the Department of Defense, much more needs to be done to make these more than one-off, quick gains.
If properly empowered and resourced, I also believe that the Under Secretary for R&E will be in a unique position to drive a national level dialogue for Science and Technology policy that will – in addition to helping maintain a battlefield advantage – energize our domestic Industrial and Innovation Bases and provide technology jobs and opportunities across many of the sectors we will talk about today.
So, we have significant expectations of Dr. Mike Griffin and his office – but we do so while also offering our support and confidence – because the threats we face from our adversaries demand that we energize and organize our government to ensure that Policy keeps pace with Technology.
To help us through this important topic, we welcome five distinguished witnesses:
• Ms. Mary Miller, Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering;
• Dr. Steven Walker, Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency;
• Dr. Tom Russell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology;
• Rear Admiral David Hahn, Chief of Naval Research;
And
• Mr. Jeff Stanley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering
Welcome to all our witnesses and we look forward to your testimony."
