Rick Santorum

Do you believe that the Army will receive the level of financial support from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to aggressively support this process?

Do you believe that this strategy fits the profile of a 'high risk' acquisition strategy?

Dr. Andrews, based on your assessment of historical trends for Army Science and Technology investment, are these reasonable dates?

Dr. Andrews, why is this approach necessary when we already have DARPA, an entity that is the military's high-risk manager for research and development?

Dr. Andrews, why would commercial or private sector entities want to invest in the Army when it lacks the resources necessary to sustain many of its high priority programs and initiatives?

Using the Army Science Board to study this issue makes sense and I wholly support their effort.

Currently, the NNI is balanced across five broad activities: fundamental research; grand challenges; centers and networks of excellence; research infrastructure; and the ethical, legal, and societal implications.

One of the concerns associated with the use of a chemical or biological agent is the invisibility of the threat.

Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, do you believe that the levels of funding for basic research are adequate to propel transformation throughout the services?

Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, please address how funding levels for DOD basic research impact not only military capabilities, but also the pool of skilled scientists and engineers who will drive innovation and change.

Mr. Aldridge, do you believe that there are changes that the Department can take to make it easier for industry to participate in military R&D efforts?

Without increased investment in Department of Defense basic research, the number of graduate student opportunities to pursue Department of Defense research cannot increase.

I offered an amendment to the Senate's Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution which calls for increasing the level of Department of Defense basic research.

Congress shares some of this blame, as it has taken funds from these crucial accounts and used them to pay for the near-term modernization or procurement needs of today's military.

I apologize. I am committed to doing 'Hardball.'

It is a resource question. It is not a technology question.

Well, that is the classic problem with all of our acquisitions. I mean, they just take too darn long.

Do you expect that to maybe result in even more leveraging of funds?

Do you see that as creating an incentive for the private sector to do more research funding?

Are there things going on within the research community that, in looking at the prospects for this research, in light of the decisions that we are going to make on acquisitions, that would cause you to say, 'Hey, wait a minute.'

Are we doing enough basic research? I think, at least from my perspective, I do not think we are, but I would like your answer.

Do we have existing a pretty good funding of that trail? I mean, is it--do we have enough resources--

In 1999, then-Governor George W. Bush addressed an audience at The Citadel in South Carolina and raised the notion of skipping a generation of weapons systems.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an opening statement that I would like to put in the record.

This is a hearing that I requested. You supported an amendment that I offered to the budget resolution which dramatically increased the amount of funding for S&T research.