POLISCOPE
Back to feed
FEDERALhearing transcript

House Subcommittee Hearing on 2017 Defense Science and Technology Budget

Original title: [H.A.S.C. No. 114-95] HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION

January 1, 2016

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing established the legislative oversight framework for the 2017 defense research and development budget, which dictates how the Department of Defense allocates funding for future military technology and modernization programs.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

Department of Defense

The department's research and technology budget and strategic initiatives are subject to congressional oversight and approval.

Defense Contractors

The prioritization of specific science and technology programs influences future government contract opportunities.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2016.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a hearing on February 24, 2016, to review the Department of Defense's proposed science and technology budget for fiscal year 2017. The discussion focused on how the military can leverage innovation to maintain technical superiority against global competitors.

Key Facts

  • The hearing took place on February 24, 2016, to review the fiscal year 2017 science and technology budget request.
  • The subcommittee discussed the 'third offset strategy' and long-range research and development plans.
  • Chairman Joe Wilson expressed concern that major initiatives started at the end of an administration may face challenges under a new President.
  • The hearing included testimony from senior research and technology officials from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
  • The committee received prepared statements from all five primary witnesses for the official record.
  • Post-hearing questions were submitted by Representatives Castro, Langevin, Nugent, and Wilson.

Why It Matters

This hearing established the legislative oversight framework for the 2017 defense research and development budget, which dictates how the Department of Defense allocates funding for future military technology and modernization programs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of this hearing?
To review the Department of Defense's science and technology budget request for fiscal year 2017 and oversee previously authorized programs.
Who testified at the hearing?
Senior research and technology officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and .

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Sponsors

Show 1 more sponsor

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

End-of-Administration Budget Concerns

The Chairman explicitly noted the difficulty of ensuring the continuity of major defense initiatives when they are launched during the final year of a presidential administration.

Connected Entities

personMary J. MillerDeputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and TechnologyMap →
organizationDepartment of DefenseThe federal department requesting the budgetMap →
personStephen WelbyAssistant Secretary of Defense for Research and EngineeringMap →
personMathias W. WinterChief of Naval ResearchMap →
personJoe WilsonChairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and CapabilitiesMap →
personDavid E. WalkerDeputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and EngineerMap →
personArati PrabhakarDirector of DARPAMap →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance60
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy20
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment10
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz15
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record