Under mandate of Section 253, Study and Report on Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes, of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, the U.S. Air Force contracted with the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct the present study. In response, the NRC established the Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes-composed of academics, active and retired industry executives, former Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) civilian executives, and retired general officers with acquisition and science and technology (S&T) backgrounds. The committee was to review the effectiveness of the Air Force S&T program and, in particular, the actions that the Air Force has taken to improve the management of the program in recent years in response to concerns voiced in numerous study reports and by Congress. The committee's principal charter was to assess whether, as a whole, the changes put in place by the Air Force since 1999 are sufficient to assure that adequate technology will be available to ensure U.S. military superiority. The committee conducted four open meetings to collect information from the Air Force and its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), the U.S Navy, the U.S. Army, and DoD. A great many factors influence any judgment of the S&T program's sufficiency in supporting future warfighter needs; these factors include threat assessment, budget constraints, technology opportunities, workforce, and program content. Given the relatively short time available for this study and considering the detailed reviews conducted annually by the SAB, the technical content of the S&T program was necessarily beyond the committee's purview. Rather, the committee focused on S&T management, including areas that have been studied many times, in depth, by previous advisory groups. Besides addressing technical content, those prior studies and congressional concerns highlighted four overarching S&T issues: advocacy and visibility, planning, workforce, and investment levels. In response, the Air Force instituted changes in S&T management. The NRC is requested to conduct a study to determine how changes to the Air Force science and technology program implemented during the past two years affect the future capabilities of the Air Force. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes reviews and assess whether such changes as a whole are sufficient to ensure the following: A. That concerns about the management of the science and technology program that have been raised by the Congress, the Defense Science Board, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, and the Air Force Association have been adequately addressed. B. That appropriate and sufficient technology is available to ensure the military superiority of the United States and counter future high-risk threats. C. That the science and technology investments are balanced to meet near-, mid-, and long-term needs of the Air Force. D. That the Air Force organizational structure provides for a sufficiently senior level advocate of science and technology to ensure an ongoing, effective presence of the science and technology community during the budget and planning process. This report also assess the specific changes to the Air Force science and technology program as whether the biannual science and technology 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 decision makers.

Under mandate of Section 253, Study and Report on Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes, of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, the U.S. Air Force contracted with the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct the present study. In response, the NRC established the Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes-composed of academics, active and retired industry executives, former Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) civilian executives, and retired general officers with acquisition and science and technology (S&T) backgrounds. The committee was to review the effectiveness of the Air Force S&T program and, in particular, the actions that the Air Force has taken to improve the management of the program in recent years in response to concerns voiced in numerous study reports and by Congress. The committee's principal charter was to assess whether, as a whole, the changes put in place by the Air Force since 1999 are sufficient to assure that adequate technology will be available to ensure U.S. military superiority. The committee conducted four open meetings to collect information from the Air Force and its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), the U.S Navy, the U.S. Army, and DoD. A great many factors influence any judgment of the S&T program's sufficiency in supporting future warfighter needs; these factors include threat assessment, budget constraints, technology opportunities, workforce, and program content. Given the relatively short time available for this study and considering the detailed reviews conducted annually by the SAB, the technical content of the S&T program was necessarily beyond the committee's purview. Rather, the committee focused on S&T management, including areas that have been studied many times, in depth, by previous advisory groups. Besides addressing technical content, those prior studies and congressional concerns highlighted four overarching S&T issues: advocacy and visibility, planning, workforce, and investment levels. In response, the Air Force instituted changes in S&T management. The NRC is requested to conduct a study to determine how changes to the Air Force science and technology program implemented during the past two years affect the future capabilities of the Air Force. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes reviews and assess whether such changes as a whole are sufficient to ensure the following: A. That concerns about the management of the science and technology program that have been raised by the Congress, the Defense Science Board, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, and the Air Force Association have been adequately addressed. B. That appropriate and sufficient technology is available to ensure the military superiority of the United States and counter future high-risk threats. C. That the science and technology investments are balanced to meet near-, mid-, and long-term needs of the Air Force. D. That the Air Force organizational structure provides for a sufficiently senior level advocate of science and technology to ensure an ongoing, effective presence of the science and technology community during the budget and planning process. This report also assess the specific changes to the Air Force science and technology program as whether the biannual science and technology 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 decision makers.

"The United States Code is the official codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States of America. The Code was first published in 1926, and a new edition of the code has been published every six years since 1934. The 2012 edition of the Code incorporates laws enacted through the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, the last of which was signed by the President on January 15, 2013. It does not include laws of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, enacted between January 2, 2013, the date it convened, and January 15, 2013. By statutory authority this edition may be cited "U.S.C. 2012 ed." As adopted in 1926, the Code established prima facie the general and permanent laws of the United States. The underlying statutes reprinted in the Code remained in effect and controlled over the Code in case of any discrepancy. In 1947, Congress began enacting individual titles of the Code into positive law. When a title is enacted into positive law, the underlying statutes are repealed and the title then becomes legal evidence of the law. Currently, 26 of the 51 titles in the Code have been so enacted. These are identified in the table of titles near the beginning of each volume. The Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives continues to prepare legislation pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 285b to enact the remainder of the Code, on a title-by-title basis, into positive law. The 2012 edition of the Code was prepared and published under the supervision of Ralph V. Seep, Law Revision Counsel. Grateful acknowledgment is made of the contributions by all who helped in this work, particularly the staffs of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel and the Government Printing Office"--Preface.

Some vols. include supplemental journals of "such proceedings of the sessions, as, during the time they were depending, were ordered to be kept secret, and respecting which the injunction of secrecy was afterwards taken off by the order of the House".