Congress Roasts Pentagon Over Spending Cuts It Passed Into Law

The Defense Department knew its budget request would be a tough sell, but lawmakers aren’t buying it.

<p>The Air Force's A-10 fleet is being retired under the fiscal year 2015 budget request.</p>
National Journal
Sara Sorcher
March 5, 2014, 11 a.m.

The Pentagon’s top of­fi­cials ar­rived on Cap­it­ol Hill armed with a series of con­tro­ver­sial budget-cut­ting pro­pos­als they knew would be a tough sell. But it’s already clear that law­makers aren’t buy­ing them.

Mem­bers of the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee ob­jec­ted to an ar­ray of budget re­duc­tions, big and small, pro­posed in the Pentagon’s $496 bil­lion budget blue­print for next year re­leased Tues­day.

On the wit­ness stand a day later, De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel and Chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mar­tin De­mp­sey de­fen­ded their choices in the shrink­ing de­fense budget — but con­vin­cing law­makers to agree may be an im­possible ask.

In a mi­cro­cosm of Wash­ing­ton’s cur­rent budget woes, Con­gress has com­mit­ted to cut­ting the De­fense De­part­ment budget, but it is fiercely res­ist­ant to cut­ting any­thing spe­cif­ic in that budget.

Law­makers ap­peared re­luct­ant to agree, even, that the budget caps they helped im­pose in the Budget Con­trol Act of 2011 — which set up a half-tril­lion-dol­lar se­quester cut — was a reas­on that de­fense spend­ing is shrink­ing.

The com­mit­tee’s top Re­pub­lic­an, James In­hofe of Ok­lahoma, asked the of­fi­cials if they feel con­strained by the amount of fund­ing they have to work with, after a brief speech about how en­ti­tle­ment spend­ing is go­ing up as de­fense spend­ing is go­ing down un­der the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion. “Let’s start with the fact that we are con­fined by the budget caps,” Hagel shot back. “That’s the real­ity. It’s the budget cap that the Con­gress agreed to that con­fines me.”

The Pentagon has man­aged to avoid the full force of se­quest­ra­tion so far, through changes in the law or fun­nel­ing funds leftover from pre­vi­ous years to blunt its im­pact. This year, law­makers are fi­nally able to see how the big-pic­ture cuts to the de­fense budget af­fect their per­son­al polit­ic­al pri­or­it­ies. And they don’t like it one bit.

Re­pub­lic­an Sens. Kelly Ayotte and Saxby Cham­b­liss are char­ging ahead in their de­fense of the A-10 air­craft, which the Pentagon wants to re­tire to make room in its budget for oth­er air­craft, such as the F-35 fight­er jet. “I’m prob­ably one of the few people in the room that’s ac­tu­ally had an A-10 come to my res­cue,” De­mp­sey said. “So you don’t have to con­vince me that it’s been an ex­traordin­ar­ily valu­able tool on the bat­tle­field. What you’re see­ing play out here is some of the very dif­fi­cult budget de­cisions we’ve got to make.”

Ayotte did not give up so eas­ily. “Some of the biggest ad­voc­ates for the plat­form have been, you know, your fel­low sol­diers who have had sim­il­ar ex­per­i­ences with the A-10. Isn’t that right?” the New Hamp­shire Re­pub­lic­an asked.

“Ab­so­lutely,” De­mp­sey replied. “What’s dif­fer­ent now is, we had some slack in our budget over the last 10 years. There’s no more slack in it.”

The Pentagon wants an­oth­er round of base clos­ures,  which is not go­ing to be pop­u­lar. But Demo­crat­ic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hamp­shire was quick to bring up the mil­it­ary fa­cil­it­ies in her state be­fore fret­ting about how the Pentagon would avoid the costs it in­curred clos­ing bases in 2005.

Hagel said the most re­cent round of clos­ures is now sav­ing the U.S. money — to the tune of $12 bil­lion a year. “We can­not con­tin­ue to af­ford to carry in­fra­struc­ture that we don’t need,” Hagel said. “I wish we could keep every plat­form we have every­where, but we can’t.” His comp­troller, Robert Hale, ad­ded that the pro­posed clos­ures would likely cost about $6 bil­lion, but save $2 bil­lion a year in the fu­ture.

Law­makers quite openly raised their own pa­ro­chi­al ob­jec­tions. The Pentagon in its budget wants to re­tire the 440th Air Wing fleet of C-130 mil­it­ary trans­port air­crafts. “With the 440th Air­lift Wing in­ac­tiv­ated, there would be no Air Force planes sta­tioned at Pope Air­field,” said Sen. Kay Hagan, a North Car­o­lina Demo­crat. “I strongly dis­agree with this de­cision.”

Sev­er­al law­makers voiced their con­cerns with polit­ic­ally sens­it­ive ad­just­ments to mil­it­ary com­pens­a­tion and be­ne­fits in the budget re­quest, in­clud­ing in­creased out-of-pock­et costs for mil­it­ary hous­ing and high­er fees for Tri­care, the mil­it­ary health care sys­tem.

Pentagon lead­ers said they felt com­fort­able mak­ing these changes to save money for train­ing and equip­ment, as they wait for a com­mis­sion to make re­com­mend­a­tions next year about how to over­haul the mil­it­ary pay-and-be­ne­fits sys­tem. “We knew enough about where we thought we were go­ing to have to even­tu­ally go “¦ that we felt we could make the de­cision,” Hagel said.

Still, it was not an easy choice. “It pains me to hear the char­ac­ter­iz­a­tion of bal­an­cing the budget on the backs of our ser­vice­men and wo­men,” De­mp­sey said. “This weighs heav­ily on all of us.”

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×