One day after the Pentagon released its budget request for fiscal year 2015, a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing highlighted the difficulties of long-term planning in an uncertain fiscal environment: the committee had trouble understanding the Defense Department’s three-scenario budget, and senators expressed concerns about major policy changes included in the budget request that, if undone, would throw off the budget by billions of dollars.
At the very core of the issue is that Congress passed spending caps that DoD leadership feels would not support mission requirements without creating unacceptable levels of risk. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, DoD Comptroller Robert Hale and the senators in attendance all agreed the spending levels were too low and harmful cuts were included in the budget request. But as Hagel was quick to point out, his hands are tied by the sequestration caps Congress passed into law, and he submitted the best budget he could.
That budget comes with three separate spending scenarios: the requested level, which adheres to the $496 billion spending cap for FY ’15 but spends $115 billion more than is allowed under law from FY ’16-19; the sequester level, which adheres to spending caps but involves cutting an additional tens of thousands of troops, losing an aircraft carrier, and chopping entire fleets of aircraft from the inventory; and a one-time spending boost for FY ’15, a $26 billion infusion from Obama’s government-wide Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative to fund priorities that couldn’t be squeezed in with spending caps in place.
The distinction between the sequester-level spending plan and the president’s budget request spending plan is somewhat blurred despite the $115 billion difference in cost. In principle, the president’s request funds a military that can keep an Army of 450,000 active duty troops, a Navy aircraft carrier fleet of 11 and a Marine Corps of 182,000. Congress would have to amend the sequester spending caps to allow for this level of funding, but the result would be a military that could respond to contingencies that arise around the world. Conversely, Congress could force DoD to adhere to the current spending caps, but the military would shrink to 420,000 soldiers, 10 carriers and 175,000 Marines.
However, Hagel and Hale noted that it takes a lot of planning to draw down forces by tens of thousands and to defuel and retire an aircraft carrier, so they need to begin that planning now in case the worst-case scenario comes true.
So, as a result, the budget plan DoD submitted to Congress reads that the department would spend the higher amount of money but get stuck with the smaller-sized force.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) tried to approach this contradiction from several angles, but each time the lawmakers and defense officials seemed to talk past each other. From the senators’ perspective, Congress couldn’t assure that much extra money without knowing in no uncertain terms it would get the higher force structure in return, which the current budget documents do not reflect. From the Pentagon’s perspective, the military couldn’t commit to keeping the carrier and the higher troop levels without a guarantee from Congress that the money would be there to pay for those capabilities.
From a practical standpoint, Kaine, who also serves on the Senate Budget Committee, noted that a new budget would not get passed this year regardless of the assurances the Pentagon asked for. Congress just passed a budget agreement in December for the first time in years, and lawmakers would not take up another budget agreement yet to deal with sequestration levels in FY ’16 and beyond, particularly in an election year.
After the hearing, top Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby told Defense Daily that the $115 billion in extra spending over four years would fully support the 11th carrier and the higher troop levels, despite how the budget submission reads.
Among the things the $26 billion would buy are more than 90 additional aircraft across the four services, increased training, depot maintenance, and upgrades and renovations to base infrastructure. Overall, the money would help return the military to an appropriate readiness level faster than is possible under the normal budget, the Pentagon wrote in its budget request overview released March 4.
Despite the concerns of Sen. Jame Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of SASC, about the OGS Initiative, Levin said at the end of the hearing that “what you are asking for is very, very reasonable” and he looked forward to working with the White House and his colleagues in Congress to agree on how to pay for these supplemental spending items.
Whatever spending level Congress grants the military, the budget request is likely to see significant alterations during the markup process this spring. Kaine noted that the Navy is statutorily bound to maintain a carrier fleet of 11, so dropping to 10–even if because of fiscal constraints–would be a violation of the law. Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) pushed back on the Air Force’s proposal to cut the entire A-10 fleet from the service well ahead of the F-35 joining the fleet in sufficient numbers to take over the close-air support mission. Several senators opposed the military benefits reforms the Pentagon pitched this year, or questioned making changes now when the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission won’t report back to Congress until early next year. And despite Hale’s insistence that the military has at least 25 percent more infrastructure in the United States than it needs and is therefore wasting money that could be put to better use, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) told him “I certainly strongly disagree with another round of [Base Realignment and Closure] at this time.”