Controversy looms over FY 2001 defense plan

Sea Power, Apr 2000 by Prina, L Edgar, Burgess, Richard R, Hessman, James D

President Requests $291. 1 Billion in Budget Authority

President Clinton, in his eighth and final budget, has proposed the first real growth in military spending in a decade.

He has asked Congress for $291. billion in budget authority for the Pentagon in fiscal year 2001, which begins on 1 October 2000. When adjusted for inflation, this is a hike of slightly more than 1 percent over the current year's $277.9 billion financial plan. Outlays would remain at $277.5 billion for the second straight year.

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen asserted that the new budget would maintain current U.S. combat readiness and provide uniformed personnel the resources they need to remain the world's most preeminent military force.

"It also meets the Joint Chiefs' goal of $60 billion for modernization of major weapons systems and preserves our unparalleled technological superiority in the future," he said.

With the twin challenges of personnel recruitment and retention causing serious concern at the Defense Department, the budget provides increased funds for improving the quality of life for American men and women in uniform and their families. It calls for an across-the-board pay raise of 3.7 percentthis would be on top of the 4.8 percent hike for the current year-and a basic allowance for housing plan that would reduce (from 19 to 15 percent-relative to nationwide housing prices) the current out-of-pocket costs for military members, and would eliminate such costs by 2005.

In the health care area, major improvements are proposed for FY 2001, including the elimination of copayments (charges of $6 to $12 assessed on military dependents when they go to civilian doctors in the Pentagon's Tricare Prime insurance program).

How Much Is Enough?

While some key members of Congress-Rep. Floyd Spence (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is one-welcomed the increase contained in the president's budget, the general feeling on Capitol Hill seemed to be that the extra funds requested for FY 2001 are still not enough, particularly in view of the huge projected surpluses in federal revenues and the urgent need for modernization of warfare systems.

This view is apparently shared by the service chiefs. When asked by Spence to "provide a dollar figure against FY 2002 for unaddressed requirements," they said they are facing a total shortfall of $16.1 billion. (The Navy said it needs $5.7 billion more, and the Marine Corps $1.4 billion.)

An obvious matter of controversy between the Republicancontrolled Congress and the White House is about the adequacy of military procurement. The new Clinton budget includes $603 billion for weapons modernization. This meets a goal set by the Joint Chiefs of Staff nearly five years ago. But in constant dollars $60 billion then would probably equate to about $65 billion today. Moreover, last year President Clinton projected a probable request of $61.5 billion for arms procurement in FY 2001, which means the real FY 2001 request is $1.2 billion lower than the president's own earlier estimate.

It should be noted that the president is now projecting gradual additional increases in the outyears of his long-term defense budget plan, and would increase procurement to $70.9 billion in FY 2005. But future increases, or decreases, will be up to the next president and the next Congress.

Major Shortfalls Projected

By CBO and CSIS

Given the expensive new weapons systems now under development, such as five types of ultramodern aircraft, an electric-drive surface combatant, and a new class of submarines, there is a real question as to whether the Pentagon will be able to afford all of them, even under the higher budget ceilings projected. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) thinks it will take a lot more money than is now planned for defense. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank, agrees. The CBO estimates that the services would collectively need nearly $90 billion per year to fund the array of new weapons systems planned. The CSIS issued a report, "Averting the Defense Train Wreck," which concludes that an additional $100 billion a year for the next five years, much of it for procurement, will be required just to maintain the current level of military capability. Former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger wrote the foreword to the report.

The FY 2001 budget sustains prudent readiness levels for Army tank miles, Navy steaming days per quarter, and flying hours for all the services, Cohen said. It also increases funding for the national missile defense (NMD) program.

To help free up funds for future defense programs, Cohen proposed two more Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds, in 2003 and 2005, which he said would save about $3 billion a year. Congress has been reluctant to close bases in the past, and there is no guarantee it will approve more BRACs anytime soon.

Line-item Specifics

The overall Navy/Marine Corps budget for FY 2001 totals $91.7 billion, up from $88.0 billion this year. The specific totals for the Department's major budget accounts are: