Skeptical lawmakers quiz Rumsfeld on
Navy spending, missile defense plan
By Sandra Jontz and Lisa Burgess, Washington bureau
WASHINGTON — Congress is less than enthusiastic about the Pentagon’s proposed
2002 budget, with various members taking potshots at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for
the Pentagon’s failure to adequately fund Navy shipbuilding, its cuts to the Air
Force’s B-1 program and calls for another possible round of base closures.
The Navy is experiencing a $3 billion shortfall for its shipbuilding needs and
production is about to "fall off a cliff" if more money isn’t funneled in
that direction, Rumsfeld said during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee
on Thursday.
At the present acquisition rate of six ships per year, the Navy’s fleet will drop
from 310 ships to 230 ships "if we continue building at the rate we are,"
Rumsfeld said.
"We’re about ready to fall off a cliff," Rumsfeld said. The budget
"has to be increased" by about $3 billion per year to halt the slide.
To bolster shipbuilding, Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, suggested taking funding from
national missile defense, a program he finds "profoundly disturbing, because in my
opinion it threatens our national security in the name of protecting it."
Missile defense, which President Bush has made a priority in his defense policy, is the
most dramatic program winner in the 2002 proposal, rising from $5.3 billion in fiscal 2001
to $8.3 billion in 2002.
"I’m speaking about the rush to deploy a national missile defense that is
untested, hugely expensive and may never work," Allen said.
Allen challenged the Pentagon’s "scare tactics" for a system to protect
the United States and its allies, saying the country is "in a realm of some sort of
threat that we can’t define from countries we cannot name."
The system also threatens the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty between the United
States and the former Soviet Union.
Of four known nations with nuclear capability, not one can fire a long-range missile,
Allen said.
"I think it’s misleading to create the impression that this country is on the
brink of being attacked by rogue state missiles," Allen said.
Hot under the collar, Rumsfeld shot back at Allen’s attacks.
"Goodness gracious," Rumsfeld said at his turn to speak. "First of all,
on the subject of rush to deploy, there is no such thing." The program has been
delayed and now is in the research and development, he said.
"Untested is also without merit. The reality is that that is exactly what we are
doing. … We’re spending something like $11 plus billion on terrorism issues for
the United States government, and we’re spending a much smaller amount on missile
defense," Rumsfeld said.
He took exception to Allen’s characterization that a national missile defense
might never work.
"That’s what Wilbur and Orville Wright faced. There are always people who say
it’s not going to work. … But by golly it’s amazing. Things tend to work,
and there isn’t a doubt in my mind that if the United States decides it wants to
develop that ability, that we can develop that capability."
Base closings was another issue immediately seized by Congress.
Base closures aren’t mentioned in the 2002 budget, and Dov Zakheim, the
Pentagon’s chief financial officer, said Rumsfeld will tackle the controversial issue
in 2003. The last base closures, which engendered a bloody fight in Congress, were in
1997.
Savings on base closures won’t be visible for two to three years after the process
begins and none have yet been identified, he said. Zakheim said experts have told the
Pentagon that the military has about 25 percent too many bases.
Bases that won’t ever be closed should automatically be crossed off a list to
reduce the "froth of anxiety" communities go through each time the subject is
addressed, said Rep. Joel Hefly, R-Colo.
More service-specific budget information follows.
Air Force
The U.S. Air Force is slated to get $95.7 billion of the defense budget, and plans to
invest much of an additional $3.8 billion increase from the previous year into readiness.
Air Force officials want to direct $2.3 billion of the allocation toward readiness,
$600 million each for people and modernization of the force and $700 million toward
improving physical plants.
Of the total proposed fiscal 2002 budget, 35 percent will go to "people"
funds, including compensation, retention and recruiting programs and improving family
housing. Air Force officials are expecting to give 5 and 10 percent pay raises to its
servicemembers.
Operations and readiness will consume 30 percent of the budget, with funding
appropriated to flight and space operations, modifications to equipment, and paying higher
costs of doing business such as utilities and maintenance contracts.
Another 30 percent will fund modernization projects and the remaining 5 percent will go
toward military construction and facility maintenance.
One of the most major steps in the budget is the plan to mothball 33 of the Air
Force’s 93 B-1B long-range bombers and consolidate the remaining fleet to two bases,
instead of today’s five. The cut would save $165 million in 2002, which the Air Force
then could use to modernize the remaining B-1B bombers.
The budget also includes money to retire all 50 of the Air Force’s Peacekeeper
long-range nuclear missiles.
A hangover from the Cold War, the Peacekeeper program has occupied a strange sort of
limbo, Rumsfeld told Congress.
"The budget for the Peacekeeper had no money to continue and no money to
terminate," Rumsfeld said. "It was simply there. It was not a happy
situation."
Army
The U.S. Army will place a bulk of its $80.2 billion budget toward military personnel
issues, spending $30.2 billion to recruit and retain a force of 480,000 active-duty
soldiers, 350,000 Army National Guard, 205,000 Army Reserve soldiers and a civilian work
force of 215,600 people.
"In the Army, the major concern is making life a little more livable for their
people," Zakheim said.
Officials also funneled money to give at least a 4.6 percent pay raise and increase
housing allowances to reduce out-of-pocket expenses.
Operation and maintenance will consume $26.7 billion and procurement another $11.2
billion. Other expenditures include military construction, utilities, family housing and
environmental restoration.
The service will be "assuming some risk" in the readiness of its soldiers by
reducing training hours and opportunities, but will fund the force so that soldiers do not
drop below the T-2 training level for readiness. Though not optimal, a T-2 rating
indicates forces are still able to enter combat and fulfill the Army’s contract to
the American people of winning it, said Maj. Gen. Jerry Sinn, director of the Army budget.
An "area of disappointment" is the plan to modernize the force, with 75
percent of major combat systems exceeding the half-life and less-than-desired money going
to improve the problem, Sinn said.
The most significant changes to Army weapons programs would be to the Army’s
Interim Armored Vehicle — funding would drop from $418 million in 2001 to $329
million in 2002; the UH-60 helicopter, which would drop from $18 million to $12 million,
and the Longbow Apache, which would rise from $52 million to $60 million.
Navy and Marine Corps
Among the departments, the Navy could get the highest allotment of funding with a $99
billion budget request, an increase of roughly $8 billion from the current fiscal year.
The department, which includes Navy sailors and the Marine Corps, will increase its
spending by nearly $1.4 billion over the fiscal 2001 budget for its personnel of 376,000
sailors and 172,000 Marines. The budget will fund a 5 percent pay raise for all pay
grades, plus targeted pay raises for mid-level ranks and increases for junior officers and
enlisted personnel.
But the Navy’s didn’t appropriate as much as it liked for the four
Virginia-class submarines and falls short of its goal to increase its fleet by eight to 10
ships a year. The fiscal 2002 budget has funding for six ships, one submarine, three
destroyers, one amphibious warship and one dry cargo and fleet replenishment vessel.
Despite an increase of $25 million for major aircraft programs, the Navy also falls
short of its desired 180 to 210 aircraft a year, having plans to build 88.
However, the proposed budget does allow for the spending of $5 billion for 12 new V-22
Osprey tilt-rotor aircrafts to keep production of the aircraft going, yet at a slower pace
than desired.
Navy and Marine officials cut the production rate following recommendations by a panel
convened to analyze the troubled program. Twenty-three Marines died recently in two
crashes involving Ospreys.
The budget proposal adds a third DDG-51 destroyer to the Navy’s purchase list.
Zakheim called the ship’s $850 million cost "an extremely good price."
"We’re kind of treading water" until 2003 budget, when some sort of
decision about the program’s fate will be made, Zakheim said.
RELATED STORY:
Rumsfeld: Extra funds would
cover "people part," critical shortfalls
Back to June stories
Page Two news roundup
Stories from May, 2001
Stories from April, 2001
Stories from March, 2001
Stories from February,2001
Stories from January, 2001
Stories from December, 2000
Stories from November, 2000
Stories from October, 2000
Stories from August and September, 2000
Stories from June and July, 2000
Home |
