GovernmentExecutive.com

The military's reliance on war-related supplemental spending bills to buy new equipment has increased dramatically since the launch of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, becoming a major driver behind the growth of emergency spending packages, the Congressional Budget Office reported Monday.

Its analysis of funding trends, requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., found that procurement funding in supplemental appropriations bills rose from $10 billion in fiscal 2003 to $51 billion in fiscal 2007.

For this fiscal year, the Pentagon has requested $72 billion in emergency spending for new equipment, $26 billion of which has been appropriated. The remaining amount constitutes a large chunk of the additional $102.5 billion supplemental appropriations package Congress expects to take up in the next few months.

The sharp increase in procurement funding accounted for over half of the total growth in war-related appropriations in fiscal 2007, and will account for roughly 90 percent of the increase in war expenditures this year if Congress approves the Defense Department's request, according to CBO.

The growth can be explained in part because the Defense Department has "loosened its criteria for the types of programs whose funding could be requested in supplemental budget submissions," the report said.

Between fiscal 2002 and fiscal 2004, the Pentagon largely limited procurement requests to the replacement of equipment damaged or destroyed in the field and the purchase of other gear that satisfied urgent wartime requirements.

But by 2005, the Pentagon started requesting emergency dollars for "longer-term efforts," including the reorganizing of Army and Marine Corps units, CBO said.

Shortly before sending the fiscal 2007 supplemental spending request to Capitol Hill, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the military services to include in their requests costs associated with the broader war on terrorism -- a move that more than doubled the size of procurement accounts in the emergency spending bill over fiscal 2006 figures.

"Most of the increase in war-related appropriations for procurement is a result of DoD's efforts to 'reconstitute' the military, protect deployed forces, and increase the size of the military," the report concludes.

The Army, which has the largest number of forces deployed, "has been the main recipient of the funds in each of those categories," CBO noted. For example, Army funding to modernize tanks and armored vehicles tripled between fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2007, while the service's accounts for communications and intelligence-gathering systems increased four-fold.

But the upward trend in using supplemental funds to cover procurement costs is not exclusive to the Army.

All of the services, CBO observed, have seen significant increases in procurement funding -- particularly to their aircraft accounts, which rose from $1 billion in fiscal 2005 to $10 billion requested in fiscal 2008 to pay for an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, F/A-18 fighter jets, C-130J cargo planes and other aircraft.

COMMENTS

• The Navy too is experiencing an erosion of baseline funds and has been forced to use supplemental funding to make up the difference. I assume it’s the same situation for all the services. I’m beginning to get the impression that GovExec doesn’t care for DOD too much. Navy Budgeteer Posted February 14, 2008 8:27 AM
• What the article doesn't mention is the erosion of the Army's base funding. It's not as if the Army has been receiving a constant level of base funding and then asks for increased supplemental each year. The base has been steadily decreasing over the years, so the Army has to make up the difference with the supplemental. Another incomplete article on GovExec...time to tell the whole story ladies and gentlemen. GW Posted February 13, 2008 8:36 AM