GovernmentExecutive.com

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers defended the Bush administration's $419 billion fiscal 2006 budget request before the House Armed Services Committee, fielding questions on Iraq, proposed budget cuts and the administration's new $82 billion supplemental spending package for fiscal 2005.

Armed Services member Joel Hefley, R-Colo., told Rumsfeld he is concerned with the administration's practice of "putting repeated expenses" related to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in annual supplemental appropriations.

"There are certain aspects of the war effort that we pretty much know," Hefley said. "We spend $4.1 billion a month on [operations and maintenance] in Iraq and we can predict that almost every month."

Hefley said what disturbed him is that committee members assert they will "scrub the supplemental" only to decide that if the troops need something, it should be provided.

"I wonder if that's the purpose of doing the supplemental," he asked.

Rumsfeld said the decision to rely on supplemental spending is made jointly between the Defense Department, OMB and Congress.

"I am no expert on this subject," he said, although he defended the Army's plan to fund some transformation efforts through the supplemental, including $5 billion for equipment in support of the Army's "modularity" initiative. "When you come back to reset the force ... you reset the force the way it ought to be," he said, adding that the department does not want to replenish its inventory with antiquated weaponry. "The question is, is that a replenishment and a reset that goes in a supplemental, or is it something else? Is it an improvement? Well, it's both," Rumsfeld said.

Hefley said Congress has some responsibility to give guidance in what members would or would not accept in a supplemental. House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., agreed, noting that "Army modularity is one of the areas we need to look at because that is to some degree a predictable thing."

Other lawmakers took issue with proposed cuts in several big-ticket weapons programs, including the C-130J transport plane, F/A-22 fighter and the Navy's plan to reduce its aircraft carrier fleet. Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C., emphasized the need for the C-130J, noting the Air Force's recent decision to ground a number of older models because of structural faults. Hayes stressed that older C-130 planes are between 31-43 years old, and that any "hand-wringing bed wetters" seeking to delay or terminate the current C-130J program need to understand that.

Rumsfeld said the administration "may come back with an amendment to the budget with respect to the C-130s." Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., also expressed concern with the proposed budget cuts that could affect the F/A-22 and the nation's carrier fleet. Rumsfeld remarked that "resources are finite" despite the fact that the Pentagon's budget increased 4.8 percent over last year. And he noted the fighter is an "enormously expensive aircraft" at $257 million apiece.

COMMENTS

• If the med carriers where so great in Libya, why did we fly from Great Britain to attack? Why didn't the planes attack from the med carriers? Why do we fly from Missouri (B-1s) to attack IRAQ if the med carriers are so great? We really do need carriers but far less than twelve - I think eight(that is six on patrol and two in for repairs) is when we start to question the numbers. taxpayer Posted February 23, 2005 7:29 AM
• Cut the aircraft carrier fleet in a time of war? Is the Navy crazy? Aircraft carriers are often the only way to project power to many of the world's trouble spots, as has been demonstrated again and again in times of crisis. We cannot always count on having bases near potential flash points, or depending on allies to give us access to their bases (remember the French, who refused to let our F-111s from England fly over France enroute to bomb Libya in the 1980s, forcing them to make a long detour over the Atlantic Ocean? Meanwhile, planes from carriers in the Mediterranean were on the scene to provide a quick and effective reponse). Also remember that in the first Gulf War, aircraft carriers provided the first line of defense, until our troops and Air Force could get to Saudi Arabia. What is the alternative, to have B-52s from the US make 16 hour or more round-trips to bomb targets on the other side of the world, with several aerial refuelings and resultant crew exhaustion? Keep the carriers, they have proven their worth time and again in a dangerous world! GovExec.com reader Posted February 17, 2005 12:04 PM