GovernmentExecutive.com

As the Army burns through $4.7 billion each month for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, its ability to repair and replace equipment is falling short.

While the Bush administration is expected to ask for as much as $70 billion in wartime supplemental appropriations next year, lawmakers are concerned those funds will not address shortfalls in Army and Marine Corps equipment and personnel needs.

Recent figures indicate the Army has lost several billion dollars worth of equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that by fiscal 2007, the Army's cumulative equipment repair and replacement needs will total $29 billion, of which only $12 billion will have been funded.

Lawmakers say despite supplemental appropriations, the Pentagon has not included the cost of these losses in supplemental spending packages.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said Wednesday the military is reeling from a "procurement holiday" -- the post-Cold War period of waning defense and weapons investment -- even as the pace of wartime operations eats up equipment.

"The simple fact is that our peacetime budget doesn't properly take into account the shortened operational lifetimes of major systems," Hunter said at a committee hearing Wednesday.

The situation is so dire the Army and Air Force are cannibalizing National Guard units for equipment and personnel to support mobilized forces. This has led to equipment and manpower shortages for units that could be deployed overseas as well as those with homeland security missions in the United States, according to a Government Accountability Office study released Wednesday.

The findings suggested the problem leaves U.S. policymakers poorly positioned "to manage the risks to the nation's homeland security," the report said.

In a statement after the hearing, Armed Services ranking member Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., called on the military to budget for their needs in the annual appropriations request to Congress, rather than through supplemental funds.

"We hope their budgets will properly reflect the needs created by the ongoing conflict in Iraq," he said.

Skelton also took issue with personnel levels, noting that the Pentagon's current efforts -- issuing stop-loss orders to keep troops from leaving the military, tapping retirees from the Individual Ready Reserve and bringing enlistees into the force earlier than planned -- are all tactics used to keep recruitment and retention figures on track.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said the Army has not had problems adding soldiers. "We've grown the Army by 15,000 soldiers last year, and we'll continue to grow to about 30,000 more," he told the panel. "This is real growth, exclusive of stop-loss, through increased recruitment and retention."

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee said the Marines intend to use the additional 3,000 forces provided in the recently enacted fiscal 2005 defense authorization act, though it was unclear whether the extra personnel cost would be paid for in the forthcoming supplemental. Hagee said the Marines will need up to $10 billion in supplemental funding in fiscal 2005 -- above and beyond the $25 billion in "bridge funds" approved by appropriators this year.

COMMENTS

• I agree that a tightening of all of DoD's excessive expeditures is needed. The DoD spends millions of dollars on things like conferences that should be VTCs, millions of dollars on beautiful offices in high rent locations, millions of dollars on bonuses for executives who are responsible for taming the excesses in the first place, and millions on unnecessary travel and the like. I see the types of things that the Government buys everyday and there is NO reason why any of our troops should do without anything. Why DoD doesn't put a stop to it by issuing some type of moritorium on such purchases? Of course, some idiot would most likely consider buying themselves a new computer a mission essential priority, come on.... It doesn't matter what a command thinks it needs in the areas of new office space, new furniture, new computers, award ceremonies (I think most people would support not having some elaborate ceremony to recognize them), it all adds up to billions. Let's be fiscally responsible and put our money where our mouth is and start doing without since we're not the one's putting our lives on the line. GovExec.com reader Posted November 23, 2004 8:30 AM
• They could skip the inaugural party & use that money to help our troops or their families. GovExec.com reader Posted November 22, 2004 7:24 AM
• Suggest a complete freeze on new furniture, certain new equipment(fax machines, shredders, pc's) and certain supplies (pens and briefing notebooks alone) for the rest of our involvement in wartime operations. DA could approve exceptions. We could eliminate (Est.)$300,000+ per year here at Ft Lee alone. For 3 FY's, we'd generate +/- $1 million in savings just by doing this for FY 05-07. Believe every Installation could generate similar type savings. (We also throw away tons of stuff in Government, that school districts and the general public pick up for free and use for 10-15+ years. I use an old square legged metal desk, that I have been "ordered" to get rid of for over 10 yrs because its old-"1960s vintage tho fully functional". My 4 up line bosses ordered me a new one-cause it's too old. With average use, it would still last another 40 years, but now I have to throw it away. Further, if other Federal agencies could be tapped for their excess furniture inventories (stored in unused warehouses), we could survive. Other suggestions: expand this Governmentwide. Allow employees to work from home if no office space/furnishings were available. Ask employees to provide their own table/bring a pen from home to work, if critical shortages were found. Sacrifice is necessary during wartime operations and asking people to sacrifice, would contribute to furthering the war effort. People would also feel better being able to make a "small"contribution to the effort. If everyone does not participate, fine, but there are some who would be willing to do more, if asked. (I have other ideas, but have been told I DREAM too much, to get real, that I'm too optimistic. I get told regularly, to sit in the corner & stop trying to be practical. After all, I am getting ready to get out. Retiring soon. Not soon enough!!) GovExec.com reader Posted November 19, 2004 10:17 AM