Government Executive - Authors - Megan Scully

Former Defense chief meets with House Republicans

Megan Scully — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Rumsfeld, who had an often contentious relationship with lawmakers during his tumultuous time as Pentagon chief, warned committee members about the dangers of assigning any specific amount in cuts to the defense budget before completing a review of the department's strategy and priorities.

"The first responsibility of government is to protect the American people," Rumsfeld told National Journal after the meeting. "It's important to have priorities and a strategy and know what you would like to do and then fund against those priorities and those strategies."

Doing so, he said, would allow the military to weigh risks before being tasked to trim a certain amount from its budget. Rumsfeld did not provide any advice on where to cut, admitting at the outset of the meeting that he is out of date with the military's current spending priorities, said House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif.

Rumsfeld oversaw the Pentagon during a period of historic budget growth fueled by two wars and the desire to modernize the military's aging equipment. But the military's budget, considered off limits for cuts during the last decade, is now one of many targets for deficit reduction.

The Defense Department is in the middle of a review to determine how to trim the $350 billion officials have already been ordered to cut from the Pentagon budget over the next decade. The so-called Super Committee could opt to slash more from defense accounts as they work on a plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. If they fail, they will trigger an automatic $500 billion cut to the Pentagon budget.

Rumsfeld met Monday with an audience of like-minded Republican lawmakers, many of whom have spoken out publicly against further defense cuts. But some of his comments underscored statements made recently by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from California who served as President Clinton's budget director and, later, as his chief of staff.

The two men's politics may differ, but they are in agreement on one thing: Mandatory spending like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is the primary cause for the country's fiscal woes.

"Pay attention to the two-thirds of the federal budget that is in large measure responsible for the size of the debt that we're dealing with," Panetta told reporters during a news conference at the Pentagon last month.

Rumsfeld echoed those remarks after his meeting on the Hill, stressing that there has been significant growth in spending on entitlement programs. The Defense Department's base budget, not including the wars, has roughly doubled over the last 10 years, but defense hawks argue that its share of the overall federal budget is decreasing.

"The thing that worries me most is that people talk about the defense budget as though that's where the deficits and the debt have incurred," Rumsfeld said. "You could wipe out the entire defense budget and not solve the debt problem."

]]>

Panetta urges lawmakers to protect Defense spending

Megan Scully — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Despite a Defense budget that has doubled in size over the last decade, Panetta asserted on Tuesday that mandatory spending, which includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, is the primary cause of the country's burgeoning deficit.

"Pay attention to the two-thirds of the federal budget that is in large measure responsible for the size of the debt that we're dealing with," he told reporters during a news conference at the Pentagon.

As he meets with lawmakers, Panetta said he is stressing that the Defense Department is already shouldering its share of the deficit-reduction burden, including $350 billion in cuts over the next decade mandated by the Budget Control Act.

Those cuts, he said, are tough but manageable and do not pose any insurmountable national-security risks. But any additional reductions in the Defense Department's budget would "do serious damage to our ability to be able to make the kind of changes in our defense structure that are responsible and that do protect this country for the future."

Panetta particularly expressed concerns about the nearly $500 billion in across-the-board cuts that would go into effect if the super committee does not agree to a plan to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion and triggers sequestration, which the Pentagon considers the worst-case scenario.

"Since the cuts would have to be applied in equal percentages to every project area, we just simply could not avoid hollowing out the force," Panetta said. "That will be the ultimate result if sequester goes into effect."

Meanwhile, Panetta defended the White House's decision this week to claim $1.1 trillion in savings in its $3 trillion deficit-reduction plan because the wars are winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Administration officials will also set caps on future war spending.

The administration found the savings by taking a baseline of funding for the conflicts calculated by the Congressional Budget Office that simply adjusts for inflation the $159 billion appropriated for them this year and extrapolates it over the next decade.

Relying on CBO's baseline to score savings is technically accurate. But budget watchers assert that CBO's projections do not take into account current trends in war spending, which has totaled $1.2 trillion since 2001 but has been on a steady decline since it peaked at $187 billion three years ago. Indeed, the administration's funding request for the wars in fiscal 2012 is $117 billion-$42 billion less than this year.

Panetta, who directed the White House's Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration, acknowledged there are often debates over how to score savings, but he backed the White House's decision.

"If those recommendations are in fact implemented by the super committee, I think there would be significant savings," he said.

]]>

Appropriators cut $695 million from fighter jet, cancel tactical vehicle

Megan Scully — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, who chairs the defense panel and the full committee, assured his colleagues that the bill covers the military's most pressing needs despite the sizeable cut, which was mandated in the Budget Control Act lawmakers approved last month.

"This recommendation takes care of our men and women in uniform and their families," Inouye said during the brief markup. "It fully supports military readiness, protects the forces and maintains our technological edge."

The cut to the $9.7 billion request for the Joint Strike Fighter, the largest single program on the Pentagon's books, comes as the Lockheed Martin jet's backers on Capitol Hill launch a public campaign to protect it from sharp reductions.

During Tuesday's markup, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said she was concerned that the reduction would ultimately drive up the price tag of the aircraft because it slows down production rates. Lockheed assembles the aircraft at its Ft. Worth, Texas, plant. But Hutchison said she would not oppose the bill.

Inouye said he supports the F-35 and believes the program officials have made progress correcting cost and schedule problems with the fighter over the last year. But he is recommending freezing production rates at this year's levels for 2012 and 2013 to allow more time for officials to get the program on track. The goal, he suggested, is to reduce costs by stabilizing the program before the Pentagon ramps up its buys.

"The test program is only 10 percent complete, yet the request continues to ramp up production of aircraft in fiscal years 2012 and 2013," he said. "For each aircraft we build this early in the test program, we will have to pay many millions in the future to fix the problems that are identified in testing."

Inouye said he canceled Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, which would ultimately replace the ubiquitous Humvee, because costs had increased significantly and the military had constantly changed its requirements. The Pentagon had requested $243.9 billion for the program.

"The committee believes that alternatives exist today to meet the Army and Marine Corps' requirements to recapitalize and competitively upgrade the Humvee fleet, and supports funding for those programs," Inouye said.

In total, the bill includes more than 600 line-item reductions, most of which the committee made because of program terminations, schedule delays, program changes, inadequate justification from the Pentagon, unaffordable costs or "corrections to poor fiscal discipline," Inouye said. The budget for the Air Force's new aerial refueling tanker, for instance, was trimmed by $135 million after the Air Force told the committee it could not spend all of the funds requested for the program next year.

The bill fully funds the $117.8 billion requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but did shift some money within those accounts to pay for more pressing needs. Indeed, the panel cut $5 billion because of planned force reductions in Afghanistan and another $1.6 billion requested for Afghanistan's security forces. After the markup, Inouye told reporters that the committee redirects those war funds to equipment and other priorities.

The full appropriations committee will meet Thursday afternoon to mark up the bill.

]]>

War-related contracting wasted up to $60 billion, commission reports

Megan Scully — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Releasing its report on Wednesday, the bipartisan commission set up by Congress urged lawmakers to enact many of its recommendations in order to prevent billions more in wasteful spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It found that between $31 billion and $60 billion spent on projects in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years has been lost to waste and fraud. That amounts to as much as 29 percent of the $206 billion spent on security, infrastructure, and other projects in those two countries over the last decade. If the amount of contract fraud and waste falls in the middle of the commission's estimated range - and at least one commissioner said he believes it is closer to the high end -- the commission concluded that it comes to $12 million wasted every day for the last 10 years.

"The commission sunsets on Sept. 30, but the problems in contingency contracting do not," said former Rep. Chris Shays, D-Conn., the commission's co-chair. "There is still time to make a difference in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there will be new contingencies."

The commission acknowledged that many of its recommendations, such as the creation of a permanent inspector general for contingency operations and more personnel and resources to protect the government's interests in war contracting, would require an upfront investment during a time of fiscal belt-tightening.

But several of the eight commissioners argued that the money required to implement the reforms would be significantly outweighed by the savings generated.

"Unfortunately, the current stress on the budget may discourage members of Congress from supporting the investments that some of our recommendations would require," Shays said. "I appreciate the difficulty of proposing new spending in a time of revenue constraints, but some of the reforms require no new spending and some could be made by simply reallocating existing resources."

But holding back funds and blocking the reforms that do require some upfront funds "would really be false economy," Shays added.

Among its 15 recommendations, the commission wants Congress to provide resources for contingency contracting reform to mitigate the problems uncovered in the report. In addition, the commission wants lawmakers to pass legislation requiring the agencies to provide updates on their efforts to implement the recommendations.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight and who pushed for the creation of the commission, said she intends "to go at this as hard as I know how." McCaskill, a former state auditor, said the commission's recommendations could save billions and could make it easier to find the significant cuts to the military's budget that are expected over the next 10 years.

"Particularly in this budget climate, we cannot waste this kind of money under the umbrella of contracting practices," she said during a teleconference with reporters.

There could be amendments as a result of the commission's report made to the fiscal 2012 defense authorization and appropriations bills, which are both expected to move through the Senate this fall, McCaskill said. Several congressional committees are expected to hold hearings on the report after lawmakers return to Capitol Hill next week.

Shays, meanwhile, said he hopes the super committee charged with trimming the federal deficit by at least $1.2 trillion reviews the commission's recommendations to find savings.

"We're just one small part of their mammoth task, but if they don't take a good look at it, it would be a failing," he said.

]]>

Pentagon personnel chief investigated for 'tyrannical' leadership

Megan Scully — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Senior civilian and military officials filed at least four separate complaints with the IG's office and to Capitol Hill since May, alleging that Stanley, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, has hurt the military's ability to deliver crucial services to troops and their families. Stanley, a retired two-star Marine Corps general, has been on the job since February 2010.

Stanley did not respond to email and phone messages seeking comment for this article. Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said "the department is aware of the allegations and takes them seriously." She added, "As a matter of policy, the DOD IG does not confirm or deny the existence of, or comment upon investigations or investigative issues."

In the complaints, four of which were obtained by National Journal, Stanley is portrayed as vindictive, wasteful, and unfit for service. The officials charge in their complaints that he has largely ignored pervasive problems such as sexual assault and the rising rates of suicides among military personnel. Other senior officials outside Stanley's office have stepped in to handle some of his core responsibilities, according to a July 11 complaint filed by unidentified senior civilians and military personnel.

"He has created a dysfunctional command marked by fear and mistrust through a capricious, tyrannical and arbitrary leadership," the complaint states. "Waste, fraud and abuse of power are rampant. Even if he were competent, his destructive leadership would assure 'P&R' (personnel and readiness) mission failure."

The investigation into Stanley, one of the Pentagon's most senior and powerful appointees, could pose the first significant personnel challenge for new Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. His predecessor Robert Gates didn't hesitate to fire senior officials for poor performance, at one point even flying to Afghanistan to sack one four-star general commander.

While the inspector general's decision to launch an investigation does not confirm any wrongdoing on Stanley's part, the complaints from these whistle-blowers have made their way around the Pentagon. Moreover, the unusual nature of the complaints -- and the high stakes involved -- have not been lost on the House Armed Services Committee, which received the July 11 document. A committee staffer said the letter marked the first time in anyone's memory the panel received a complaint from such a senior level about an under secretary. The staffer said the committee will defer to the inspector general until the work is done.

Inspector general complaints lodged against government officials are not uncommon. But what makes the case against Stanley different from most is the sheer number of the complaints targeting one of the Pentagon's most well-known officials.

Like the July 11 complaint, most of the missives sent to the IG office and the Capitol are anonymous because of concerns of reprisal. "Dr Stanley has demonstrated that he is vindictive against those who merely offer contrary opinions," the July 11 complaint claims. "The reprisals he would carry out against those who lodged a complaint would be severe."

Several officials who work or have worked within various personnel and readiness offices spoke with National Journal on condition of anonymity, and they back many of the allegations made in the complaints against Stanley. The complaints charge that Stanley decimated much of the institutional knowledge within personnel and readiness offices by transferring, firing, or forcing into retirement 30 civilians in the top-tier senior executive service ranks. A senior P&R official said he couldn't believe all 30 were unfit for their jobs, saying it cost the department a huge loss in brain trust.

At least two other officials - a colonel and a high-ranking government civilian -- were fired on the spot, sending a "chilling tone" throughout P&R offices, according to the July 11 complaint. Other allegations in the various complaints suggest that Stanley has hired unqualified people, including at least one friend, to replace high-level staff.

Stanley, meanwhile, has created new and often redundant positions within P&R, at an added expense to the Defense Department, according to a May complaint filed by unnamed Defense Department executives. In one case, Stanley tapped former Maine Gov. John Baldacci to be the department's "health czar." Officials argue in the complaint that Baldacci and his team are doing work that should be handled by the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs and his staff.

At a time when the Defense Department is trying to cut the amount of work it outsources, Stanley has also spent more than $5 million on a contract with McKinsey & Co. to help create a strategic plan for P&R and conduct an employee survey. According to the May complaint, McKinsey contractors completed the employee survey in the fall, but Stanley refused to release it because it was so "damaging", adding: "If the survey were given again, the results would be even more damning."

The July 11 complaint, meanwhile, takes issue with McKinsey contractors assisting with the strategic plan, an "inherently governmental" function that, legally, must be handled by defense officials. A P&R official said on condition of anonymity that it should have been done, and could have been done, inhouse.

Like the employee survey, the strategic plan has not been released, according to the complaints.

Others, meanwhile, have taken issue with Stanley's decision to build an expensive new conference room - whose price tag is estimated to be in the range of $360,000 to nearly $500,000 -- at a time when critical accounts, including programs for wounded warriors, have been cut. By one estimate, each chair in the new conference room cost about the annual salary of a lance corporal.

An August 3 complaint asserts that wounded-warrior accounts helped pay for both the McKinsey contract and the conference room. That complaint, which was sent to Congerss as well as to the IG from officials who work on wounded-warrior issues, says the money would have been better spent on the "Warrior Games," which is aimed at rebuilding injured troops' self-esteem and confidence as they transition to civilian life. Funding for that program was slashed as part of a broader $11 million cut to wounded-warrior accounts.

"So these heroes really paid for the soft chairs and $30,000 of wall decor (and a lot more) so Dr. Stanley could hold his morning staff meetings in luxury," according to the complaint.

Building the conference room is certainly not illegal. But one P&R official asserted in a July 13 complaint that it flies in the face of efforts within the Pentagon to cut unnecessary overhead. Stanley already had one conference room at his disposal in addition to other meeting rooms available throughout the Pentagon.

"The fact that this extravagance was clearly inconsistent with direction from the president and Secretary Gates to eliminate waste and efficiency was troubling to many," according to the July 13 complaint.

Officials interviewed for this story stressed that Stanley's leadership has had repercussions across the force. Many pointed to the system used to evaluate wounded personnel's disabilities as one of Stanley's biggest leadership failures. Processing time has grown from 291 days in May 2010 to 404 days in June 2011 -- leaving wounded personnel in limbo for more than a year.

"This means that because of Dr. Stanley's disruptive leadership and siphoning of funds for other purposes, a wounded warrior who lost a leg or his eyesight is now languishing in a Warrior Transition Unit this day for an additional 100 days!" officials wrote in the complaint filed earlier this month. "This fact pains us enormously."

]]>

Army secretary creates commission to simplify bureaucracy

Megan Scully — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

McHugh, who announced the commission on Monday, said the Institutional Army Transformation Commission will build on the work of a short-term task force he created earlier this year to cut unnecessary overhead from the Army's accounts.

"To date, that task force has launched efforts to root out overlap and redundancies in research and development, review temporary organizations and task forces to see if they are still needed, consolidate and streamline the requirements process, reform installations management, optimize Army acquisitions, and make changes in human capital management," McHugh told an audience of the department's most senior civilians.

But the former New York congressman acknowledged that large-scale institutional change can take years. The commission, which will be in place for three years, will implement changes already identified by the task force and identify new opportunities for cost savings.

"This longer-term, more enduring approach is historically and practically necessary and will help make continuous transformation a part of Army culture," said McHugh, who served as the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee before becoming Army secretary in 2009.

While the fighting force has transformed during the last decade of war, the institutional Army -- the offices and commands that prepare, educate and support troops-has changed little since the 1970s.

"We're not just asking people to change the way they budget," McHugh said. "We're asking them to change the way they think."

The creation of the commission comes as the Pentagon seeks to cut roughly $350 billion from its base budget over the next 10 years. A so-called super committee of 12 Democratic and Republican lawmakers could also target the military's budgets for additional cuts later this year as it works to cut at least $1.2 trillion from the nation's deficit.

If the committee fails to find the requisite savings, the Defense Department would be targeted for an additional $500 billion across-the-board cut between 2013 and 2021-a scenario that senior defense officials have called dangerous.

The cuts come after a decade of historical growth to the Defense Department's base budget, which has more than doubled since 2001. The Pentagon's base-budget request for next year is $553 billion, with another $118 billion requested for the wars.

]]>

House GOP chairmen balk at defense cuts

Megan Scully — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

None of the three lawmakers -- House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla. -- are on the powerful joint committee charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in savings, nor are any GOP members of their respective panels.

But their demands, outlined in an August 10 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and White House budget chief Jack Lew, seem timed to influence the committee's work, as well as ongoing budget negotiations within the administration for fiscal 2013.

Legislation enacted earlier this month does not mandate a specific upfront cut from the Defense Department, but rather places caps on discretionary spending to find an initial government-wide $900 billion in savings aimed at reducing the deficit.

The White House, however, has said it intends to use those caps to reduce the Defense Department's base budget by $350 billion over the next 10 years - a move that is in line with an announcement President Obama made in April to reduce security spending by $400 billion over 12 years.

"This would be an unprecedented drawdown in defense while U.S. forces are committed to contingency operations in Afghanistan and Libya, and possibly still in Iraq," the lawmakers wrote.

What's even more troubling to defense hawks, however, is if the joint committee fails to find the requisite $1.2 trillion in savings. The Defense Department would be targeted for an additional $500 billion across-the-board cut, dubbed "sequestration," between 2013 and 2021 - a scenario that senior defense officials have called dangerous.

Sequestration is intended to be a worst-case scenario that party leaders hope would prevent partisan gridlock and force both sides to come to an agreement by the Thanksgiving deadline. Domestic accounts would be similarly targeted, providing both parties with strong incentive to compromise.

But defense hawks continue to worry that sequestration could become reality -- and, according to the letter, that the Office of Management and Budget may be directing the Pentagon to plan its budgets around it.

The Pentagon has said it is planning only for the $350 billion cut, but the lawmakers asked OMB to clarify what it wants the department to use as its basis as it prepares the budget proposal it will deliver to Congress in February.

"In your recent press conference, Secretary Panetta, you stated that the cuts contemplated by sequestration would 'do real damage to our national security, our troops and their families, and our military's ability to protect the nation,'" the GOP lawmakers wrote. "Therefore we ask about the national security consequences if the 'doomsday mechanism' is triggered and sequestration takes place for fiscal years 2013-2021."

In their letter, the chairmen also criticized the administration for taking a "budget-first approach" and targeting the Pentagon for $350 billion in cuts before military officials complete their ongoing review of strategy, missions and requirements.

The lawmakers want a peak at any preliminary conclusions from the Pentagon's ongoing strategic review to inform debate on the spending bill for fiscal 2012, which begins in less than two months. The joint committee could also presumably use that information during its deliberations this fall.

"Since we have not seen the outcome of the administration's strategic review, it is imperative that members of Congress, and particularly members of our committees, obtain a letter of understanding of the impact of these reductions on the Defense Department and its ability to meet its mission," they wrote.

]]>

Cutting F-35 would be complicated, costly, Pentagon says

Megan Scully — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

With a Senate showdown over the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter expected when the chamber debates the defense authorization bill this fall, Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn has told key lawmakers that canceling the stealthy aircraft would be a costly and complicated move.

In a July 25 letter to Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., Lynn said that the Defense Department would have to pay termination costs to the plane's maker, Lockheed Martin, as well Pratt & Whitney, which builds the engine for the multiservice fighter, if Congress killed the program.

Both contracts contain clauses governing termination, but the total costs to the government incurred by canceling the program--which is the largest on the Pentagon's books--would require a "detailed analysis" of the aircraft, the engine and sustainment contracts, Lynn wrote.

Lynn, who was responding to questions posed by the two senators, added that agreements already in place to sell the aircraft to several allies would further complicate any effort to end the massive program.

Reiterating arguments made by other defense officials who support keeping the F-35 program alive despite a history of cost and schedule problems, Lynn stressed that "there is no alternative to the JSF program that delivers an acceptable level of capability at a lower cost."

Frustrated with the cost hikes on the fighter jet, McCain has said he plans to offer an amendment during floor debate that could eventually kill the fighter program.

During the committee's closed-door markup of the defense authorization bill in June, McCain offered an amendment that would have put the F-35 on probation on December 31 because of cost hikes. The fighter would be terminated a year later if the program's price tag remained 10 percent or more above Lockheed Martin's target cost.

The committee split, 13-13, and the amendment failed to make it into the bill. But McCain has signaled that he wants to take his fight to the full Senate.

"We'll revisit it on the floor," McCain told reporters in June. The committee's tied vote was "ample testimony to the lobbying power of Lockheed Martin. That's all it was."

Last month, the Pentagon notified Congress that the price tag for the first 28 fighters had grown by $771 million. To pay for a fraction of those increases, defense officials want to shift $264 million in funding--tapping $179 million intended for other programs and $85 million set aside for an F-35 award fee that Lockheed Martin will not receive.

All four congressional defense committees must sign off on a reprogramming request before the Pentagon can shift the funds. Congress left for August recess before the panels all agreed to the request.

McCain, who has called the cost increases "outrageous," tweeted July 14 that he intended to oppose the request. "The buck stops here," he said.

In his letter, Lynn said that the government is responsible for paying for the increases under the cost-plus-incentive fee contracts negotiated for the first three lots of aircraft. After problems forced the Pentagon to restructure the program last year, defense officials negotiated a fixed-price contract for the fourth lot of fighters.

If all four congressional defense committees do not sign off on the reprogramming, the Pentagon will have to move money within the F-35 accounts, including potentially siphoning money from three of the Air Force planes planned for this year, Lynn wrote.

Another approach could be cutting funds for tooling, sustainment, and spare parts for the fifth lot of aircraft, which Lynn said would have the "undesirable effect" of increasing the program's costs in the future.

]]>

Panetta tries to assuage Pentagon budget-cutting concerns

Megan Scully — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Wednesday attempted to assuage concerns about the debt ceiling deal's planned $350 billion cut to the Pentagon's budget over the next 10 years, stressing that military leaders have been anticipating a reduction of that size since President Obama announced a similar proposal in April.

But Panetta expressed deep reservations about the prospects for an additional $500 billion cut that would hit the Pentagon if a joint congressional committee created to find another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction savings fails to do its job.

"If that happens, it could trigger a round of dangerous across-the-board defense cuts that would do real damage to our security, our troops, and their families, and our ability to protect the nation," Panetta wrote in a lengthy letter circulated to Defense Department personnel.

That cut, or "trigger," is meant to be a worst-case scenario, forcing both parties to negotiate to find the requisite savings. Domestic discretionary funding would get a similar hit.

"It is designed to be unpalatable to spur responsible, balanced deficit reduction and avoid misguided cuts to our security," Panetta wrote.

Panetta pledged to reject "hasty, ill-conceived" cuts to the Pentagon's budget reminiscent of those put in place after the Vietnam War. Spending choices, he added, must be based on sound strategy and policy.

A former White House budget chief and House Budget Committee chairman, Panetta said he will move the Pentagon toward a successful audit of its books as quickly as possible -- a financial goal that has eluded the department for 14 years. Without an audit, many lawmakers and budget watchers worry the Pentagon cannot track how it spends its money, making the department vulnerable to wasteful spending.

"That will change," Panetta said. "I have directed that this requirement be put in place as soon as possible. America deserves nothing less."

Congress first required the Pentagon to complete an audit of its books by 1997, but the deadline was pushed back each time department officials failed to meet it. The current deadline is 2017, but lawmakers are doubtful the Pentagon can overcome its financial management problems in time.

The military, Panetta added, can no longer afford to spend more than it should on new weapons. "Going forward, we must ensure that the military gets the effective and affordable weapons it needs by redoubling our efforts to ensure procurement discipline," he wrote.

On Tuesday, President Obama nominated Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter to be the next deputy Defense secretary, signaling that further reforms to the way the Pentagon buys its weapons will be key to cost-cutting at the Defense Department.

]]>

Joint Chiefs nominee warns against deeper defense cuts

Megan Scully — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. Martin Dempsey said that any efforts to cut more than $400 billion from security accounts over the next 12 years would carry heavy risks for the military.

Obama in April proposed the $400 billion cut to security accounts, for which the Pentagon is expected to be the biggest target. But some in Congress have pushed for far deeper cuts - perhaps more than doubling Obama's plan, although no final number or strategy has yet been agreed to. During a speech on Monday night, Obama was vague on defense, saying only that cuts to the Pentagon would be in the "hundreds of billions of dollars."

A cut in the range of $800 billion "would be extraordinarily difficult and very high risk," Dempsey said on Tuesday.

The four-star general, who was sworn in as Army chief in April and quickly became Obama's pick to be the military's next top officer, said that finding $400 billion in security cuts is difficult. Officials are currently combing through the Pentagon's accounts to find those savings, with plans to wrap up the review this fall.

Senate Armed Services ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., acknowledged that there are savings to be found in the defense budget. But he criticized the administration for setting a number for security cuts before completing a strategic review.

The Defense Department's budget, which accounts for more than half of all federal discretionary spending, is very much on the table during the ongoing negotiations to increase the debt ceiling. Obama's proposal to cut $400 billion in security spending may ultimately be only a starting point.

Dempsey said that spending cuts would affect the Defense Department's broad budget portfolio, from equipment funds to accounts that pay for operations and training. But he warned that making cuts while the United States is involved in two wars only increases the difficulty of finding significant savings.

"That adds a degree of complexity and a degree of uncertainty that I think we can't discount," he told the committee.

]]>

GOP lawmaker balks at 'Gang of Six' defense cuts

Megan Scully — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., who has stalwartly opposed deep cuts to defense spending, on Wednesday sent a memo to Republicans on his panel blasting the "Gang of Six" proposal for targeting the Pentagon's accounts.

Seizing on an analysis of the bipartisan Senate group's plan released on Tuesday by the House Budget Committee, McKeon said the proposal would cut $886 billion in security spending over the next 10 years.

A summary of the gang's proposal circulated on Tuesday contained little detail on defense or other security cuts. But the gang has said its plan is consistent with suggestions made by the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, which recommended trimming security accounts by $886 billion over the next decade.

The Defense Department's budget, which makes up the vast majority of security spending, would presumably be the target for most of those cuts.

Nearly half of the discretionary savings in the proposal would come from security accounts, McKeon wrote to his colleagues. The Pentagon's budget - which, including war spending, totals nearly $700 billion annually -- makes up more than half of all federal discretionary spending.

In his memo, McKeon said the proposal would require changes to military retirement and other benefits - a difficult issue on Capitol Hill, where many lawmakers are reluctant to scale back compensation and benefits for current and retired service personnel.

"It is our belief that this proposal raises serious implications for defense and would not allow us to perform our constitutional responsibility to provide for the safety and security of our country or keep faith with men and women in uniform," McKeon wrote.

President Obama has already proposed cutting security accounts by $400 billion over the next 12 years. But last week he said he would be willing to trim hundreds of billions more, if necessary. Members of both parties have backed deep cuts to defense, with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., proposing earlier this week to slash $1 trillion from the Defense Department's budget over the next decade.

The Gang of Six's proposal has been met with stiff opposition in the House, making it unlikely that the plan, at least in its entirety, will be adopted. But House members may be able to get onboard with several provisions in the proposal.

Most other Republicans on Armed Services will likely back McKeon in his opposition to further defense cuts. But the number and influence of hawkish Republicans has been dwindling as fiscal conservatives continue to stress that all federal spending -- including the Defense Department's accounts, which were once considered sacrosanct -- must be considered for cuts.

There is already precedence in the Republican-controlled House for curbing defense spending. Despite calls from McKeon and his allies, the chamber earlier this month passed a defense appropriations bill that cut $9 billion from the Pentagon's budget request for next year.

]]>

Senate confirms Petraeus as CIA director

Megan Scully — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Army's No. 2 officer worries about war's toll on mental health

Megan Scully — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army's No. 2 officer, hardly goes anywhere without his brain chart. It has three images: a normal brain, the brain of a comatose person, and the brain of a conscious person who has just suffered a traumatic brain injury. It doesn't take a neurologist to see that there is very little difference between the brain of the person in a coma and that of the person with the traumatic brain injury. And that is precisely Chiarelli's point.

The four-star general has become an advocate for soldiers suffering from the invisible wounds of war. He's candid about the toll that a decade of fighting has taken on the mental health of many of his troops. But Chiarelli is hopeful that the Army is making the necessary cultural changes-and that the military is taking the lead on innovative solutions-to deal with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. Edited excerpts of his interview with National Journal follow.

NJ: Statistics show that more members of the military kill themselves than die in combat. Has the Army made progress in this area?

CHIARELLI: I definitely think that we have made progress, but we're fighting an uphill battle. The underlying cause, the stress on the force, the things that are causing the stress on the force, still remain when you have operational-tempo levels that are at what they are right now, especially after 10 years
of conflict.

NJ: Will the suicide rates turn around only when the Army reaches its goal of one year deployed for every two years at home?

CHIARELLI: It's not when you get to 1:2. No one is at 1:2 until they've spent 24 months at home. So it will probably be two years after we reach that point that you will start to see that. But 1:2, frankly, is not sustainable. So this is a huge issue here. It affects not only suicides; it affects the high-risk behavior that you see.

NJ: By high-risk behavior, do you mean alcohol abuse?

CHIARELLI: Overuse of alcohol, prescription-drug abuse. There are folks who have anger-management issues, some that are caused by post-traumatic stress. Post-traumatic stress is something that concerns me because we know-at least, the [National Institute of Mental Health] claims-that an individual who suffers from post-traumatic stress is six times more likely to attempt to commit suicide.

NJ: You are trying to drop the D from PTSD. Why?

CHIARELLI: Words mean something, and if you leave that D, there are some people who think it's a preexisting condition that someone had. I submit to you, it's not. It's caused by an event or a series of events that causes a person to literally have the frontal cortex of the brain not operate the way it's supposed to operate.

NJ: The Army has long had a stigma about mental health.

CHIARELLI: Not the Army, not the military. It's everybody. I believe that the stigma associated with behavioral health issues is something that is shared by the general public. We're just admitting it. And what the Army's trying to do internal to itself is to change that culture. We have a lot of folks who are very focused on the mission who don't want to let their buddies down. Sometimes that gets in the way of seeking the help that they want and need.

NJ: You have expressed concern about the level of research into post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. What worries you?

CHIARELLI: We do not know how to treat post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury with the same kind of assurance that we know how to treat what I call the mechanical injuries of this war. The science is just not there. There is a lot of wonderful, very important research going on. The problem is if you're an operator like me who likes to fix things quickly. It takes a long time.

NJ: Is technology the answer?

CHIARELLI: It's a mix of leadership; it's a mix of technology. I can look at a kid who has lost his leg below his knee or a kid who has lost both of his legs, and I can at least tell him or her that you are going to be in a better place than you are today six months from now. With the cognitive issues, I can't say that with certainty.

NJ: Is the military's medical culture changing to address these problems?

CHIARELLI: There's no doubt that we've changed. We've totally done a 180. But have we done enough? No. I want to do more, quicker. I want to have more of these secrets unlocked faster. I want to understand what drugs we should use to treat these symptoms, if we should use any drugs at all. I want to look into alternative pain management. We are finding there are other ways to handle pain that are more effective and allow a person to feel a lot better than throwing a bagful of drugs at them.

]]>

Mullen initially wanted slower Afghan drawdown

Megan Scully — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Ahead of Obama speech, key senator pushes withdrawal

Megan Scully — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Panetta confirmed as Defense secretary

Megan Scully — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0400

In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, the Senate on Tuesday voted unanimously to confirm CIA chief Leon Panetta as the next Defense secretary.

Panetta, who sailed through his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, will succeed Robert Gates at the Pentagon on July 1 during a particularly crucial time for the Defense Department, both at home and overseas.

From his first day on the job, Panetta will be tasked with implementing the start of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan; President Obama is to announce the plans on Wednesday.

Like others before him, Panetta has called progress in Afghanistan "fragile and reversible," but he said he believes that the administration can begin to significantly reduce the U.S. presence there. During his confirmation hearing, Panetta also said that any cuts to the deployed U.S. force should be based on conditions on the ground and should not put at risk plans to pull combat troops out of the country by 2014.

Panetta's thinking appears to be in line with Obama's. The president is expected to announce plans for a "phased withdrawal" that would bring one combat brigade, or about 5,000 troops, home over the summer and begin pulling out a second brigade by the end of the year.

As he implements the Afghanistan drawdown, Panetta must also manage the military's ongoing operations in Iraq and Libya--and the latter could become an early political challenge for the new Defense secretary despite his strong relationships on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are growing increasingly frustrated with Obama's refusal to seek congressional approval for the Libya operations, and some are agitating to cut off funding for the effort.

Within the Pentagon itself, the former Office of Management and Budget director and House Budget Committee chairman faces the daunting task of cutting the Defense Department's budget, which has more than doubled during the last decade, including war funding. Obama has announced plans to slash $400 billion from security spending over the next 12 years, and the military's budget is expected to bear the brunt of those reduced.

The Pentagon is now undergoing a "comprehensive review" to determine which areas--including force structure and missions--should be cut. Panetta said he agrees with the approach that the department is taking to find the cuts, and said that the Pentagon must "look at each area and determine where we're going to achieve savings in order to protect defense."

]]>

Senate panel cuts $6.4 billion from Pentagon request

Megan Scully — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0400

After a week of closed-door negotiations, the Senate Armed Services Committee has approved a $682.5 billion defense authorization bill, trimming a modest $6.4 billion from the Pentagon's request for next year.

The sprawling defense bill, which sets Pentagon policy in addition to prescribing funding levels, includes language on detainees supported by both parties that would permanently prohibit the use of Defense Department funds for building facilities in the U.S. to house detainees now held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But in a conference call with reporters Friday, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said the bill does not prohibit the transfer of detainees to existing facilities in the United States for trials.

The detainee provision, adopted by a 25-1 vote, would also establish limitations on transferring detainees to other countries "to ensure that all possible steps have been taken" so they do not return to the battlefield.

In addition, the language creates a statutory basis for detaining terrorist suspects indefinitely. Under current law, there is no procedure for detaining prisoners long-term.

"We're in the middle of a war that doesn't have an end," Levin said.

The language also requires the Defense Department to issue procedures addressing "ambiguities" in the process set up to review detainees held at Guantanamo, giving the Secretary of Defense final responsibility for any decisions to release or transfer the prisoners. In addition, the language would clarify procedures for guilty pleas in trials by military commission.

On Afghanistan, the bill requires the Defense Department to establish benchmarks for progress in transferring security of Afghanistan to the country's police and military forces, and requires defense officials to brief Congress twice a year.

Earlier in the week, Levin had signaled that he may make a pre-emptive strike at the fiscal 2012 defense budget to jumpstart the planned $400 billion in cuts to security spending over the next 12 years. But the committee's $6.4 billion cut is smaller than the $9 billion cut approved earlier this week by the House Appropriations Committee.

The committee-approved authorization bill does make some reductions to defense programs, including cutting nine aircraft and $496 million from the Navy's popular F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter jet program. The panel says in its statement that the program was cut because of additional funds for the fighters provided in last year's war funding account.

The committee also cut $127.1 million of the $877.1 million requested to develop the Air Force's next aerial refueling tanker, arguing that the amount in the Pentagon's budget proposal exceeds what program officials need to keep the tanker effort on track.

The bill authorizes $10.3 billion for missile defense programs, including the $8.6 billion requested for the Missile Defense Agency. But the bill cuts all funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System, which the Pentagon has deemed unaffordable and no longer plans to buy. The Army, however, was locked into paying its 57 percent share of the initial development to avoid high termination costs and to benefit its two international partners, Germany and Italy.

The bill also cuts more than $1 billion from military construction and family housing programs, and another $1.1 billion for the acquisition of contract services.

But the measure adds $322 million to the Army's effort to modernize the M1 Abrams tank, which would allow the service to upgrade an additional 49 tanks next year. Service officials had planned to upgrade only 21 tanks. Boosting funds for the program, according to the committee, would allow the Army "to preserve minimum industrial capability" through next year.

The bill also authorizes the $6.9 billion requested to procure F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for the Navy and Air Force. But the measure puts new requirements on the program, including ensuring that the next contract for the fifth-generation fighters is a fixed-price deal. The committee's bill also requires the contractor, Lockheed Martin, to absorb all cost overruns.

The F-35, which is the largest program on the Pentagon's books, has suffered through heavy cost overruns and schedule delays. The Defense Department has said it has made significant progress on the Navy and Air Force versions of the stealth fighter, but the Marine Corps variant continues to have problems and has been placed on a two-year probation.

In a statement on Friday, Senate Armed Services ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., said the committee rejected his efforts "to stop the out-of-control overruns of the F-35 program."

"The Defense Authorization bill is an important piece of legislation while our country continues to be engaged in two wars, and therefore I voted to move the bill out of committee," McCain said. "Nevertheless, I will continue my efforts to fight the egregious and wasteful spending during debate on the floor of the Senate."

]]>

Mullen: Clock ticking for decision on Afghanistan troop withdrawal numbers

Megan Scully — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that Petraeus's recommendation will "kick off the process" and will be key to any decisions made. The ultimate decision, though, he stressed, will be President Obama's.

"Certainly we're all aware that the president has committed to a decision to start [withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan] in July," Mullen said. "We think the process will move forward here pretty rapidly, certainly within the next few weeks."

Mullen did not discuss how many of the roughly 100,000 U.S. troops could leave Afghanistan this summer. "I can honestly say nobody knows what the answer is at this given point in time," Mullen said.

But the four-star admiral, who plans to retire on September 30, says any military recommendation on troop withdrawals will not be a setback for security gains made in the fragile country.

There has been mounting political pressure to accelerate the withdrawal in the weeks following the military raid that took out Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But Mullen on Thursday said it is "way too early to accurately assess the impact of bin Laden's death" in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

In terms of Pakistan, Mullen said he remains committed to maintaining military-to-military relations with Islamabad despite strains in the two countries' relationships since bin Laden was found living in a compound in Pakistan.

"We all agree we're going through a pretty tough time right now and that's going to continue," he said. But Mullen, who traveled to Pakistan last week, added that the "worst thing we could do would be to cut them off."

Mullen did acknowledge that the United States has made "very significant" cuts in its military training with Pakistan. "This reduction comes on top of a considerable expansion over the course of the last two years," he said.

]]>

White House threatens to veto defense bill

Megan Scully — Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 -0400

The White House has threatened to veto the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill if it keeps the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on life support.

The administration, which has been involved in a long-simmering debate with Capitol Hill over the engine, delivered its veto threats on Tuesday afternoon, just as the House prepared to begin debate on the $690 billion authorization measure.

The bill does not authorize any funding for the alternate engine, but it contains policy measures aimed at keeping the program alive -- albeit at the expense of contractors General Electric and Rolls Royce. Pratt & Whitney builds the primary engine for the stealth fighter.

In its Statement of Administration Policy, the administration particularly took issue with language in the legislation to require the military to buy both engines if the Defense Department requires more power for the jets. The administration wrote that improvements to the engine are "likely to be needed," but argued that continuing to develop and procure the alternate engine would "destabilize" the F-35 program.

"If the final bill presented to the president includes funding or a legislative direction to continue an extra engine program, the president's senior advisers will recommend a veto," according to the SAP.

The White House also opposes language that requires the Defense Department to preserve the GE/Rolls Royce engines, arguing that it would add unnecessary costs. However, it does not appear that language could provoke a presidential veto of the sprawling defense bill.

Interestingly, the White House did not react to language added during the House Armed Services Committee's markup earlier this month that requires GE and Rolls Royce to have access to the government-owned engines and test facilities -- a provision that has been at the core of GE and Rolls Royce's lobbying efforts this year.

Over the last two administrations, the Pentagon has said the second engine is simply unaffordable and unnecessary. But supporters on Capitol Hill -- particularly on the House Armed Services Committee -- have countered that maintaining two engines would ultimately drive down costs and improve the product. The cancellation of the alternate engine, the committee has argued, would give Pratt & Whitney a lock on the $110 billion international market.

In a significant victory for the administration, lawmakers voted earlier this year to strike $450 million in funding for the second engine. Recognizing the political futility of persuading an increasingly deficit-conscious Congress to fund an expensive program the military doesn't want, GE instead pushed for access to the engines and test facilities. The firm has said it would dig into its own pockets to fund the program, which would cost upward of $100 million annually.

The House will begin debate on the authorization measure on Wednesday, but no new engine-related amendments have been drafted. To avoid a veto, any controversial provisions would have to be stripped out or watered down during conference negotiations with the Senate later this year.

As it heads to the floor, the bill carries other veto threats -- including language that the White House fears would tie its hands as it tries to implement the New START arms-reduction treaty with Russia. The provision, added to the bill during the markup, would delay full implementation of the treaty until after the secretaries of Defense and Energy update Congress on their plans to modernize the nation's nuclear infrastructure.

Nuclear modernization was the key issue during negotiations between the White House and Senate Republicans last year on New START. To assuage GOP concerns and get the 67 votes necessary for Senate approval of the treaty, the White House promised to spend $85 billion over the next 10 years on updating warheads and modernizing the nuclear weapons complex.

The White House has also threatened to veto the bill over a similar provision that would require the president to report to Congress before making any changes to the United States' nuclear employment strategy. That language, according to the White House, raises "constitutional concerns as it appears to encroach on the president's authority as commander in chief."

President Obama also might wield his veto pen if the final bill includes many of the committee-endorsed provisions on holding and prosecuting detainees, including language that prohibits the administration from transferring certain detainees held at the military's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States.

Congress has inserted similar provisions in other bills, but the White House said the authorization language "unnecessarily constrains our nation's counterterrorism efforts and would undermine our national security, particularly where our federal courts are the best -- or even the only -- option for incapacitating dangerous terrorists."

]]>

Gates: Avoiding talk of cuts is 'managerial cowardice'

Megan Scully — Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 -0400

The U.S. military, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, must take a hard look at military force structure and determine what is essential -- and then be honest with Congress and the White House about the consequences of cuts.

"To shirk this discussion of risks and consequences -- and the hard decisions that must follow -- I would regard as managerial cowardice," he said.

As the Pentagon launches a review to find $400 billion in cuts to its budget over the next 12 years, defense officials are weighing whether to abandon the primary assumption behind military planning for the last two decades -- that the U.S. military must be prepared to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously.

During one of his last policy addresses before he leaves the Pentagon next month, Gates on Tuesday acknowledged the low probability that two major wars would break out at the same time. But he suggested defense officials must also consider the risks of reducing the military's force structure to the point it could not respond to such a scenario.

"One can assume certain things won't happen on account of their apparently low probability. But the enemy always has a vote," Gates said at the American Enterprise Institute. "These are the kinds of scenarios we need to consider, the kinds of discussions we need to have."

Gates said he would rather have a "smaller but superbly capable military than a larger, hollow, less capable one." But he also warned that a smaller military will be able to deploy fewer places and conduct fewer missions.

As they review defense plans, budgets, and force structure, defense officials also are trying to strike a balance between a focus on combating high-end, sophisticated enemies and far less sophisticated counterinsurgencies.

"My view is you've got to figure out a way to be able to deal with that," Gates said. "How much you need to deal with that, I think, is the analytical challenge."

But Gates also downplayed the impact of the proposed cuts, which are part of the White House's overall plan to rein in the deficit. The $400 billion in cuts over 12 years amounts to a 5 percent decrease in the defense budget, in constant dollars. By comparison, defense spending declined by about one-third between 1985 and 1998.

"What's being proposed by the president is nothing close to the dramatic cuts of the past," Gates said.

]]>

House panel wants extra F-35 engine back

Megan Scully — Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Defying both the White House and the Pentagon, the House Armed Services Committee is considering bringing back to life the alternate engine program for the stealth F-35 fighter jet.

After years of wrangling with Capitol Hill over the costs of building and maintaining two different engines for the F-35, the Defense Department officially terminated the General Electric/Rolls Royce engine program last week.

But supporters on the Armed Services panel, who are in the throes of drafting the annual defense authorization bill, want to at least preserve the option of building a second engine for the advanced fighter jet.

At stake is the $110 billion international market for the F-35 engine, which Pratt & Whitney, the fighter's primary engine maker, now controls exclusively.

The engine's supporters say competition for a share of the engine market would drive down costs and improve the product. But Pentagon officials argue that the $3 billion needed to finish development of the alternate engine and begin production is simply unaffordable.

The House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, which will consider its portion of the massive defense bill on Wednesday, has already drafted language that would force the Pentagon to buy both engines if defense officials determine they have to improve the performance of the engine.

General Electric officials, who are worried that losing the F-35 engine would make them less competitive on future military aviation programs like the Air Force's next bomber, plan to invest at least $100 million a year to keep a core engineering team in place and continue some limited work on the program.

The subcommittee's provision, though weak, would give GE and Rolls Royce the fighting chance they need to regain a portion of the engine market. It might also only be a starting point for the committee.

Armed Services members, including Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., are considering stronger language, which could be added to the authorization bill when the full committee meets next week to consider the legislation.

"It's still early, but it's no surprise Mr. McKeon is supportive of the program," McKeon spokesman Josh Holly said on Tuesday.

Holly said McKeon or others might propose additional provisions on the alternate engine, but the language had not yet been finalized.

Last month, Congress stripped $450 million for the engine from the bill funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year-a move that led to its official termination on April 25.

With concerns mounting about the deficit, theoretically there would be little appetite in Congress for investing heavily in an engine the military says it doesn't want or need.

GE says it's not money the company is after. The firm is pushing for lawmakers to include in the authorization bill a provision that would at least allow them access to the engines-which are now owned by the government-testing facilities, and the F-35 program office.

"How do we keep this program going?" GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said. "Our desire, given that outlook, is how do we get access to the hardware and keep this going?"

But Pratt & Whitney sees any such provision as a slippery slope that could ultimately lead back to full funding for the alternate engine.

"This is a $3 billion Trojan horse," a consultant for the Connecticut-based company said. "What they're really trying to do is get under the radar screen [and] keep the government on the hook as long as they can."

On Wednesday, the Armed Services subcommittees began releasing the details of their versions of the authorization bill, which sets Pentagon policy and prescribes military funding levels.

For the F-35 fighter, which is the largest single program on the Pentagon's books, the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee would authorize $7.7 billion to develop the planes and buy the 32 aircraft the Pentagon has requested for fiscal 2012 for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. The Pentagon had requested a total of $9.4 billion for the program.

The drafted bill authorizes a 1.6 percent pay raise for the military, which matches the Pentagon request, according to a summary provided by the Military Personnel Subcommittee. The bill also expresses the committee's "deep concern" about any efforts to reduce the size of the Army and Marine Corps, lining up a potential clash with defense officials as they try to cut $400 billion from the Pentagon's budget over the next 12 years.

The Strategic Forces Subcommittee's portion of the bill boosts the $10.1 billion requested for various missile defense programs by a total of $110 million.

The panel does make cuts to missile defense efforts, including $149.5 million from the $406.6 million request for the Medium Extended Air Defense program, and eliminates funding for the Precision Tracking Space System. But it boosts other programs, including an additional $110 million for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense efforts.

The Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, meanwhile, is proposing $14.9 billion to buy 10 new ships next year. The panel also would pave the way for a multiyear procurement contract for the Navy's DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyer, a move that could save money on the ships.

]]>

In face of budget cuts, Gates still wants $35B Air Force tankers

Megan Scully — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0400

The Pentagon has barely begun a comprehensive review to find $400 billion in security savings over the next 12 years, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday said he remains committed to the Air Force's new refueling tanker and many other high-priced programs.

But Gates also suggested the review, which will look at the military's force structure and missions, could force the Pentagon to reconsider the numbers of certain systems -- such as ships -- that the military plans to buy.

Gates said he has had only one meeting on the deficit-reduction effort announced by Obama last week. The Pentagon has not yet settled on the specifics of the review process, which department planners expect to affect the fiscal 2013 budget request due on Capitol Hill in February 2012.

But the review will not be merely a "math exercise," Gates stressed, adding that any proposal to cut force structure, missions, and funding for weapons programs will carefully consider the risks involved."What I hope to do is frame this in a way that says, if you want to cut this number of dollars, here are the consequences for force structure," Gates said. "Here are your choices in terms of capabilities that will be reduced or investments that are not made. And here are the consequences of this."

Gates, who has already proposed cutting $78 billion from the Pentagon's budget over the next five years, said he wants to make sure the strategic and national security consequences of any decisions are fully understood.

"This needs to be a process that's driven by the analysis," he told reporters. "The worst of all possible worlds, in my view, is to give the entire Department of Defense a haircut, basically says everybody is going to cut X percent."

It appears that analysis could yield some significant changes for military planners. Both Gates and Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said they plan to review whether the military needs to maintain its ability to fight two major wars at the same time, which has helped form the basis of U.S. strategic policy for decades.

Regardless of possible changes to the military's missions, Gates remains committed to the effort to replace the Air Force's Eisenhower-era refueling tankers-a hard-fought $35 billion deal that domestic aerospace giant Boeing won in February. The Air Force has long made buying new tankers its leading procurement priority.

Among Gates' other top funding priorities are buying new surface ships and modernizing the nuclear triad, which includes a multi-billion-dollar effort to replace the aging Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine.

But if the Pentagon scales back its missions and reduces its force structure, the military would need fewer aircraft and ships to meet its operational needs and training demands. That could cut into profits for Boeing and other top defense firms that have been bolstered by the last decade of ever-increasing defense spending.

Still, industry officials concerned about a sequel to the widespread program cancellations Gates proposed in April 2009 should breathe a bit easier. The secretary's comments Thursday seem to reflect a growing consensus in the department that the Pentagon will find the savings using an ax rather than a scalpel-a potentially less painful exercise for defense firms, whose stocks dipped after the White House proposed the security cuts.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's No. 2 acquisition official, on Wednesday said he is reluctant to cancel weapons systems, signaling that the Pentagon is more likely to scale back or tweak individual programs.

"I'm not looking to kill programs," Kendall said. "We're not out there to kill programs."

]]>

Pentagon more likely to tweak than cut weapons programs

Megan Scully — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Despite White House plans to cut $400 billion in defense spending over the next 12 years, the Pentagon's No. 2 acquisition official said on Wednesday that he is reluctant to cancel weapons programs to find those savings.

It appears the Pentagon will be more likely to scale back or tweak individual programs than roll out a sequel to the widespread program terminations Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed in April 2009.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's principal deputy undersecretary for acquisition, told reporters he considers eliminating a weapons system to represent a "failure" within the Defense Department to plan for and execute the program well. What's more, particularly within an era of budget-cutting, canceling programs also often means throwing away a significant investment of defense dollars.

"I'm not looking to kill programs," Kendall said. "We're not out there to kill programs."

Any decisions on weapons programs will come as part of a broad review President Obama has ordered of the military's force structure and missions.

Should the Pentagon opt to, as expected, scale back its missions and its force structure to cut its overall cost, the military could cut its planned purchases of planes, ships, and other weapons systems. Kendall said those decisions will have consequences the Pentagon will have to live with.

"We can always buy less -- that can be done," Kendall said. "The question is, what do you give up? And I think we are at a point where we've got to make tough decisions about… mission capabilities we're willing to have less of and be able to do less in the world."

Details on who will lead the comprehensive review of military missions and capabilities -- and how long the review will take -- are still being worked out. But Kendall and other Pentagon officials said the decisions will first affect the fiscal 2013 budget request, which is due on Capitol Hill in February.

"There are consequences for the choices we're going to have to make," Kendall said. "We're just going to have to accept them."

]]>

Pentagon investigation casts doubt on Rolling Stone's McChrystal article

Megan Scully — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Defense Department investigators say they couldn't find military officials close to Gen. Stanley McChrystal to verify inflammatory quotes and anecdotes in a June 2010 Rolling Stone article, casting doubt on the published comments that cost the Army general his job as the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and ended his 34-year military career.

In a report released on Monday, the Department of Defense Inspector General said the office could not confirm the most controversial comments in the story. Other comments, according to the report, were merely taken out of context.

"Not all of the events at issue occurred as reported in the article. In some instances, we found no witness who acknowledged making or hearing the comments as reported," according to the report. "In other instances, we confirmed that the general substance of an incident at issue occurred, but not in the exact context described in the article."

Rolling Stone still stands by the report, in which McChrystal and his top aides were quoted criticizing the Obama administration and its handling of the war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon's inspector general offered no "credible sources" to contradict the facts in the story, the magazine said in a statement.

The magazine said it's "not surprising" defense investigators couldn't find witnesses to confirm the quotes in the piece.

"The civilian and military advisers questioned by the Pentagon knew that their careers were on the line if they admitted to making such comments," the magazine said in its statement. "Asking unnamed sources to reveal their identities strikes us as an exercise in futility."

What's more, Rolling Stone said, McChrystal issued an apology after the story was published and said the comments in it fell "far short" of his personal standard.

The Pentagon report follows an Army inspector general report from August, which attributed certain derogatory statements directly to officials. Oddly, the DOD Inspector General said the Army IG didn't interview those officials before attributing the statements to them. The Pentagon IG has redacted the names of those officials in its report.

Pentagon investigators re-interviewed six officials, and interviewed another 10 who were not under the Army's jurisdiction. They also reviewed "appropriate documentary evidence," such as transcripts of emails, interviews, and travel documentation in the Army's report.

DOD investigators asked McChrystal for an interview, but he declined. He'd already been interviewed by the Army. Michael Hastings, the author of the article, also refused an interview, but Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates agreed to talk to investigators.

Bates would not divulge the names of specific officials, but he gave investigators a description of witnesses to some of the more controversial remarks in the article. Investigators, however, still could not identify the witnesses to verify the comments.

In the end, the Pentagon IG found no evidence of McChrystal and his aides violating Defense Department standards. "None of the matters we reviewed warrant further investigation," the report states. "We make no recommendations in this matter."

McChrystal returned to public service last week, helping to oversee a program supporting military families.

]]>

Events frequently overtake long-term Pentagon planning

Megan Scully — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Obama said he is launching a high-level Pentagon review to determine what, specifically, he should target for cuts. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said cuts of that size would require the military to reduce its force structure and its war-fighting capabilities -- essentially scaling back its set of missions.

To assuage critics already concerned about the end of a historic period of growth to the defense budget, Obama pledged to "never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America's interests around the world."

But the proposed defense cuts drew sharp rebukes from House Republicans, who slammed the president for suggesting decreases to defense spending while the military is engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

"Assigning a specific number to national security cuts prior to the completion of a comprehensive review of our military's roles and missions seems to be putting the cart before the horse," House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., said in a statement Wednesday.

Regardless of the scope of the review, any long-term defense plan will require significant -- and, most likely, multiple -- revisions over the years as the military's missions and needs change, making any decade-long cost-cutting plan tentative, at best.

Every year, the Pentagon presents Congress with a five-year budget blueprint. But the details of those projections change dramatically from year to year, often rendering the previous year's proposal obsolete.

In the same vein, the Defense Department conducts a comprehensive review of its military capabilities and requirements every four years. But shortly after the Pentagon releases that document, the Quadrennial Defense Review, many observers consider it already outdated.

"The Pentagon does do five- and seven-year plans," said Larry Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "But it doesn't mean anything. These things are always subject to change, obviously."

Take, for instance, the last decade. No Pentagon planner could have forecast the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which shifted the military's focus to fighting a new kind of enemy.

Since then, the Pentagon's base budget-not including the wars-has doubled as the military poured billions into creating a force prepared to fight in any type of contingency. Programs, such as the Army's ambitious Future Combat Systems, have been canceled with money directed instead at urgent needs such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle.

Morrell acknowledged after Obama's speech the difficulty of planning a decade out, but said doing so is necessary to get the deficit under control.

"We usually do [planning] over the course of five years. That doesn't always come to fruition but you need to have it for planning purposes," Morrell said. "This is an even more extended period of time, but I think in terms of deficit reduction you have to plan long-term to really get at it."

Gates has already pledged over the next five years to move $100 billion within the Pentagon budget to higher-priority items while also cutting $78 billion from the department's top-line over the same period of time. The additional $400 billion in cuts would be in addition to those efforts.

Gates, who learned the details of the White House's deficit-reduction plan during a meeting with Obama on Tuesday, has previously warned that any additional cuts to defense spending levels would be "catastrophic" for the military. But Morrell, who stressed that the $400 billion in savings is a goal, said any reductions will be shaped by a thorough examination of policy and risks.

"Secretary Gates believes the Department of Defense cannot be exempt from efforts to bring federal deficit spending under control," Morrell said. "However, it's important that any reduction in funding be shaped by strategy and policy choices and not a budget and math exercise. The president's direction gets the sequence right."

]]>