Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Robbing Peter to Pay Pork

A November 1999 U.S. Army report declaring two of its 10 divisions unprepared for war brought the issue of military readiness to the forefront of American politics. However, the news should not have been a surprise to many congressional and military leaders who have been shortchanging readiness accounts for years while funding unrequested and unneeded weapons programs instead. While there is no consensus on the degree of the readiness shortfalls, almost everyone agrees something must be done.

Not surprisingly, the answer from Pentagon officials is to request increased spending on readiness programs. As a result, the Pentagon has recently received significant budget increases for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Yet, by and large, the money is not reserved for readiness programs. Instead, lawmakers from both chambers and both sides of the aisle have been publicly supporting increased defense spending to solve a “readiness crisis” while actually funding billions on unrequested and extravagant weapons programs. Moreover, with costs of new weapons skyrocketing, even increased procurement funding is insufficient to replace aging weapons.

WHAT IS READINESS?

According to the Pentagon, readiness is one of four components comprising overall military capability. It refers to the ability to quickly fulfill a specific combat objective or mission. While there is no universal definition of readiness, it includes a number of measures, such as adequate training for military personnel and stockpiles of spare parts for quick repairs to military equipment. Most of readiness funding is contained in the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account of the Pentagon budget. As a result, current readiness woes are most affected by shortfalls in that account, as well as the personnel accounts that pay soldiers’ wages. The state of morale of the armed forces also has an impact on readiness. There is little doubt that poorly motivated troops are slower to respond and that morale is influenced by a number of factors: pay, housing, workload, having the right equipment to do the work and officer leadership.

HIDDEN AGENDA

Last year, the administration appeared intent on solving the problem when it announced a $12.6 billion increase for fiscal year (FY) 2000 and planned $19.7 billion more for FY 2001. While the proposal included a 4.4 percent pay raise for FY 2000 and a 3.7 percent raise for FY 2001 for military personnel, most of the money was not allocated to readiness-related programs. From FY 1999 to FY 2005 the Clinton Administration has proposed a $38 billion increase for the Defense Department. Despite the rhetoric about dealing with the readiness problems, it is weapons procurement that is generously funded while the readiness portion of the budget is starved. During that period of time, procurement will be increased by nearly 40 percent. Of the $38 billion going to the Pentagon, 53% — or $20 billion — has been allocated to purchasing new weapons. On the other hand, Operations and Maintenance will actually suffer a funding cut of 3.5 percent in FY 2002 and remain relatively stagnant through FY 2005 in current dollars. Family housing will actually suffer significant cuts in real terms until it levels off in FY 2003. Military personnel accounts will be increased by a modest 21 percent over the same period. There is an ulterior motive behind the ever expanding defense budget — and one that is not so hidden. In a February 7 press conference Secretary of Defense Cohen said, “We are putting more money into procurement, and that will help the defense industries.” Despite the unprecedented economic expansion of recent years, major defense contractors have been suffering. In the last year alone, most of them have seen their stock value plummet, often by more than half. Since the end of the Cold War major contractors have been encouraged by the Pentagon to consolidate through mergers and contracts divided among two or more companies. However, a re-emergence of winner-take-all contracts has jeopardized their artificial life support. In its effort to aid the ailing industry, the Pentagon has not only elevated procurement funding to the detriment of its other needs, it has actually purchased weapons it does not need. Defense Secretary William Cohen conceded this dismal fact at a February 7, 2000 press conference. Claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in savings by not shutting down the C-130J production line, Cohen said at the press conference: “There is not an existing requirement right now for the number of C-130Js.” Clearly, the Pentagon is under immense congressional and industry pressure to aid contractors.

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ONLY GIVE LIP SERVICE TO READINESS

Calls for increased spending to resolve our current readiness and personnel crisis have been echoing through the halls of Congress for years. Some of the rhetoric is apocalyptic. Former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) said: “I strongly believe that if there is an actual emergency that should be addressed … it should be military readiness.” (Congressional Record 10/20/98) Senate Armed Services Committee member James Inhofe (R-OK) opined: “The fact is that today’s military is facing the most serious readiness crisis since the ‘hollow force’ of the late 1970’s.” (Press Release 4/20/99) Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued: “Our armed forces are facing critical shortfalls in readiness and recruitment and retention.”(Congressional Record 9/21/99) Senator Tim Hutchinson (R-AR) added: “Anecdotal and now measurable evidence indicates that our current readiness is fraying and that the long term health of the Total Force is in jeopardy.” (Congressional Record 9/21/99) The rhetoric from Capitol Hill has been strong. Yet the follow-up has been weak. Weapons purchases that provide easily observable jobs in states and congressional districts receive generous add-ons on Capitol Hill while Operations and Maintenance fare poorly. The numbers are startling, and highlight the wide gap between rhetoric and reality. In the spring of 1999 Rep. David Obey (D-MI) pointed out on the House floor: “Why is it that out of the $27 billion that they (congressional Republicans) added to the President’s defense budget the last four years that only $3.5 billion of that went to readiness and the rest went to pork?” Obey’s figures indicate that the Republican Congress has devoted only 13% of its add-ons for readiness. Some of Congress’ most powerful members have been particularly adept at the double-talking game. For example, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) told the Senate last year:

“This administration in particular has allowed our armed forces to erode. All totaled, we have added more than $44 billion to rebuild our military through improved quality of life, enhanced readiness and equipment modernization.” (Congressional Record 1/19/99) The quality of life to which this Mississippian has been particularly attentive, however, have been workers in his home state. In 1998 and 1999, Senator Lott added $425 million for an unrequested LHD-8 helicopter carrier to be made in Mississippi. However, Sen. Lott, along with 73 of his Senate colleagues rejected an amendment to the FY 1999 Defense Authorization bill to begin to provide childcare for the nearly 50 percent of military families without it. The cost: less than one quarter the cost of the LHD-8 over the same two year period. Some of the Hill’s hypocrisy has been even more blatant. Missouri Senator John Ashcroft shed crocodile tears about “Declining morale in our armed forces and diminished military readiness are national security legacies this Administration is leaving … The Administration has taken too long to address the morale and retention problems undermining the readiness of our armed forces” (Congressional Record 2/25/99). Four months later Ashcroft joined his colleague from Missouri, Senator Christopher Bond, to raid millions from readiness funding to pay for new weapons produced in their home state. On June 8, 1999, they proposed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill providing $220 million to purchase four F-15E aircraft. No one requested the planes except for a McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis. To scrape up money for these unnecessary aircraft, they cut $120 million from Air Force and Navy spare and repair parts accounts, $50 million from “National Guard and Reserve Equipment,” and $50 million from National Missile Defense.

Perhaps most distressing was the way this amendment was adopted quietly with no debate on the Senate floor. There was not a single defiant voice as the Bond-Ashcroft Amendment was added to the Defense Appropriation bill. Hypocrisy abounds. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) expressed his concern for our arms forces: “For the foreseeable future, the defense budget is going to be flat, only increasing by the amount of inflation. It is Congress’ responsibility to assure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.” (press release 11/8/98) However, when it comes to bragging to home state folks, Santorum, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, boasted about bringing home millions in bacon for Southern Pennsylvania where a Boeing facility would benefit greatly from increased funding for the MV-22 Osprey, the CH-47F helicopter, and the RAH-66 Comanche. “The added benefit is that the work for these systems, in almost every case, is done here in Pennsylvania,” claimed Santorum. In 1998 he offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to add $17 million for the procurement of M888, 60-millimeter, high-explosive munitions for the Marine Corps. The cost of the munitions, also made in Pennsylvania, would be met by cutting the Marines Corps’ Operations and Maintenance accounts by an equal amount. Tennessee Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) joined in the frivolity: “Make no mistake: The hollow state of readiness so many have warned about has already arrived.” (Congressional Record 9/30/98). But when Frist saw a pot of gold in the Marine Corps’ Operation and Maintenance account, he conspired with Rep. Van Hilleary (R-TN) to require the corps to buy five million dollars worth of unrequested lightweight maintenance enclosures. The oversize tents, made in Tennessee, are designed to provide cover from the elements while repairing damaged vehicles. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been a champion of cutting wasteful Pentagon spending. In 1999 he chastised his colleagues for including nearly $5 billion in “unrequested low-priority, unnecessary and wasteful spending programs” in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Like many of his colleagues Sen. McCain has used the “readiness crisis” to advocate larger Pentagon budgets. However, unlike many of his colleagues, he has been willing to back his rhetoric with action. On June 8, 1999, Sen. McCain proposed an amendment that would have restored $3.1 billion cut from readiness programs by reducing unrequested pork. Senator McCain presented a litmus test for military readiness supporters. Were they willing to sacrifice millions in pork projects to fund vital military readiness concerns? Sadly, the answer was a resounding no. Eighty one Senators voted against McCain’s amendment, including all of those quoted above. This was not the only instance in which the readiness mettle was tested. In 1999 Sen. McCain attempted to address some of the quality of life issues by adding a provision to the Defense Appropriations bill that would have permanently lifted 10,000 military families off of food stamps. The leader of the House conferees on the Appropriations bill was Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). Lewis has argued forcefully for the men and women in uniform: “One of the top priorities set by the bill (FY 2000 Defense Appropriations) is to improve training, benefits and quality of life for the armed services’ most valuable asset ­ the 2.2 million men and women who serve their country.” (Press Release 7/22/99) Yet, House conferees, under the leadership of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Jerry Lewis, rejected the measure that McCain proposed.

PENTAGON ITSELF SHARES THE BLAME

Secretary of Defense William Cohen has bragged about the new outlook for the Pentagon. “The new budget puts people first,” he said at a February 1, 1999 press briefing. However, as previously cited statistics show, the Pentagon still spends huge amounts of money to procure Cold War weapons originally designed to confront the powerful Soviet Union. Cohen’s motto should be “high-tech weapons first.”

But the Pentagon contributes to the problem in small ways as well. The Department of Defense Inspector General’s Office recently released a report outlining the gross misuse of millions of dollars to pay for lavish renovations to the homes of some top brass. The Navy admitted spending $5.7 million on three homes while the Air Force shelled out $4.1 million to renovate two homes outside the academy in Colorado Springs. Most of this money came from readiness funds. Navy and Air Force officials contest that these expenses are necessary since the homes are often historic mansions. Regardless of the value of the homes, the law requires that money for these projects come from military housing accounts, not readiness. While the verdict is still out on the legality of these payments, there is clearly no excuse for such spending during a self-proclaimed “readiness crisis.”

CONCLUSION

In the battle to appear strong on defense and protect constituent jobs both parties have used the “readiness crisis” as an excuse to provide huge increases in the military budget. Ironically, shortages in spare parts and limited funds to secure more will likely force the Pentagon to dip into the procurement budget simply to keep existing weapons operable. Yet, the prospect of such grave consequences has not deterred an increasingly short sighted Congress and administration from pursuing the immediate political benefits from weapons procurement without acknowledging the long term impact on both military capabilities and future budgets. Sadly, the defense budget, like national missile defense and the test ban treaty, has become more about politics than national security.