There were few fireworks last week when the Pentagon's full 2010 spending plan debuted on Capitol Hill, with members of both chambers offering little resistance to Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plans to alter the Defense Department's weapons portfolio.
But some longtime defense observers advise against being fooled by the relative quiet. Lawmakers, they said, will soon begin jockeying to protect programs targeted for cuts.
Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified for nearly eight hours before the House and Senate Armed Services committees May 13 and 14. Against widely held expectations, the appearances were largely devoid of tough questions from lawmakers about specific proposals to alter or ax favored weapons. Only a few had anything to say in defense of the threatened programs important to their constituencies.
With the notable exception of one exchange with Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., over Gates' decision to cap F-22 production at 187 fighters, most criticism of the program cuts was directed at the Joint Cargo Aircraft program and several missile defense initiatives.
"I was surprised by the lack of questions on the major decisions in Secretary Gates' 'reform budget'," said Greg Kiley, a former Senate Armed Services Committee staffer.
That's not to say that critical lawmakers let the defense secretary entirely off the hook.
Republican members of both committees, led by House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep. John McHugh, N.Y., slammed Gates for making changes to 50 programs without, they said, the analytic rigor required by law.
Noting that the Pentagon must conduct a strategic review every four years, the panel's Republicans said changes as major as Gates' 50-program list should follow a Quadrennial Defense Review. His list was finalized in April; the 2010 QDR is just getting started, according to defense officials.
Several Pentagon and congressional analysts expect the debate about overruling the popular secretary to turn combustible this summer, when lawmakers are slated to take up 2010 defense spending legislation.
More fuel will be poured on the simmering debate next week when the military services submit their list of unfunded needs to the four congressional defense committees. The lists have often been used by lawmakers to build support for spending on items Pentagon leaders didn't want.
Gates told the Senate panel he planned to review each service's list with the service chiefs in a May 15 meeting. The lists would get to Congress by May 18, he said.
Experts said last week was an easy ride for Gates, but warned that members are likely biding their time.
"I fully anticipate Congress will exert its independent oversight on the budget when it does the fiscal 2010 mark-up. Right now, the members are gathering more information, while also trying to figure out the basic politics of all this," said Rudy deLeon, a former deputy secretary of defense and now senior vice president at the Washington-based Center for American Progress. "The test for the president's budget will come when the committees begin their mark-ups and work through the budget decisions."
Several current and former congressional staffers said members are holding their fire on the Pentagon's 2010 base budget plan until Congress has finalized a war spending measure for the remainder of 2009.
That is because the 2009 war-funding bill is considered emergency spending, meaning lawmakers can try to add dollars for programs important to their states and districts that Gates had targeted without the need to adhere to congressional budget limits.
The House on May 14 approved its version of the supplemental appropriations bill that the House Appropriations Committee inflated to just over $94 billion. That figure is $9 billion higher than the war spending request made by the Obama administration, and includes billions for new combat platforms such as 15 C-17 cargo planes and four F-22s.
The Senate has yet to take up its version of the bill, meaning members of that chamber still have the chance to seek funding for specific programs targeted by Gates.
Once the full Senate approves that version, members from both chambers will have one last chance to shape the final version when a conference committee begins its work of combining the two measures.
"It's all about the supplemental," one former congressional staffer said.
That is because, as Gordon Adams, who ran defense budgeting at the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration, has said, the 2009 war funding measure "is the last chance" for Congress to pack a supplemental full of new weapons spending.
But experts of all political stripes agreed the lack of pushback from members last week will soon give way to a free-for-all to try to save specific programs.
During the hearings last week, program-specific queries were not absent. Several members of both panels expressed concerns about Gates' decision to strip the U.S. Army of control over the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program, trim the number of aircraft that would be purchased and give all the remaining planes to the Air Force.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., and other members questioned whether the Air Force should own the tactical airlift mission - and whether it even wants the planes.
Gates responded to the JCA questions by telling the panel the military has an "enormous" untapped capability in 200 C-130 cargo planes that he said are "currently uncommitted." Those planes, he said, can do some of the missions the JCA was slated to take on. Gates said the QDR will examine the proper mix of JCAs, C-130s and heavy-lift helicopters.
Another expected flashpoint - Gates' decision to halt F-22 fighter production at 187 planes - drew a handful of queries. Chambliss offered a substantive rebuttal to Gates' contention that "no military requirement exists" for a 188th Raptor.
Chambliss cited an internal Pentagon tactical aircraft study - the "TacAir Optimization Study" - he said concluded 260 F-22 fighters are needed for future missions.
Chambliss, who hails from the state that hosts the fighter's production line, said during a May 14 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that he has garnered the private assurance of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz that the "military requirement is 243 planes." Chambliss said he expects the air chief will say as much this week when he testifies on the Air Force's 2010 budget request.
Gates and Mullen told lawmakers the QDR would examine how many tactical aircraft are needed.
Several Republicans on both panels expressed concerns that the secretary is proposing terminating two missile defense programs, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Multiple Kill Vehicle efforts, and scaling back another, the Airborne Laser program.
Gates said those initiatives all had technical problems and operational constraints.
They were, he said, designed for a threat that only could come from a peer military. "It was the policy of the Bush administration and it is the policy of [the Obama] administration" to use the Pentagon's missile defense efforts to target rogue states, like North Korea and Iran, Gates said.
The remaining programs on Gates' list largely went unmentioned, with most committee Democrats, whose party controls Congress, applauding the secretary's 2010 budget plan.
"Don't be fooled," said one former Pentagon official. "This process is just getting started." ■
E-mail: jbennett@defensenews.com.
The Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is ready to test a few components that soldiers may have in their hands by 2010.
Help
