Military chiefs defend budget, seek 2005 supplemental

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday, the military's top uniformed officials said President Bush's fiscal 2005 budget proposal is sufficient to maintain readiness this year despite a lack of funding requested for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But all four chiefs said readiness could become a concern if Congress does not quickly approve another emergency supplemental spending package next January. And when pressed by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., as to whether funding in the current budget request can sustain the force until that time, the service chiefs said it could fall short of anticipated need.

Air Force Chief of Staff John Jumper said he would need to rely on cash flow "or find another way" to bridge the gap between Sept. 30 and the impending fiscal 2005 supplemental request. Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker and Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee had similar concerns. Adm. Vernon Clark, the chief of naval operations, said the Navy has sufficient funding to get through the end of the fiscal year, but added that there are some areas where he could use more money.

"If I had to increase aviation operations, I would need additional resources," Clark said, adding that it could also become difficult to cover the costs of transporting Marine Corps troops and equipment deployed in Iraq.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., asked the military leaders to name their top unfunded requirements in the president's budget. Clark said his resources are sufficient to execute ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that investments in modernization are not happening quickly enough to keep pace with Navy transformation.

"For too many years we did not buy enough ships," Clark said, adding that his most pressing need involves better resources to recapitalize ships, submarines and aircraft more quickly.

Hagee said his number one priority is resetting the force and ensuring funding for purchasing or refurbishing equipment damaged in the harsh desert environment of Iraq. Jumper echoed his concerns.

Schoomaker said he expects two years of supplemental funding beyond the current emergency to reset Army forces, and that "the supplemental that will be required will be considerable if we continue at this level of operation."

Still, all four service chiefs emphasized that Bush's fiscal 2005 budget request is sufficient. They also stressed repeatedly that there is no need to permanently increase military end-strength. Schoomaker said the decision late last month to temporarily increase Army troop levels over the next four years should not be made permanent. The future Army, he said, involves the "same size force, configured differently, and with better capability."

During testimony before the committee last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld came under fire from Democrats who criticized the Pentagon's reliance on supplemental funding to pay for ongoing operations. They were especially irked by the absence of money to pay for the temporary increase in force levels. Led by Senate Armed Services ranking member Carl Levin, D-Mich., they questioned the wisdom of delaying such funding until next January's supplemental request.

Critics of the administration argue that the timing of the fiscal 2005 supplemental request is driven by election-year politics. Rumsfeld stated during a Pentagon briefing this afternoon that the timing had been determined by the White House and OMB.