Rumsfeld defends budget decisions on weapons systems

Pentagon leaders on Thursday defended their fiscal 2007 budget before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, stressing that cost-cutting proposals on the Joint Strike Fighter and other military hardware programs are central to their long-term plans.

The panel oversees $380.7 billion of the Pentagon's $493.3 billion budget request, including spending for major weapons systems. In addition to the fiscal 2007 budget, appropriators also soon will consider a sweeping fiscal 2006 emergency supplemental spending request.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday estimated the Defense Department's portion of that supplemental bill at $65.3 billion. In recent weeks, several lawmakers have opposed a Pentagon decision to cancel an alternative engine program for the Air Force's Joint Strike Fighter, essentially taking Rolls-Royce and General Electric off the program.

Using only one engine for the fighter is a "penny wise and pound foolish" decision that will cause "a lot of heartburn" in Congress, said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio. GE plans to assemble the engines in Cincinnati.

Rumsfeld countered that the department had considered the decision carefully, and ultimately concluded that "any sole-source risk was modest and acceptable." While he acknowledged the decision is "clearly debatable," department leaders ultimately decided the military had better ways to spend the $1.8 billion saved by terminating the second engine.

During his first appropriations hearing on the fiscal 2007 budget, Rumsfeld also stood by the Pentagon's decision to stop purchases of the C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane after the 180th aircraft is produced in 2008. The massive plane, whose production is scattered in dozens of states, has tremendous support in Congress.

But a recent Pentagon study of cargo options concluded that the military was better served, both strategically and fiscally, by purchasing 180 C-17s instead of the 222 planes lawmakers had hoped. Hobson said the decision was driven by OMB's desire to tighten budgets and would have "very negative long-term" consequences.

Meanwhile, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman C.W. (Bill) Young, R-Fla., questioned the military's decision to incrementally fund some weapons systems, including the Navy's next-generation DD(X) destroyer. Spreading out procurement funds for these programs, he said, generates savings in the short term, but could strain the budget down the road.

Thursday's hearing marked the first time Rumsfeld testified before the subcommittee since House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member John Murtha, D-Pa., late last year urged an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

Murtha reiterated his concerns that 80 percent of Iraqis want U.S. soldiers to leave Iraq. The number of attacks, he said, continues to climb, while public services still lag behind pre-war levels. "That's why I say it's civil war," Murtha said.

Rumsfeld stressed that he is committed to victory. "Is it a pretty picture, has it been done instantaneously? No," Rumsfeld said. "But it's going to get done."