[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4709-S4711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak for the fifth and 
probably final time--at least for a few days--on this subject of 
Department of Defense appropriations and the continuing program budget 
mismatch.
  If Congress rolled back DOD's spending plans at the height of the 
cold war in the mid-1980's--and we did that on May 2, 1985--then why 
would Congress now move to pump up the defense budget when the cold war 
is over and the Soviet threat is gone? It makes no sense to me.
  Mr. President, the General Accounting Office has prepared an 
interesting set of tables that portray the evolution of the future 
years defense program for the Defense Department and the budget 
mismatch with that future years plain. I ask unanimous consent to have 
this printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                         TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY REFLECTED IN DOD'S FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAMSa                                                         
                                                                                    [In billions of dollars]                                                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fiscal Year       1969       1970       1971       1972       1973       1974       1975       1976       1977       1978       1979       1980       1981       1982       1983       1984  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1971b...........       79.4       77.0       73.5       70.1       69.1       69.8       69.0  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1972............  .........       76.8       75.3       79.2       82.0       81.3       80.7       81.7  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1973............  .........  .........       75.1       78.1       83.2       87.3       86.6       85.6       84.0  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1974............  .........  .........  .........       77.7       81.0       85.0       89.0       88.8       87.0       89.1  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1975............  .........  .........  .........  .........       80.5       87.1       92.6       96.9       95.2       96.8       98.5  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1976............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........       85.0       89.0      104.7      112.4      116.6      120.4      122.3  .........  .........  .........  .........
1977............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........       87.9       98.3      112.7      119.7      125.8      129.8      132.1  .........  .........  .........
1978............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........       97.5      110.2      120.4      139.1      149.4      160.2      169.0  .........  .........
1979............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      108.3      116.8      126.0      145.1      154.6      165.2      177.4  .........
1980............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      116.5      125.7      135.5      150.4      159.1      169.2      181.5
1981............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      124.8      139.3      158.7      183.6      205.6      228.7
1982............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      142.2      178.0      222.2      224.9      250.0
1983............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      176.1      214.2      258.0      285.5
1984............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      211.4      240.5      274.1
1985............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      238.7      259.1
1986............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      258.2
1987............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1988............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1989c...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1990............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1991............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1992............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1993............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1994............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1995............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1996............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Differenced.....        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a      $18.9      $15.8      $24.3      $27.4      $26.3      $19.9      $44.0      $42.4      $61.3      $76.8


                                                                                                                                                                                                
[[Page S4710]]
                                                    TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY REFLECTED IN DOD'S FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAMSa--Continued                                                   
                                                                                    [In billions of dollars]                                                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fiscal Year       1969       1970       1971       1972       1973       1974       1975       1976       1977       1978       1979       1980       1981       1982       1983       1984  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Changee.        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a      27.4%      19.4%      29.0%      30.8%      26.7%      16.3%      33.3%      25.1%      34.6%     42.3% 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aEach column begins with the initial planning estimate for that year. The 2nd through the 5th amounts in each column represent subsequent changes to the initial estimates as the initial       
  estimate ultimately becomes the budget submission. The last amount in each column represents the actual appropriated amounts. The intersection of the same year represents that year's budget 
  proposal.                                                                                                                                                                                     
bNote that each row displays the prior year, the current year, the budget year and 4 or 5 out years.                                                                                            
cDOD did not produce a revised FYDP for FY 1989. The data in the 1989 row is taken from the President's budget submission.                                                                      
dDollar difference between initial plan and ultimate appropriation.                                                                                                                             
ePercentage change between the initial planning estimate and the ultimate appropriation.                                                                                                        
fInsufficient data for analysis.                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Source: US General Accounting Office Analysis of DOD Data.                                                                                                                                      


                                                                        TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY REFLECTED IN DOD'S FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAMSa--Continued                                                                       
                                                                                                        [In billions of dollars]                                                                                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Fiscal Year                      1985       1986       1987       1988       1989       1990       1991       1992       1993       1994       1995       1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1971b........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1972.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1973.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1974.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1975.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1976.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1977.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1978.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1979.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1980.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1981.........................................      253.8  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1982.........................................      278.3      296.2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1983.........................................      331.7      367.6      405.6  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1984.........................................      326.8      357.3      386.2      425.2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1985.........................................      305.7      350.3      379.9      412.2      446.8  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1986.........................................      265.3      314.4      354.8      402.4      439.7      478.6  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1987.........................................      280.1      296.4      312.3      341.3      363.6      397.7      415.7  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1988.........................................  .........      280.5      286.3      304.1      324.1      370.4      392.6      416.1  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1989c........................................  .........  .........      279.5      283.2      299.5      316.4      333.7      351.6      370.2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1990.........................................  .........  .........  .........      288.6      292.7      306.6      321.7      336.4      351.5      366.3  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1991.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........      292.2      292.3      297.3      320.9      337.2      350.1      365.0  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1992.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........      293.8      274.3      279.0      278.6      279.0      281.5      283.4      288.2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1993.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      309.1      286.1      271.3      268.6      270.7      271.3      275.5  .........  .........  .........  .........
1994.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      286.1      272.9      255.0      253.2      242.7      236.1      241.5      264.0  .........  .........
1995.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      270.0      251.7      253.5      244.2      241.5      247.5      253.8  .........  .........
1996.........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      252.6      246.0      242.8      249.7      256.3      266.2      276.6
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Differenced..................................      $26.3    ($17.6)   ($126.1)   ($136.6)   ($154.6)   ($204.3)   ($106.6)   ($130.0)   ($100.2)        (f)        (f)        (f)        (f)        (f)        (f)        (f)        (f)
Percent Changee..............................      10.3%      -5.9%     -31.1%     -32.1%     -34.6%     -42.7%     -25.6%     -31.2%     -27.1%        (f)        (f)        (f)        (f)        (f)        (f)        (f)        (f)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aEach column begins with the initial planning estimate for that year. The 2nd through the 5th amounts in each column represent subsequent changes to the initial estimates as the initial estimate ultimately becomes the budget        
  submission. The last amount in each column represents the actual appropriated amounts. The intersection of the same year represents that year's budget proposal.                                                                      
bNote that each row displays the prior year, the current year, the budget year and 4 or 5 out years.                                                                                                                                    
cDOD did not produce a revised FYDP for FY 1989. The data in the 1989 row is taken from the President's budget submission.                                                                                                              
dDollar difference between initial plan and ultimate appropriation.                                                                                                                                                                     
ePercentage change between the initial planning estimate and the ultimate appropriation.                                                                                                                                                
fInsufficient data for analysis.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Source: US General Accounting Office Analysis of DOD Data.                                                                                                                                                                              

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I hope that we can see through all the 
fog. I hope that the gap between the future years defense plan and the 
budget does not mean the military has unfunded needs.
  A superficial examination shows that the future years defense plan 
topline matches exactly the topline in the President's budget.
  In theory, then, that means that all military requirements are met. 
That does not happen to be the real world, however.
  History teaches us that the cost of the Department of Defense future 
years defense plan, which is 6 years out, almost always exceeds money 
in the budget. That is called overprogramming.
  The projected cost of the future years defense plan exceeds what 
Congress finally appropriates.
  If the Budget Committee sent a resolution to the floor with a 
Department of Defense-style overprogramming, I feel the Parliamentarian 
would rule it out of order.
  So what we are faced with is a lack of truth in budgeting.
  First, the leaders in the Pentagon keep us, and perhaps themselves, 
in the dark with bad information--bad numbers.
  Second, the leaders at the Pentagon fail to manage. They avoid the 
tough decisions. They finance the programs, and they use maneuvers 
called the ``buy in'' and ``front loading'' to get the camel's nose 
under the tent for a specific program. The tent happens to be the 
future years' defense plan, 6 years of planning. To get the whole camel 
in the tent, the tent either has to be made bigger or the camel gets 
smaller.
  DOD knows this, but they will not tell us. They really will not admit 
it. When Congress balks, the Department of Defense buys half a camel 
and then blames Congress for the mess, what eventually becomes a 
stretch out. It is kind of a process of extortion. The camel, which 
could be any of these defense programs, has to be reconfigured to fit 
under the tent of the future years' defense plan. So instead of buying 
a whole camel like we thought and need, we end up buying half a camel.
  This is the downside of the plans/reality mismatch, which is all too 
evident in every defense budget.
  This process undermines our force structure. Pretty soon, the 
military cannot do its assigned missions. The force is just too small.
  There is yet another way to look at the problem and that is, once a 
program gains a solid foothold in the future years' defense program and 
that plan gets rolling, its true costs start to ooze out.
  As its costs rise, overly optimistic funding levels do not 
materialize. The topline, then, is pressed downward by us in the 
Congress because we only have so much money to spend, including 
borrowing money, including for defense.
  Congress is faced with fiscal realities and is forced to lower the 
topline. Costs are underestimated and available funding is 
overestimated. That is why the camel will not fit into the tent. The 
money squeeze keeps making the tent smaller.
  The Seawolf submarine is an excellent case in point. When it was sold 
to the Congress, the Navy promised that it would cost no more than $1 
billion a copy. Now the costs are all the way up to $3 billion, and 
perhaps even more.
  The F-22 fighter is another perfect example of the front-loading 
operation, where a particular plan will not fit into the budget with 
the available money that we have to appropriate.
  When the Seawolf and the F-22 front-loading operations are repeated 
hundreds or even thousands of times in each future years' defense plan 
for each separate program, we are staring down the throat of a ravenous 
monster.
  This produces what I call a future years' defense plan blivet. Costs 
go up, 
[[Page S4711]]  projected funding comes down, and it is like trying to 
stuff 10 pounds of manure into a 5-pound bag.
  Front loading is a wasteful and destructive practice.
  The worst part about it is that the military does not get what it 
needs to do its job.
  With the Seawolf and the F-22, the military will never get enough 
subs and fighters to modernize the force as we know it.
  The GAO's ongoing historical studies of procurement programs show 
that the Department of Defense pays more but gets less.
  For example, 130 percent is paid for 80 percent of a program. We must 
find a way to control this monster. Leadership, integrity, courage, and 
good information--that is what is needed. With leadership and good 
information, Pentagon managers might have the courage to make the hard 
choices needed to squeeze all of the programs into the money sack that 
we finally approve.
  More money cannot be the answer because we all know that the Pentagon 
has an insatiable appetite for more money and, quite frankly, we cannot 
appropriate enough money to satisfy the appetite of the Defense to 
spend. Caspar Weinberger taught us that lesson the hard way.
  Mr. President, that famous budget analyst over there at DOD, Chuck 
Spinney, whom I spoke about a couple speeches ago, the man who got his 
picture on the front cover of Time magazine, is still cranking out his 
spaghetti diagrams. He is doing it over there in the bowels of the 
Pentagon. His new briefing is called ``Anatomy in Decline.''
  Like before, his data is derived from the future year defense plans. 
It sounds like the same old story to me, but we need to be sure. I 
believe that Chuck Spinney has a great deal of credibility, but I 
suppose since so many people in this body might not agree, then we have 
to do other work to make sure that it is backed up.
  Senator Roth and I have asked the General Accounting Office to 
conduct an independent analysis and validation of the data and 
methodology used in this new Spinney study. Hopefully, the General 
Accounting Office will help put the problem in a very much 
understandable perspective.
  Mr. President, I would now like to wrap up my thoughts on the 
integrity of the Department of Defense budget. In a nutshell, Mr. 
President, we have financial chaos at the Pentagon.
  We have meaningless accounting numbers. We have meaningless budget 
numbers. We have meaningless cost estimates. To make matters worse, the 
numbers are not just meaningless; they are also misleading and they are 
deceptive. Bad financial information leads to bad decisions. And there 
is no accountability for fiscal mismanagement.
  The top leadership in the building has been aware of the problems for 
a long time. Even former Secretary Les Aspin talked about his fiscal 
horror show. Secretary Perry has also talked about his.
  Despite all the hand wringing in the Pentagon, despite all the 
misleading accounting and the misleading budget information, it still 
all continues to be tolerated at the top levels.
  It is almost a joke. Officials openly laugh about it. The chief 
financial officer of any company would be fired on the spot for 
presenting such inaccurate and misleading fiscal data. He or she might 
even be jailed.
  Now I know that the new comptroller over there, Mr. Hamre, is trying 
to fix the problem. But trying is not enough, although I do give him 
good marks, marks for being well intentioned and trying to overcome all 
the obstacles that are over there for the comptroller to do the job 
that he is charged with doing.
  I say ``trying is not enough'' because he has to do it, and heads 
will have to roll because this job is done. Bad accounting and budget 
numbers keep Congress and the American people in the dark. That is an 
undemocratic process of our constitutional responsibility of control. 
It is undemocratic because it is unaccountable to the people.
  We have a duty and a responsibility to the citizens of this country 
to give them a complete and a very accurate accounting of how we are 
spending their money.
  Today, we are unable to do that as far as the Defense budget is 
concerned. We do not know how the money was used last year, and we do 
not know how the money will be used next year.
  My message, Mr. President, is quite simple: If we do not know where 
we are and we do not know where we have been, we cannot possibly figure 
out where we are going. In regard to this defense issue, we could be 
lost. We cannot make good budget decisions until we get some good 
numbers.
  Until the Department of Defense budget shambles is cleaned up, I do 
not think anyone knows for sure how much is needed for national defense 
right now.
  Yet the President wants to put $25 billion more in, and people in 
this body want to put still, on top of that, another $55 billion. Why 
would we want to throw more good money after bad? It is beyond me, Mr. 
President.
  I hope some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle will join me 
in being a frugal hog. That means opposing any increase in the defense 
budget. Instead, we should work hard for better management, more 
accurate information, and for sure, accountability. Otherwise, we are 
all doomed to repeat the mistakes of the 1980's.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, as I have concluded my statements 
on the integrity, or lack thereof, of the Defense Department budget.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________