Finding Efficiencies

Senior Pentagon leaders have been making the congressional rounds this week hoping to persuade lawmakers to allow the Defense Department to find up to $100 million in efficiencies over the next few years. Yesterday, it was the Senate Armed Services Committee. Today, it's the House's turn. House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Buck McKeon (R-CA) said in his opening statement this morning that "as with most things, the devil is in the details." Further:

Unfortunately, although we have requested more information, both verbally and in writing, the Department has failed to fully respond.  My first concern is where we find $20 billion a year in cuts—in the midst of two wars—without also cutting back on required weapons and services needed to meet the threats of today and tomorrow.   Secretary Lynn, you’ve already announced that at least a third of the savings will come from within the force structure and modernization accounts—the same accounts the Secretary is attempting to grow.  We have seen that setting arbitrary targets for cost savings, as appears to have happened with insourcing, can frequently not yield the expected results.  How do we avoid those pitfalls here?

Second, I am extremely concerned that no matter what the intentions of the Secretary may be, the Administration and some in Congress will not allow the Secretary to keep the savings.  This summer, the White House supported a teacher bailout bill that was funded in part with defense dollars.  Once these savings from this efficiencies initiative are identified, what’s to stop them from taking this money, too?

We're already seeing impacts of this summer’s cuts.  For example, some of those funds were intended to rectify an overdraft in the Navy’s military pay accounts.  Once those funds were taken, the Navy was forced to take the money from aircraft procurement accounts.  What’s the result?  It’s going to take longer to buy the external fuel tanks our Super Hornets and Growlers need and to upgrade training simulators.  Even worse -- it will cost the taxpayers more money to buy those fuel tanks because we won’t be able to take advantage of a negotiated bulk buy.  So much for efficiency.

As for committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO):

As long as I have served in Congress, the system has worked one way: the Administration proposes, and the Congress disposes.  This year and next will be no different.  So gentlemen, your task today is to persuade us that this initiative is not part of an agenda to cut the defense budget, and that it is consistent with this committee's longstanding priorities in a number of critical areas.