Sequestration Letter

The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee sent out a "dear colleague" letter this week to say what he thinks sequestration will mean to "the whole range of Federal responsibilities and, I hope, help make the case for Congress to act responsibly by agreeing to a more sensible approach to deficit reduction."

In his Oct. 9 letter, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) writes that if sequestration were to take effect, "it is only because it failed to motivate congressional action as intended."

While the White House Office of Management and Budget estimates estimates that the Pentagon will be hit with 9.4 percent across-the-board cuts to key areas, Dicks writes that OMB, under the Budgetary Control Act, "looked at only one aspect of sequestration. As another motivation to act, the BCA also set up a second, separate sequestration to enforce the firewall between security and non-security appropriations. Because the Joint Committee failed, a new and lower defense firewall goes into effect, requiring an additional cut in defense spending."

Consequently, "based on levels in the agreed upon continuing resolution for FY 2013," Dicks estimates that an additional 1.9 percent spending reduction would be needed in 2013 for "function 050" defense accounts, the letter states.

Dicks continues:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that sequestration “could pose a significant risk to national security" and would "literally undercut our ability to put together the kind of strong national defense we have today." He also warned that the unemployment rate could spike 1 percentage point if sequestration took effect. "We'd be shooting ourselves in the head," Panetta concluded.

When he served as Office of Management and Budget Director, Jacob Lew also noted that the across-the-board cuts would endanger our national security. The Defense Department "would almost certainly be forced to furlough large numbers of its civilian workers, training would have to be curtailed, the force reduced and purchases of weapons would have to be cut dramatically," Lew wrote.

The sum of the two sequestrations on defense appropriations (the largest subset of defense function 050) equals $60.6 billion, including $50.5 billion associated with the 9.4 percent cut and an additional $10.1 billion from the smaller, firewall enforcement sequestration. It should also be noted that sequestration will apply to the sum of base and Overseas Contingency Operations.

In addition, under the Budget Control Act, the President has the authority, and intent, to exempt military personnel from sequestration.

Reducing Operations & Maintenance accounts by the amounts required will severely constrain resources for housing, training and equipping the troops. Base Operations Support (BOS) would be reduced by $2.4 billion and Facilities Sustainment, Renovation and Modernization (FSRM) would be reduced by $1.1 billion under sequestration. The safety, efficiency and basic functioning of all military posts, camps and stations, is put at risk by limiting utility services, base security and resources to maintain structures. Sequestration would reduce readiness training by $2.9 billion and limit the availability of combat related training such as home station and rotational exercises required to maintain the readiness of US forces. Another $1.3 billion would be cut from Training and Recruiting, harming efforts to recruit personnel, provide skill development training, provide professional development education and training, and provide officer accession and development (including the Military Service academies). Depot Maintenance would also be reduced by $1.6 billion under sequestration. This reduction would limit DoD’s ability to maintain and modernize key weapon systems, and overhaul weapons systems damaged in operations. Sequestration would severely degrade the Defense Department’s ability to maintain a trained and ready force, and would similarly ensure that the condition of combat equipment and military facilities would deteriorate.

The fiscal year 2013 enacted level for the Defense Health Program is $32.7 billion, which would be reduced by $3.7 billion under sequestration. This reduction is contrary to the premise of DoD exempting military personnel from sequestration and would be fundamentally unworkable because military personnel, their dependents and retirees are entitled to care. Sequestration would also reduce funding available for psychological health, traumatic brain injury, and for suicide prevention activities. Educational programs for military dependents would be cut along with funding to operate Department of Defense Dependent Schools.

The required reduction to Procurement accounts would mean 8 fewer UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters and 5 fewer CH-47 Chinooks, slowing Army plans to modernize its utility and heavy lift helicopter fleet. The CH-47 Chinook has proven especially valuable in Afghanistan because of its effectiveness at high altitudes compared to other utility aircraft. Sequestration would take up to 11 Stryker vehicles out of the program, hurting the Army’s ability to keep Stryker brigades fully outfitted. Two fewer F-18G (Growler) aircraft would be built, impairing the fielding of electronic warfare capabilities. Sequestration will make it more difficult to avoid a carrier-based strike fighter shortfall by building 3 less F/A-18E/F aircraft. And one less P-8A would slow the Navy effort to field new surveillance aircraft. Sequestration would cut $1.7 billion from the Shipbuilding and Construction, Navy account, and depending on allocation, remove at least one new vessel. Sequestration would also cut one Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) potentially disrupting the schedule of military space launches.

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation accounts would also be cut, reducing funding for the Joint Strike Fighter by $1 billion, cutting four aircraft, and reducing advance procurement, putting the production ramp at risk for aircraft planned in the outyears. Sequestration would reduce funding for the Aerial Refueling Tanker program by $99.5 million and potentially slow the EMD contract. Even though Congress accelerated risk reduction activities for the Next Generation Bomber, sequestration will cut funding by $33.7 million.

Sequestration would cut over $2 billion from military construction accounts. This would require the Department of Defense to render its entire construction program unexecutable; the FY 2013 FYDP includes 150 projects ranging from barracks to child development centers. A cut of this magnitude would also have a severe impact on employment in the construction industry.

All Veterans' programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, including administrative expenses, are exempt from sequestration.

The National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) would also be subject to the more substantial defense reduction. Under sequestration, NNSA Weapons activities would be cut by $861 million. With this reduced budget, NNSA would no longer be able to support modernization of the weapons complex, including required life extension programs to ensure the nation’s nuclear deterrent remains safe, reliable and effective. Further, NNSA would not have the resources to maintain a level of emergency readiness commensurate with threat conditions and would be unable to operate and respond in a timely manner, adding significant risk to the first responders and public's safety in the event of a radiological or nuclear incident.

Defense nuclear nonproliferation efforts would also be constrained. NNSA would not have the resources to achieve a four-year lockdown of vulnerable nuclear material, leaving materials vulnerable to terrorist theft and undermining our national security.

Naval Reactor programs would be at risk, as well. One year of sequestration would delay, by a minimum of three years, the Spent Fuel Recapitalization project, the OHIO replacement, and the Land-based Prototype Refueling Overhaul. Each year recapitalization is delayed forces the Government to spend $88 million per year in temporary facilities. In addition to delaying the OHIO replacement, the reduction also eliminates the life-of-ship core, an effort to extend the life of the reactor to that of the submarine. This would necessitate building two more ships than the twelve currently needed to meet deterrence requirements. And delaying the refueling overhaul would reduce the output of trained nuclear operators by at least 33% (approximately 1,000 operators per year), leaving submarines and aircraft carriers inadequately manned for safe operations.

View the full letter.