News from the Washington File
13 February 2002
Wolfowitz Says 2003 Defense Budget Driven By New Strategy
(Budget plan requests more than $379,000 million) (4870)
The Bush administration's 2003 U.S. defense budget request was guided
by the results of last year's strategy review and a quadrennial review
of the armed forces' operations, which indicated an "urgent need for
real changes in our defense strategy," says Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz.
After September 11th, the United States finds itself facing the
challenge of accomplishing three significant missions all at the same
time, Wolfowitz said in testimony February 12 before the House of
Representatives budget committee.
The first challenge is to win the global war on terrorism; the second
is to restore military capabilities by procuring much-needed new
equipment, recruiting and retaining qualified military personnel, and
modernization of aging systems; and the final challenge is to begin
transforming the armed forces for the 21st century, he said.
"It will be difficult and demanding to tackle all three of these
missions at once, but we must do it and without delay. Even as we
fight the war on terror, potential adversaries study our methods and
capabilities, and they plan for how they can take advantage of what
they perceive to be our weaknesses and vulnerabilities," he said.
The investments required to support current operations and plan for
the future must be made over a sustained period, he said.
The Bush administration is seeking in the fiscal year 2003 spending
plan an increase of $48,000 million to $379,000 million, the largest
single spending increase in 21 years. It includes a $10,000 million
contingency fund to be used to fight wars.
The defense spending plan is based in large part, Wolfowitz said, on
two key concepts:
-- First, the new defense strategy places emphasis on deterrence in
four critical theaters, backed by the ability to quickly defeat two
aggressors at the same time, while preserving the option for one major
offensive to occupy an aggressor's capital and replace the regime.
-- Second, to confront a world marked by surprise and substantial
uncertainty from a "capabilities-based" model, and not from the older
Cold War "threat-based" model. "We don't know who may threaten us or
when or where. But, we do have some sense of what they may threaten us
with and how. And we also have a sense of what capabilities can
provide us important new advantages," he said.
(Note: In the text, billion equals 1,000 million. Also, B stands for
billion, as in $6.7B.)
Following is a text of Wolfowitz's remarks:
(begin text)
TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PAUL WOLFOWITZ
PREPARED FOR THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE
2003 DEFENSE BUDGET REQUEST
WASHINGTON, DC
FEBRUARY 12, 2002
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Given the many difficult
choices with which you are faced, I appreciate the opportunity to
return to this committee to help you in your task by addressing the
2003 defense budget. Since we met last summer, a great deal has
changed, of course. I look forward to addressing some of these changes
with you.
One of the greatest -- and gravest -- changes was brought by September
11th -- a day that changed our nation forever. September 11th has
taught us once again that when it comes to America's defense, we must
spend what is necessary to protect our freedom, our security and
prosperity -- not just for this generation, but to preserve peace and
security for our children and our grandchildren.
Today, we are engaged in the enormously preoccupying task of fighting
a global war on terrorism. As difficult as it is to think about other
challenges in the middle of waging this war, it is essential that we
think beyond this great effort if we are to face the security
challenges and conflicts that are certain to arise throughout this
century.
The 2003 Defense Budget request meets the challenges of the current
campaign as well as other priorities that are essential to ensuring
that America's Armed Forces can manage the threats and challenges of
the decades ahead.
When the Cold War ended, the United States began a very substantial
draw down of our defense forces and our budgets. We cashed a large
"peace dividend," lowering the level of our defense burden by half
from the Cold War peak. Much of that was an appropriate adjustment to
the great improvement in our security that resulted from the end of
the Cold War. The draw down, however, ultimately went too far.
While our commitments around the world stayed the same and even grew
in some cases, our country spent much of the 1990s living off
investments made during the Cold War, instead of making new
investments to address the threats of this new century. As I discussed
with this committee last year, even before September 11th, we faced
the urgent need to replenish critical accounts. After September 11th,
we find ourselves facing the additional challenges of accomplishing
three significant missions at once:
-- We must win the global war on terrorism;
-- We must restore capabilities by making investments in procurement,
people and modernization; and,
-- We must prepare for the future by transforming for the 21st
Century.
It will be difficult and demanding to tackle all three of these
missions at once, but we must do it -- and without delay. Even as we
fight the war on terror, potential adversaries study our methods and
capabilities, and they plan for how they can take advantage of what
they perceive to be our weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Now is
precisely the moment we must begin to build forces that can frustrate
those plans and provide us with the capabilities we need to win the
wars of the coming decades.
We can only accomplish the Defense Department's three missions --
fighting the war on terror, supporting our people and selectively
modernizing the forces we have now, and transforming our Armed Forces
for the wars of the future -- with proper investments over a sustained
period. And we must accomplish these missions in an environment of
rising costs, particularly for that most critical element of the force
-- our people -- so vital to our success. The 2003 budget addresses
"must pay" bills such as retiree health care and pay raises ($14.1B);
and other bills such as realistic costing ($7.4B); inflation ($6.7B):
and the war on terror ($19.4B). Added together, these bills come to
$47.6 billion. That is why President Bush sent to Congress a 2003
defense budget request of $379 billion -- a $48 billion increase from
the 2002 budget, and the largest increase since the early 1980s.
New Defense Strategy
The 2003 budget request was guided by the results of last year's
strategy review and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), both of
which involved an unprecedented degree of debate and discussion among
the Department's most senior leaders. Out of this intense debate, we
reached agreement on the urgent need for real changes in our defense
strategy.
I might add that our conclusions have not gone unnoticed. One foreign
observer reports that the QDR contains "the most profound
implications" of the four major defense reviews conducted since the
end of the Cold War. What is most compelling about this analysis is
that it appears in a Chinese journal. That Chinese observer thinks the
QDR's conclusions are important as a blueprint for where we go from
here-and we think so, too.
My statement today addresses how the President's budget intends to
meet this blueprint, shaped by the needs of the environment we face
today and the environment we could face in the decades to come.
Among the new directions set in the QDR, the following are among the
most important:
First, we decided to move away from the two Major Theater War (MTW)
force sizing construct, which called for maintaining forces capable of
marching on and occupying the capitals of two adversaries and changing
their regimes-at the same time. The new approach instead places
greater emphasis on deterrence in four critical theaters, backed by
the ability to swiftly defeat two aggressors at the same time, while
preserving the option for one major offensive to occupy an aggressor's
capital and replace the regime. By removing the requirement to
maintain a second occupation force, we can free up resources for
various lesser contingencies that might face us and also be able to
invest for the future.
Second, to confront a world marked by surprise and substantial
uncertainty, we agreed that we needed to shift our planning from the
"threat-based" model that has guided our thinking in the past to a
"capabilities-based" model for the future. We don't know who may
threaten us or when or where. But, we do have some sense of what they
may threaten us with and how. And we also have a sense of what
capabilities can provide us important new advantages.
Third, this capabilities-based approach places great emphasis on
defining where we want to go with the transformation of our forces.
Transformation, as Secretary Rumsfeld has said, "is about an awful lot
more than bombs and bullets and dollars and cents; it's about new
approaches, it's about culture, it's about mindset and ways of
thinking of things."
We identified six key transformational goals that define our highest
priorities for investments in the '03-'07 FYDP.
-- First, to protect the U.S. homeland and forces overseas;
-- Second, to project and sustain power in distant theaters;
-- Third, to deny enemies sanctuary, or places where they can hide and
function.
-- Fourth, to protect information networks from attack;
-- Fifth, to use information technology to link up U.S. forces so they
can fight jointly; and
-- Sixth, to maintain unhindered access to space -- and protect U.S.
space capabilities from enemy attack.
We reached these conclusions before September 11th, but our
experiences since then have validated many of those conclusions, and
reinforced the importance of continuing to move forward in these new
directions. The 2003 budget request advances each of the six
transformational goals by accelerating funding for the development of
the transformational programs and by funding modernization programs
that support transformation goals.
The budget requests $53.9 billion for Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E) -- a $5.5 billion increase over FY 2002. It
requests $71.9 billion for procurement -- $68.7 billion in the
procurement title-a $7.6 billion increase over FY2002-and $3.2 billion
in the Defense Emergency Response Fund. It funds 13 new
transformational programs, and accelerates funding for 22 more
existing programs.
All together, transformation programs account for roughly $21.1B, or
17 percent, of investment funding (RDT&E and procurement) in the
President's 2003 budget request-rising to 22 percent over the five
year FYDP. Let me discuss the details of the $21.1 billion in each of
the six categories that follow.
1. Protecting Bases of Operation /Homeland Defense.
It is obvious today that our first goal, protecting our bases of
operation and homeland defense, is an urgent priority-especially since
we know that both terrorists and state-supporters of terrorism are
actively looking to build or buy nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons of mass destruction.
To meet our objective of making homeland defense the Department's top
priority, the President's 2003 budget funds a number of programs.
These include:
-- $300 million to create a Biological Defense Homeland Security
Support Program to improve U.S. capabilities to detect and respond to
biological attack against the American people and our deployed forces.
-- $7.8 billion for a refocused and revitalized missile defense
research and testing program that will explore a wide range of
potential technologies that will be unconstrained by the ABM Treaty
after June 2002, including:
-- $623 million for the Patriot PAC III to protect our ground forces
from cruise missile and tactical ballistic missile attack.
-- $3.5 million for the Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser that can be
used by U.S. ground forces to destroy enemy rockets, cruise missiles,
artillery and mortar munitions.
-- $598 million for the Airborne Laser (ABL), a speed of light
"directed energy" weapon to attack enemy ballistic missiles in the
boost-phase of flight-deterring an adversary's use of WMD since debris
would likely land on their own territory.
-- $534 million for an expanded test-bed for testing missile
intercepts;
-- $797 million for sea, air and space-based systems to defeat
missiles during their boost phase;
The budget invests $8 billion to support defense of the U.S. homeland
and forces abroad -- $45.8 billion over the five year Future Years
Defense Plan (2003-7), an increase of 47 percent from the previous
FYDP. In addition, the budget funds combat air patrols over major U.S.
cities ($1.2B) and other requirements related to this transformation
goal.
2. Denying Enemies Sanctuary.
The President's budget funds a number of programs to ensure
adversaries know that if they attack, they will not be able to escape
the reaches of the United States. As we root out al Qaeda and members
of the Taliban, it is readily apparent how important it is to rob our
enemies of places to hide and function -- whether it be in caves, in
cities, or on the run.
Key to denying sanctuary is the development of new capabilities for
long-range precision strike, which is not just about heavy bombers,
but about linking ground and air assets together, including unmanned
capabilities. It also includes the ability to insert deployable ground
forces into denied areas and allow them to network with our long-range
precision-strike assets.
This is something we have seen in the campaign in Afghanistan. Our
Special Forces, mounted on horseback, have used modern communications
to communicate with and direct strikes from 50-year-old B-52s.
Introducing the horse cavalry back into modern war, as Secretary
Rumsfeld has said, "was all part of the transformation plan." And it
is. Transformation isn't always about new systems, but using old
systems in new ways with new doctrines, new types of organization, new
operational concepts.
The President's 2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to
help us meet our objective of denying sanctuary to enemies. They
include:
-- $141 million to accelerate development of UAVs [unmanned aerial
vehicles] with new combat capabilities.
-- $629 million for Global Hawk, a high-altitude unmanned vehicle that
provides reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting information. We
will procure three Air Force Global Hawks in 2003, and accelerate
improvements such as electronics upgrades and improved sensors, and
begin development of a maritime version.
-- $91 million for the Space-Based Radar, which will take a range of
reconnaissance and targeting missions now performed by aircraft and
move them to space, removing the risk to lives and the need for
over-flight clearance;
-- $54 million for development of a small diameter bomb, a much
smaller, lighter weapon that will allow fighters and bombers to carry
more ordnance and thus provide more kills per sortie;
-- $1 billion for conversion of four Trident nuclear submarines into
stealthy, high endurance SSGN Strike Submarines that can each carry
over 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles and up to 66 Special Operations
Forces into denied areas;
-- $30 million for advanced energetic materials and new earth
penetrator weapons to attack hardened and deeply buried targets.
-- $961 million for the DD(X), which replaces the cancelled DD-21
destroyer program and could become the basis of a family of 21st
Century surface combat ships built around revolutionary stealth,
propulsion, and manning technologies. Initial construction of the
first DD(X) ship is expected in FY 2005.
The 2003 budget requests $3.2 billion for programs to support our
objective of denying sanctuary to America's adversaries, and $16.9
billion over the five year FYDP (2003-7)-an increase of 157 percent.
3. Projecting Power in Anti-access Areas.
Projecting and sustaining power in anti-access environments is another
necessity in the current campaign; circumstances forced us to operate
from very great distances.
In many other cases, U.S. forces depend on vulnerable foreign bases to
operate-creating incentives for adversaries to develop "access denial"
capabilities to keep us out of their neighborhoods. We must,
therefore, reduce our dependence on predictable and vulnerable base
structure, by exploiting a number of technologies that include
longer-range aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and stealthy
platforms, as well as reducing the amount of logistical support needed
by our ground forces.
The President's 2003 budget includes increased funds for a number of
programs designed to help us project power in "denied" areas. These
include:
-- $630 million for an expanded, upgraded military GPS that can help
U.S. forces pinpoint their position -- and the location of their
targets -- with unprecedented accuracy.
-- $5 million for research in support of the Future Maritime
Preposition Force of new, innovative ships that can receive flown-in
personnel and off-load equipment at sea, and support rapid
reinforcement of conventional combat operations. Construction of the
first ship is planned for FY 2007.
-- $83 million for the development of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles
that can clear sea mines and operate without detection in denied
areas;
-- About $500 million for the Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing (STOVL)
Joint Strike Fighter that does not require large-deck aircraft
carriers or full-length runways to takeoff and land.
-- $812 million for 332 Interim Armored Vehicles -- protected, highly
mobile and lethal transport for light infantry -- enough for one of
the Army's transformational Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT). The
FY 2003-2007 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) funds six IBCTs at
about $1.5 billion each.
-- $707 million for the Army's Future Combat System -- a family of
advanced-technology fighting vehicles that will give future ground
forces unmatched battlefield awareness and lethality.
-- $88 million for new Hypervelocity Missiles that are lighter and
smaller (4 ft long and less than 50 lbs) and will give lightly armored
forces the lethality that only heavy armored forces have today.
The 2003 budget requests $7.4 billion for programs to support our goal
of projecting power over vast distances, and $53 billion over the five
year FYDP (2003-7)-an increase of 21 percent.
4. Leveraging Information Technology.
A key transformation goal is to leverage advances in information
technology to seamlessly connect U.S. forces-in the air, at sea and on
the ground so they can communicate with each other, instantaneously
share information about their location (and the location of the
enemy), and all see the same, precise, real-time picture of the
battlefield.
The President's 2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to
leverage information technology. These include:
-- $172 million to continue development of the Joint Tactical Radio
System, a program to give our services a common multi-purpose radio
system so they can communicate with each other by voice and with data;
-- $150 million for the "Link-16" Tactical Data Link, a jam-resistant,
high-capacity, secure digital communications system that will link
tactical commanders to shooters in the air, on the ground, and at
sea-providing near real-time data;
-- $29 million for Horizontal Battlefield Digitization that will help
give our forces a common operational picture of the battlefield;
-- $61 million for the Warfighter Information Network (WIN-T), the
radio-electronic equivalent of the World Wide Web to provide secure
networking capabilities to connect everyone from the boots on the
ground to the commanders.
-- $77 million for the "Land Warrior" and soldier modernization
program to integrate the small arms carried by our soldiers with
high-tech communications, sensors and other equipment to give new
lethality to the forces on the ground;
-- $40 million for Deployable Joint Command and Control -- a program
for new land- and sea-based joint command and control centers that can
be easily relocated as tactical situations require.
The 2003 budget requests $2.5 billion for programs to support this
objective of leveraging information technology, and $18.6 billion over
the five year FYDP (2003-7)-an increase of 125 percent.
5. Conducting Effective Information Operations.
As information warfare takes an increasingly significant role in
modern war, our ability to protect our information networks and to
attack and cripple those of our adversaries will be critical.
Many of the programs supporting this objective are classified. But the
President's 2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to provide
unparalleled advantages in information warfare, such as $136.5 million
for the Automated Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
System, a joint ground system that provides next-generation
intelligence tasking, processing, exploitation and reporting
capabilities.
The 2003 budget requests $174 million for programs to support this
objective -- $773 million over the five year FYDP (2003-7)-an increase
of 28 percent.
6. Strengthening Space Operations.
Space is the ultimate "high ground." One of our top transformational
goals is to harness the United States' advantages in space where we
can see what adversaries are doing around the world and around the
clock. As we move operations to space, we must also ensure the
survivability of our space systems.
The President's 2003 budget includes funds for a number of programs
designed to provide unmatched space capabilities and defenses. These
include:
-- $88 million for Space Control Systems that enhance U.S. ground
based surveillance radar capabilities and, over time, move those
surveillance capabilities into space;
-- $103.1 million for Directed Energy Technology to deny use of enemy
electronic equipment with no collateral damage, to provide space
control, and to pinpoint battlefield targets for destruction.
The 2003 budget requests about $200 million to strengthen space
capabilities -- $1.5 billion over the five year FYDP (2003-7)-an
increase of 145 percent.
Of course, we cannot transform the entire military in one year, or
even in a decade-nor would it be wise to try to do so. Rather, we
intend to transform between 5-10% of the force, turning it into the
leading edge of change that will, over time, lead the rest of the
force into the 21st Century. As Secretary Rumsfeld has emphasized,
"transformation is not an event-it is an ongoing process."
People/Military Personnel
While we transform for the future, we must take care of our most
valuable resource: the men and women who wear our nation's uniform.
Military service by its nature asks our service members to assume
certain risks and sacrifices. But, we should not ask those who put
themselves in harm's way to forego competitive pay and quality
housing.
The President's 2003 budget requests $94.3 billion for military pay
and allowances, including $1.9 billion for an across-the-board 4.1
percent pay raise and $300 million for the option for targeted
pay-raises for mid-grade officers and NCOs.
The budget also includes $4.2 billion to improve military housing,
putting the Department on track to eliminate most substandard housing
by 2007-several years sooner than previously planned. It will also
lower out-of-pocket housing costs for those living in private housing
from 11.3 percent today to 7.5 percent in 2003-putting us on track to
eliminate all out of pocket housing costs for the men and women in
uniform by 2005. This represents a significant change-before 2001,
out-of-pocket costs were 18.8 percent.
We stand by our goal of reducing the replacement rate for DoD
facilities from the current and unacceptable 121 years, to a rate of
67 years (which is closer to the commercial standard). We have
dedicated some $20 billion over the 2003-7 FYDP to this end. But most
of those investments have been delayed until the out-years, when BRAC
is finally implemented and we will know which facilities will be
closed.
The budget also includes $10 billion for education, training, and
recruiting, and $22.8 billion to cover the most realistic cost
estimates of military healthcare.
Cost Savings
We have taken a realistic approach in looking at a number of programs,
and have found areas where we can save some money. We have proposed
terminating a number of programs over the next five years that were
not in line with the new defense strategy, or were having program
difficulties. These include the DD-21, Navy Area Missile Defense, 18
Army Legacy programs, and the Peacekeeper Missile. We also accelerated
retirement of a number of aging and expensive to maintain
capabilities, such as the F-14, DD-963 destroyers, and 1000
Vietnam-era helicopters.
We have focused modernization efforts on programs that support
transformation. We restructured certain programs that were not meeting
hurdles, such as the V-22 Osprey, Comanche, and SBIRS programs.
Regarding the V-22, the production rate has been slowed while
attention is focused on correcting the serious technical problems
identified by the blue ribbon panel and a rigorous flight test program
is to be conducted to determine whether it is safe and reliable. The
restructured programs reflect cost estimates and delivery dates that
should be more realistic.
We are working to generate savings and efficiency in other programs as
well. For example, today, the B-1 bomber cannot operate effectively in
combat environment where there is a serious anti-aircraft threat. So
the Air Force is reducing the B-1 bomber fleet by about one third, and
using the savings to modernize the remaining aircraft with new
precision weapons, self-protection systems, and reliability upgrades
that will make the B-1 suitable for future conflicts. This should add
some $1.5 billion of advanced combat capability to today's aging B-1
fleet over the next five years-without requiring additional dollars
from the taxpayers. These are the kinds of tradeoffs we are
encouraging throughout the Department.
We are also proceeding toward our goal of a 15 percent reduction in
headquarters staffing and the Senior Executive Council is finding
additional ways to manage DoD more efficiently.
The budget reflects over $9 billion in redirected funds from
acquisition program changes, management improvements, and other
initiatives-savings that help to fund transformation and other
pressing requirements.
Currently, to fight the war on terrorism and fulfill the many
emergency homeland defense responsibilities, we have had to call up
over 70,000 guard and reserves. Our long term goal, however, is to
refocus our country's forces, tighten up on the use of military
manpower for non-military purposes and examine critically the
activities that the U.S. military is currently engaged in to identify
those that are no longer needed.
The Secretary of Defense and the Defense Department have made one of
the highest reform priorities to put our financial house in order. We
have launched an aggressive effort to modernize and transform our
financial and non-financial management systems-to include substantial
standardization, robust controls, clear identification of costs, and
reliable information for decision makers. Especially key is the
creation of an architecture that will integrate the more than 674
different financial and non-financial systems that we have identified.
Congress's decision to put off base-closure for two more years means
that the Department will have to continue supporting between 20-25
percent more infrastructure than needed to support the force. The
decision to hold up the process another two years will be a costly one
for taxpayers. Additionally, because of the post-September 11th force
protection requirements, DoD is forced to protect 25 percent more
bases than we need.
The two-year delay in base-closure should not be taken as an
opportunity to try to "BRAC-proof" certain bases and facilities.
Earmarks directing infrastructure spending on facilities that the
taxpayers of America don't need and that eventually could be closed
would be compounding the waste that the delay in BRAC is already
causing.
Trade Offs
Throughout this budget process, we were required to make some tough
tradeoffs.
-- We were not able to meet our objective of lowering average age of
tactical aircraft. However, we are investing in unmanned aircraft, and
in the F-22 and JSF, which require significant upfront investments,
but will not come on line for several years.
-- While the budget proposes faster growth in Science and Technology
(S&T), we were not able to meet our goal of 3 percent of the budget.
-- And we have not been able to fund shipbuilding at replacement rates
in 2003-which means we remain on a downward course that, if not
unchecked, could reduce the size of the Navy to a clearly unacceptable
level in the decades ahead. To sustain the Navy at acceptable levels,
the U.S. needs to build eight or nine ships annually. The proposed
Future Years Defense Plan budgets for procurement of 5 ships in FY
2004, 7 ships in 2005, 7 ships in 2006 and 10 ships in 2007.
Conclusion
A budget of $379 billion represents a great deal of money. But,
consider that the New York City comptroller's office estimated the
local economic cost of the September 11th attacks on New York City
alone will add up to about $100 billion over the next three years.
Estimates of the cost to the national economy range from about $170
billion last year-and estimates range as high almost $250 billion a
year in lost productivity, sales, jobs, airline revenue, and countless
other areas. The cost in human lives, and the pain and suffering of so
many thousands of Americans who lost loved ones that day is
incalculable.
The President's budget address our country's need to fight the war on
terror, to support our men and women in uniform and modernize the
forces we have, and to prepare for the challenges of the 21st Century.
This committee has provided our country strong leadership in providing
for the national defense and ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are
wisely spent. We look forward to working with this committee in
achieving both of these critical goals.
(end text)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
