Battling over Bottom Lines

It's the Pentagon vs. Congress

The star witness before the House Budget Committee was Franklin ("Chuck") Spinney, the dogged Defense Department analyst who testified last February that weapon costs were being seriously underestimated and that the skyrocketing prices of sophisticated systems threatened to explode the military budget. At the time, the Pentagon protested that the whistle-blowing bureaucrat had ignored the effects of Reagan's cost-control initiatives. Budget Committee Chairman James R. Jones of Oklahoma consequently

asked the Pentagon to have Spinney revise his projections in the light of the latest cost-control reforms. Said Jones in opening last week's hearing: "I'm anxious to hear how his analysis applies to the present situation." Jones and his colleagues were in for a shock. "I should make it clear for the record that my presentation will not include any new data," said Spinney. "I beg your pardon?" exclaimed an incredulous Jones. "We specifically asked for updating in our letter to the Secretary of Defense." But the military hierarchy, it seemed, had not passed on the Budget Committee's request to Spinney, who after his February performance had been shifted to another assignment. (In fact, the Pentagon bureaucracy has introduced a new classification for data that are not to be shown to Spinney: NOSPIN.) Spinney's boss David Chu sought to rationalize the Defense Department's refusal to comply with Congress's request. "The concerns I have are with the techniques employed [by Spinney] and with the ability of a single individual to understand the implications of what's happening," Chu said. Fumed Jones: "This sort of suppression of people who are trying to get a better return on the defense dollar does not serve the public interest." The House Budget Committee chairman again demanded that Spinney be allowed to present a fresh analysis.

This dustup came as the House was working on its version of the fiscal 1984 Defense budget, which in theory was to have been wrapped up and in effect on Oct. 1. The $263 billion package contains $247 billion for the Department of Defense and $16 billion of military monies in other budget bills. The House approved funds for the nation's first 21 MX missiles and for the B-1 bomber but voted against producing chemical weaponry that had been requested by the Administration. On the Senate side, legislators voted in favor of the new chemical weapons, and will probably appropriate $2 billion more for the military. Even so, both versions of the bill are below the $274 billion requested by the Administration for 1984, and the likely compromise package between the two houses will represent a spending increase over fiscal 1983 of only about 5% more than the inflation rate.

All of which merely sets a more contentious stage for the next battle. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, undaunted by the congressional cuts for 1984, proposed last week to forge ahead with the Administration's goal of spending $1.9 trillion for defense during the next five years. For fiscal 1985 the Pentagon package includes $322.5 billion in military requests, which would be about 23% higher than the 1984 budget now being worked on by Congress. Moreover, the Secretary's 1985 request may get some heat from White House aides and the Office of Management and Budget, even before it is run up to Capitol Hill. But Weinberger intends to push for the higher levels of spending rather than try to move toward a conciliatory, bipartisan spending approach early on in the game. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.