The $3.2 trillion government-spending bill,
which the House approved March 25 with a vote of 228-199, does not do much to
improve the Defense Department’s worsening readiness crisis, even with the
extra $20 billion in war funds, said several members of the House Armed
Services Committee’s readiness panel on Thursday. Congressional and defense
leaders agreed the overseas contingency operations boost is better
than nothing, but said there are still plenty of restrictions, which will
affect overall readiness levels. The Air Force, for example, is “very capital
intensive” and relies on multi-year contracts to get the best deal on expensive
procurement programs, such as the F-35 strike fighter, the Long-Range Strike
Bomber, and the new aerial refueling tanker, said USAF Vice Chief of Staff Gen.
Larry Spencer. OCO rules also allow the service to replace munitions expended
in war, but it doesn’t allow the Air Force to “budget for projected weapons
that we’re going to use,” said Spencer. “So, it puts us behind by a year.” Subcommittee ranking member, Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), said the budget
resolution “undermines defense and uses gimmicks to act like we’ve truly
boosted defense spending.” Panel Chair Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) acknowledged
that an OCO-driven budget is not the best solution, but said, it “does allow
the appropriators and the authorizers to get to the $613 billion number, so it
does allow at least some relief.” (Spencer
prepared
testimony)