Military service chiefs warned Tuesday that American lives will be at greater risk if lawmakers refuse to lift the sequestration cuts set to take full effect in fiscal 2016, reiterating concerns that top defense lawmakers say they already take seriously.
But many say the message is getting to the wrong audience. White House Armed Services Committee members are on board with undoing the cuts, but they say other members of Congress don’t understand the seriousness of the effects on national security and don’t see an urgent need to boost defense spending.
The top uniformed and civilian leaders in the military told members of Congress that while they understand budgets are tight, they can no longer do more with less and any further cuts will effect the country’s national security.
“I believe sequestration is going to place American lives at greater risk both at home and abroad,” Air Force Secretary Deborah James said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
Even if lawmakers provide relief from sequestration in fiscal 2016, it will take the services time to recover from years of reduced training and modernization. Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, chief of staff of the Air Force, said it will take eight to 10 years to return the Air Force to full readiness. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said it will take until 2018 to catch up on delayed maintenance on ships and an additional two years to perform all maintenance on aircraft that had been put off.
Army Secretary John M. McHugh said that the world has gotten more dangerous in the past year as service members faced threats from Yemen to the Islamic State to the fight against Ebola. Sequestration, he said, is the “enemy here at home” that could mean a dangerous future for the Army if it’s not repealed.
SEE ALSO: Lawmakers warn of links between Cuba, Iran, Venezuela
“Our requirements have been more unexpected, our enemies more unpredictable and our ability to handle multiple simultaneous situations more uncertain,” he said.
The president’s budget request for fiscal 2016 asks for $561 billion in base defense spending, which is $38 billion more than the sequestration budget caps. While lawmakers have provided some relief from the across-the-board cuts in recent years, they are set to go back into full effect next year if lawmakers cannot find a compromise.
Rep. Mac Thornberry, Texas Republican and chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said Monday that the defense budget should not be lower than $566 billion and leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee have proposed a fiscal 2016 base defense budget of $577 billion.
The House budget released Tuesday keeps the sequestration cuts in place but funds the Defense Department above the president’s requested level with a portion of the funding coming from an overseas contingency operations fund, not the base budget. Because that limits what officials can use that money for, service leaders said that solution isn’t ideal, but it’s better than dealing with less money.
Rep. Michael Turner, Ohio Republican, urged the defense leaders to speak plainly about the disastrous effects of sequestration, noting that members who don’t serve on defense committees as well as the American public don’t understand the true impact that words like readiness have on American troops’ lives.
“We can lose, people will die and people will be injured,” Mr. Turner said.
SEE ALSO: Army’s withdrawal of officer’s Silver Star sparks ire of Congress
Mr. McHugh said the services may be partly to blame for painting a bleak picture of what would happen under sequestration and then managing to stretch dollars to maintain national security in spite of the cuts.
“In part we’re victims of our own success. We came to Congress before sequestration passed and predicted the effects,” he said. “Against the odds, all the services managed the unmanageable.”
Ms. James said that the fiscal 2016 budget request calls for the gradual retirement of the A-10 fleet as well as slowing the growth of military compensation to make the best use of limited resources — two initiatives that Congress has prevented in the past.
“We know these are not popular,” she said. “Keep in mind, if you don’t like these choices, hold on to your hats, because under sequestration it gets uglier and uglier and uglier.”
Mr. McHugh said that if the cuts are not repealed, by 2019 the Army will have to cut its end strength to “unconscionable levels.”
Mr. McHugh said the debate on sequestration is also effecting retention and recruitment as those eligible for military service hesitate to put their lives in danger for an organization with such fiscal uncertainty.
“While they want to stick with us, it becomes more and more challenging to do that,” he said. “They’re very worried about how this may turn out.”
• Jacqueline Klimas can be reached at jklimas@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.