Last week’s Wastebasket transported Congress to the local fairgrounds. This week they return for a ride on the shiny Carousel of Parochialism, this time in Pentagon spending. 

As they have for years, well-connected members push for language designed to keep one of the military services, or the entire Pentagon establishment, from reducing the inventory of certain weapon programs. These are almost always cynical, parochial provisions aimed at maintaining a particular program either at the behest of a government contractor or to maintain systems on a military base that the Member fears may be a candidate for closure.  

At TCS we recognize that sometimes the Pentagon just wants to buy the latest and greatest weapon systems. However, we also know that a military service should be allowed to adjust inventory without parochial interference. If a military service says they don’t need something (a rare enough occurrence) we wish Congress would take that seriously.  

If wishes were horses…well, you know the rest. Let’s take a ride on this parochial carousel in the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the annual Pentagon policy bill, the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Under Inventory Requirements and Limitations Relating to Certain Air Re-Fueling Tanker Aircraft the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to: 

• maintain a minimum of 36 KC-10A aircraft in FY22 and a minimum of 24 KC-10As in FY23. The Secretary of the Air Force may waive that requirement if a particular aircraft is “no longer mission capable”, 
• not retire more than 18 KC-135A aircraft in the next two fiscal years, and 
• not reduce the number of KC-135 aircraft that have the designation of “primary mission aircraft inventory” in the Reserve components of the Air Force. 

Don’t think the Congress is only concerned about tankers. Oh no! The Secretary of the Air Force is also required to maintain,  

• “a total inventory of tactical airlift aircraft of not less than 287 aircraft.” (And we’re not just numbers nerds at TCS; the grammarian in us knows that should be “fewer” rather than “less”.) 

Lest the Secretary of the Navy think he is getting off scot-free:  

• No C-130 may be procured for consideration as a replacement for the E-6B aircraft unless the Navy submits a detailed report about costs and procurement plans. (Which is a total dodge, because the normal procurement process includes reports about costs and how a program will be procured. This is just an attempt to slow-roll any Navy plans to change platforms.) 
• None of the funds authorized by the bill may be used to “retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage any Mark VI patrol craft.” 

And, saving the best (worst?) for last, the HASC would enshrine in Statute a prohibition on the purchase of anchor and mooring chain unless it is produced in the United States. This parochial nonsense has been placed in the Defense Appropriations bill every year since the 1980s. Appropriations language, with just a few exceptions, is in effect for only the duration of the fiscal year. Putting this prohibition into Title 10 of the United States Code would make it last forever…or until Congress changes its mind. In fact, this prohibition is broader – encompassing all welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain of any size. Our position is, and has always been, U.S. military service members deserve the best equipment, wherever it’s produced. 

Listen, we get the importance of Congressional oversight. The Pentagon shouldn’t have free rein over its budget. But on those few occasions that a military service wants to divest itself of something, let them! Telling them no because it is stationed in a particular Congressional District or might gore the oxen of a well-connected government contractor is not sufficient reason. 

Last week we gave the Secretary of the Air Force our “coveted” Quote of the Week for this,  

“I think we’ve not been allowed to do things we really need to do to free up resources for things that are higher priority. We’ve had a very hard time getting the Congress to allow us to retire older aircraft. 

“If we’re allowed to do the things we need to do, we can live within the types of top lines that we’re talking about. But when you’re hamstrung by the fact that you can’t divest bases you don’t need [and] you can’t divest aircraft you don’t need, you can’t take the steps that you need to modernize.” 

We couldn’t agree more.