The nre defense programming Concept

• Author: By Lawrence E. Chermack
• Pages: 05

5. CHERMAK..

   1. ISTRODUCTION

   "The timely translation of economic strength into military power, the proportion of that strength so translated, and the efficiency of the forces in being, have become of critical importance-as opposed to some theoretical maximum potential which could be translated into military farce at some later date."' This tieing of military plans together with monies and resources reasonably available is the end sought by defense programming. The plans of the military, which reflect their current and ioture objectives and requirements, are integrated with the current budget effort, as well as with the tentative budget projections, over a five-year period.

   Weapon systems, which take almost a decade to evolve, are simultaneously considered in planning and budgeting schemes. At the same time these systems are made compatible with the ever-changing national security policy objectives and national economy considerations, The official expression of all of these objectives and considerations may be found at any time in the "Five Year Force Structure and Financial Program" of the Department of Defense. This document, in book farm, includes all of the program elements and reflects the most recently approved changes to the Program elements which have been accepted by the Secre. taw of Defense' and the Secretary of the particular military department.

   11. THE NEW "PROGRAM"

   The word "program" is employed by the various components of the Department of Defense with different connotations. For

   *The opinions and conclusions presented herein %re those of the author and do not neeeaaarily rewesent the Yiews of the DeDartment of the New. The Judge Advocate Genira1.8 School, or any other iwernmenrnl agency..

   **Counsel to the Camptroller, Department of the Navy; B.S., 1935, LL.B., 1939, LL.M.. 1948, J.S.D.. 1950, New York University; Author, The Lrw of Revenue Bands (1954): Member of New Yark Bar.

   1 Hikh and McKean, The Economics of Defenae m the Nuclear Ago 8 (1980).

   * Dep't of Defense Directive No. 7045.1 (April 12, 19621 (Program Change Control Syatem), The "Five Year Force Structure and Financial Pragram" is gene~ally known 8s the DOD Program Eaok.

   example, the "Five Year Force Structure and Financial Program'' consists of nine major military programs: the first seven of these are reflected, in part, in the proposed 1965 Department of Defense Appropriation Act.* These majar military programs are: 1. Strategic Retaliatory Forces 2. Continental Air and Missile Defense Forces 3. General Purposes Forces

   4, Air1ift;Sealift Forces 6. Reserve and Guard Forces 6. Research and Development 7. General Support 8. Civil Defense 9. Military Assistance

   These major military programs, in turn. are broken down into elements which are known a8 program elements. In addition, the military departments have previously established programs within the budget structure programs which were in existence long before defense programming esme into being. As a result, a program currently being executed in a military department is a segment of the budget structure rather than a segment of one of the major military programs contained in the defense programming scheme evolved by the Secretary of Defenae and the Comp-lraller of the Defense Department. This dichotomy of programs makes it necessary to review the manner in which the military departments previously controlled the use of the authority granted ta them by the Congress before discussing the effect of the new programming procedures being put into effect in the Department of Defense.

1. CO.\'GRESSIO.VAL CO.VTROL

   Prior to World War 11, Congress controlled the Executive Branch by the simple device of authorizing legislation and appropriations so as to narrowly confine the area of discretion inthe Executive Branch.' As the functions of the Federal Government expanded, authorizing legislatian and appropriations became less confining and particularized. The broadest type of legislative authorization and appropriations were utilized in supporting the World War I1 effort.

   ~~~~

   .H.R. 11289, 87th Cone.. 2d Sesn. (10621. See H R. Rep Cone, 2d Seiis. (10621 See also Heanngs Bcjarr the Subc Hoicse Cornmiifre on Apprapriotions, 87th Cong.. Zd Sew, p

   See Apprapnatmn Acta enacted prior to July 1, 1941. e . propriation Act. 1841. ch. 313. 54 Stat. 360 (1940)

   142 A00 d l n s s

   8 First War Powers Act, 1041, ch. 593, 5 1. 66 Stat. 838 (10411.

   SEW DEFENSE PROGRAMMING CONCEPT

   After World War 11, it became apparent that the Executive Branch of the Government could not continue to Operate effec-tively, efficiently and economically by narrowly confining appropriations and utilizing statutory definitions as was the practice prior to World War 11. Accordingly, Congress passed statutes which recognized the need for performance budgetinge in lieu of the narrow object classification previously followed as the basis for appropriation structure. With the introduction of performance budgeting, the appropriation structure became ex-tremely broad in purpose and Bpecific congressional control began to disappear.

2. APPROPRIATIONS CO.MYITTEES

   This lack of appropriation control became \'cry apparent to the Department of Defense Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations. Accordingly, the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee- directed that the Department of Defense adhere, with certain accepted variances, to the programs justified in the Budget. It was intended that the responsible officials of the department "keep faith with the Committee and the Congress by respecting the integrity of justifications presented in Support of the budget requests."b If any changes were to be made in the budget program, then a repropramming action would have to be taken, and Congress would have to be provided with information concerning any significant variations from the justification. This requirement had the effect of establishing, within a broad appropriation, certain limitations. These limitations were not legal in effect but were in the nature of arrangements with Congress regarding the discretion that the Department of Defense would exercise in the execution of budget proxrams. This requirement was reported by the Eighty-Sixth C0ngress.B

3. ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEES

   In 196s the Armed Services Committees began to recognize that the repro:ramming arrangements of the Appropriations Committees were, in effect, establishing and defining the programs themselves. Up to that time, the Armed Services Committees had sponsored all of the substantive legislation which

   - ~ _

   National Security Act Amendments ai 1949, eh. 412. 5 11, 63 Stat 565, 5 U...