Pentagon budget hits some rough spots on Capitol Hill.

The Pentagon's budget request for fiscal year 2003, for the most part, has been well received on Capitol Hill. Nevertheless, several lawmakers have voiced discontent about low levels of funding for shipbuilding and for military construction, and have cautioned that the administration's request for a $10 billion war reserve may not be an acceptable option.

The Bush administration requested $379 billion for national defense, a $38 billion increase from last year. That includes $68 billion for procurement of new weapons. The 2003 budget is about 3.5 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.

Almost 25 percent of the budget-about $94 billion-is slated for military pay raises. Increases also were made for military housing allowances and health care to the tune of $22 billion.

The budget includes $27 billion in new funds for anti-terrorism efforts, said Larry Lanzillotta, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense in the office of the comptroller. The money will be used, he said, to "root out terrorists, terminate their sponsorship by state and non-state entities, and reduce the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction."

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., chairman of the defense subcommittee at House Appropriations, said he generally was pleased that the defense budget boosts intelligence accounts by 25 percent. "Intelligence is what set us apart in Afghanistan. ... In this rapidly shrinking, very dangerous world, one of the biggest needs is to develop human intelligence, because that impacts our understanding of the world," he said.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., the ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee said: "One good thing about the budget this year is that we should see continued growth in companies doing defense work in general, and especially in the programs that play a critical role in homeland security. ... I feel confident we'll see more jobs growth with the new budget."

A $10 billion request for a war-reserve fund, meanwhile, has irked some lawmakers, who don't like to appropriate money that has not been specifically earmarked for particular programs. A congressional staffer said that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, is "not likely to put [the war reserve] in the budget without strings attached," said the staffer. There will be "some members who will not want it as a reserve, but just added to defense," he said.

Several key lawmakers are unhappy about the shipbuilding account, which funds five new ships in fiscal 2003. According to Lanzillotta, "the Navy made its own decision not to build more ships," in order to free up dollars for other priorities. In previous years, Navy leaders had stated that the service should build eight to 10 ships a year to sustain a 300-ship Navy in the long run.

"The shipbuilding issue is, for at least some members [of Congress], a proxy for pointing out that overall procurement is too low," said a Senate staffer.

The ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner (R-Va.), wrote a letter to Navy Secretary Gordon England, questioning the Navy's spending plan. Warner called for increased shipbuilding budgets, given the Navy's contributions to the conflict in Afghanistan. During Operation Enduring Freedom, Warner wrote, "[We have seen] Navy ships being used as platforms for launching air strikes, helicopter operations and joint special operations forces." This underscores "the importance of ships that can respond quickly to the operational commanders requirements, and conduct continuous joint combat operations," Warner added.

A senior-level congressional official, when asked about the Navy's choices said, "Even if we were to increase the shipbuilding account, what could we do? The most they could give would be $1.5 billion and you could get a maximum of one new ship, so you would get six instead of five. We're still four ships below the build rate," he said.

So far, the Navy has not wavered, and there are no indications that it will change its shipbuilding budget.

Some congressional staffers also expressed concern that this budget falls short when it comes to military "transformation," a Pentagon buzzword used to describe the process of modernizing the military for the 21st century. In this budget, wondered a staff member of the House Armed Services Committee, "Where's the transformation? ... Bush promised to 'leap ahead' and 'skip a generation' of weapons platforms, but his 2003 budget still funds the Army Crusader, a Cold War-spawned, heavy howitzer, and provides less money in the science and technology accounts than was spent in fiscal 2002," he groused. "If you mean to transform the military, the S&T accounts are where you do it." Pentagon officials, however, insisted that they have requested the same amount for S&T in 2003 - $9.9 billion - that Congress provided last year.

Another staffer also questioned the Pentagon's missile defense budget proposal, which is likely to trigger "a fight about oversight and accountability" The staffer said the issue is likely to be "hotter in Senate than in the House," because Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has many reservations about the current missile defense program.

A House staffer pointed to military construction as a likely source of contention, because the administration reduced that account by $1.5 billion. There is "concern that cuts in military construction will hurt military base quality of life," and some members are questioning "the rationale for the current military construction list," the staffer said. At least four members of the House complained during a hearing with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, most notably Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.). "The Secretary of Defense claimed that family housing was the priority in military construction," said Saxton, but he added that he is disappointed that Rumsfeld wants to postpone some investments until after the next round of Base Realignments and Closures.