17 December 2002

Early next month, the 108th U.S. Congress will be sworn into office. With unexpected gains in both the House and the Senate, the Republican Party will have firm control of the reins of government as America moves closer to what appears to be an inevitable conflict with Iraq.

Douglas Harpel, DSD's Washington Correspondent and President of Aerospace Intelligence LLC, a research and advisory firm, explores the implications of majority rule in Washington on U.S. national security policies and programs.

As a result of the November 2002 elections, the Republican Party is now in control of the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. This is both unexpected and uncommon. In fact, only once since 1934 has a president's party picked up seats in a mid-term election, and since World War II, the party controlling the White House has lost an average of 14 seats in first-term, mid-term elections (two years after a president was elected).

With the movement of just a few Senate seats from the Democratic to the Republican side of the ledger, when the 108th Congress is sworn-in and seated on January 7th, President George W. Bush will have a historically rare opportunity to advance his political agenda across a range of political issues. Based on the strong public support in evidence for continued aggressive prosecution of the "war against terrorism" and the immediacy of armed conflict with Iraq, no where will the ability for the Bush Administration to achieve immediate political returns on the Party's election gains be so immediate as in the area of national security.

What, specifically, can we expect to be the national security implications of the "all-Republican" Government and why?

The first result of the election –the establishment of the requested Department of Homeland Security - has already occurred. After the election, the House and Senate returned immediately to Washington DC for supplemental "lame duck" sessions to provide final passage of outstanding spending bills and to take up President Bush's previously stalled proposal for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. Serious Democratic Party concerns evaporated, and within days, the new Department was a reality.

The President's victory on this matter came in significant measure because the election was viewed as public validation of the need for a sweeping reorganization of the government as defined by the Bush Administration. At least one key campaign – where incumbent Georgia Democratic Senator Max Cleland was narrowly defeated in late gains by Republican challenger and Congressman Saxby Chambliss – featured prominently Democratic opposition to some of the organizational changes associated with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security.

A second important national security implication of the election is that Republicans take from the Democrats the Senate Committee and Subcommittee chairmanships as well as increased numbers of Committee staff positions. For example, Senator John Warner (Republican from Virginia) will regain the Chairmanship of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) from Senator Carl Levin (Democrat from Michigan) Republicans will also regain hegemony on the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) and its key Defense Subcommittee (SAC-D).

The Republicans will also enjoy a modest gain of seats on Senate Committees of their choosing. Three former Republican House Armed Services Committee Members – Jim Talent (Missouri), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and the aforementioned Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) - have made known their interest in open seats on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Each brings national security experience and strong records of support of their constituent interest in the defense industry.

As a result of the election and shift of Senate control, Chairman Warner and other Republican committee members will name most of the committee professional staff, causing dismissals on the Democratic side and extra hiring on the Republican side. There is a saying that "personnel is policy." Increased numbers of Republican loyalists on the Committees' professional staffs will fundamentally move to the right the national security orientation and resulting policies of the entire Senate and therewith the entire Legislative Branch. There is every indication that the defense committee staffs - Authorizers and Appropriators - will become even more politicized. According to a key Republican Senate aide, "the Democrats really stuck it to us when [Vermont Senator Jim] Jeffords defected. It was unpleasant. We plan to return the favor."

Related to the above, a third national security implication of the election is that the Republican Party will control the agenda of both Houses of Congress. Democrats in both Houses will now be forced to take up the priority issues of the majority Republicans. This Republican prerogative applies not only to the schedule of the overall Congressional bodies, but also the schedule, agenda, and priorities of the SASC, SAC, and SAC-D. Policy and programmatic issues of greater interest to the Democrats will accordingly be of lesser priority. Clearly, this will allow the President's agenda to advance more quickly for consideration… if not passage.

From a broader national security policy perspective, many Congressional Republicans interpret and will extrapolate the election results as a clear and positive national referendum on the Bush Administration's plans for war against Iraq. While the Democrats joined Republicans in authorizing use of force earlier this year and were generally supportive of the Bush Administration's "War Against Terrorism," there remained, prior to the election, a sense the Congress in general, and the Democratically-controlled Senate in particular, represented a "check" on the Administration's war plans and on the need for shaping and nurturing an international consensus in support of these plans.

For those in Washington political circles, the public response to this "war referendum" was clear: Americans largely support the Bush Administration's position vis-à-vis Iraq notwithstanding how bellicose that stance is portrayed in the mainstream U.S. and international media, within the halls of the United Nations, or in the capitals of U.S. allies. Indeed, a recent Fox News poll shows that 62% of Americans support war to disarm Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein from power, even if the United States is forced to act alone.

It can be expected that the 108th Congress will provide slightly increased outlays in overall defense spending, particularly in procurement. The U.S. Congress - be it under Democratic, Republican, or split leadership control - has historically hewed to the President's defense budget requests. While the House and Senate tweak the requests "at the margins," they can be counted on to essentially provide the President and Commander-in-Chief with the funding and forces requested - if not a little more. As was suggested when defense stocks jumped in the immediate aftermath of the election, this trend will certainly not change with Republican control of the Congress.

It now appears that the Bush Administration's pending Fiscal Year 2004 (FY04) budget - to be submitted to the Congress in early February 2003 - will call for the provision of $378.5 billion in defense spending, some $14.4 billion more than in FY03. Administration officials note that this represents only a $10 billion inflation-adjusted increase. There is no question but that the 108th Congress will support this modest (less than 3%) increase in the request and that it will, in fact, provide the usual and customary additional funding in areas of parochial interest.

Missile defense, shipbuilding, and "transformation" can be expected to enjoy strong support in the 108th Congress. On a programmatic level, perhaps the sharpest distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans has pertained to the focus and pace of missile defense development and fielding. In his position as SASC Chairman, Senator Levin worked with other majority Democrats to restrain the pace and contain the funding associated with strategic (national) missile defense. With the Republicans back in control of the Senate and with the ABM Treaty legally abrogated, it will be difficult, if not impossible for missile defense opponents to foot-drag in the next two years – irrespective of the checkered progress being made in ongoing testing.

In addition to the missile defense segment, for a decade Republicans have decried the flagging pace of U.S. warship construction. With key Senators from shipbuilding states in key positions to increase the shipbuilding budget the Republican Party will have another opportunity to stem the quantitative decline of the U.S. Naval fleet.

A third area where the Pentagon should receive strong support is for the so-called "transformation" of U.S. military forces away from slow, heavy forces designed to address the old Soviet threat towards faster, more transportable, lethal, survivable, and networked forces that are more appropriate against the diffuse threats of today and tomorrow.

This support for transformation will be particularly robust if the Bush Administration does not make current, established programs the "billpayers" for transformation, but rather invests in transformational technologies and systems supplemental to sustaining current developments and procurements. Indeed, the draft FY04 budget does not eliminate even one of the major new weapon systems – such as the Army's COMANCHE helicopter, the Air Force's F-22 RAPTOR, the Navy' next-generation aircraft carrier CVNX, or the Marine Corps' V-22 OSPREY troop transport -- that were on the chopping block as recently as this year.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans will remain in control so less change can be expected in the 108th Congress. One development worthy of note is that Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter (California) will take over the Chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) from Bob Stump (South Carolina).

Chairman Hunter, who previously served as the Chair of the HASC's Military Procurement Subcommittee (1995-2000) and Chair of the HASC's Military Research and Development Subcommittee (2000-present), is expected to a forceful and persuasive advocate for defense in general and missile defense, strategic forces, and military transformation in particular.

The November 2002 elections mean that President George W. Bush can expect to receive what he requests of the Congress (and then some) for programs related to homeland security and defense, with few questions asked, just as the U.S. appears poised for war.

Further, the elections have presented the Bush Administration with a rare opportunity to impact profoundly both U.S. national security policies – including the ability of the U.S. to act alone to further its national interests – and U.S. force structure and orientation – including the fielding of national missile defenses. With these types of issues at stake, there is no question but the 108th Congress, and the support that is can be expected to lend to the Bush Administration, will have a lasting impact on U.S. national security and international relations.

REF XQQFS

editor@defence-data.com

Copyright(c) 1996 - 2002 Defence Data Ltd. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium is prohibited except as provided in the Conditions of Use.The Defence Data logo is the trademark of Defence Data Ltd. Defence Systems Daily, and DSD, are the trademarks of Defence Data Ltd. By using this Web Site, you agree to all of the Conditions of Use.