Charles E. Grassley: “Secretary Perry's prepared testimony before the Budget Committee on March 9 tells us why the funding wedge was inserted…”

“Secretary Perry's prepared testimony before the Budget Committee on March 9 tells us why the funding wedge was inserted in the future years defense program. Late last year, he testified, after the Bottom-Up Review was completed, that DOD discovered that the future years defense program exceeded the President's budget authority by a very substantial margin--much more substantial than this, in fact. More money was needed, is what he said. So the President weighed in in December on a major policy decision, as far as this funding wedge is concerned. President Clinton decided to provide extra money for pay raises over the future years defense program period, and that was all he was going to do--money for pay raises, period, nothing else. In fact, he said ``no'' on extra money for inflation. In other words, the President was not going to give anymore money to the Defense Department because they had what they thought was a potential inflation problem that they had to deal with. I quote from Secretary Perry's testimony to the Budget Committee: ``The President opted not to budget for the multiyear inflation bill.'' Since the President opted not to budget for the multiyear inflation bill, why are those costs then presented in the Department of Defense future years defense program? In other words, why is this figure here? Why has Secretary Perry failed to make hard decisions, then, to bring his top line down, as required by law?”