By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff

In a break with tradition that will have a big effect on defense budgeting, this year members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will not give Congress formal lists of programs that they would like to see funded but that didn’t fit into the president’s budget request.

The chiefs of the Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force will definitely not submit such lists this year. Army officials have yet to say whether or not they will do so. But if they do, they will find themselves in a lonely position.

Officially known as Unfunded Priorities Lists — but colloquially called “wish lists” — the documents have effectively been an extension of the Pentagon’s annual spending request for more than a decade.

The chiefs’ decisions, which members have learned of just in the last week, are already fueling a debate about whether the defense budget is sufficient.

The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Howard P. “Buck” McKeon of California, says the lists provide an important tool for Congress to assess the adverse impact of budget cuts and where additional funds might help the military. Increasing spending on a given program does not necessarily mean another one needs to be cut, he says, because the House-passed budget resolution (H Con Res 112) includes more funds for defense in fiscal 2013 than the president sought.

“The chiefs are telling us that as long as they have to assume the risk inherent in the president’s new strategy, they have all they need,” McKeon said. “My job, however, is to minimize that risk and ensure that our military has the resources to keep America safe.”

The dollar value of the lists has shrunk considerably in recent years, going from scores of billions of dollars in some cases to a few billion. But the chiefs’ decision to terminate them entirely for the first time is a clear sign of tighter fiscal times.

“I’m a taxpayer, and I take this pretty seriously,” said the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James F. Amos, in an interview earlier this week. “I know there’s a finite amount of money out there. This is not a pot at the end of the rainbow. So if I ask for something else, on top of what I have, then something else is going to have to give — assuming that there’s a finite amount.”

Institutionalizing Pork?

To critics, the practice of identifying items that were not considered militarily significant enough to make the budget and giving them the status of essential requirements represented the institutionalization of pork.

The existence of the lists had given lawmakers license to add spending to the defense budget under the cover of military utility. The absence of those lists will make it harder for members to shift money toward such projects.

Democrats cast the chiefs’ decision to abandon the wish lists as confirmation of the soundness of the president’s budget plan and its strategic underpinnings.

“This is another indication that the administration conducted a responsible budget process that included the Joint Chiefs and senior military officials as full participants,” said Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services panel. “I am pleased to see that process resulted in a budget that funds our new strategy and has the strong support of our military leaders. I would urge members of Congress to deal with our national budget problems broadly, rather than focusing solely on the defense budget and politicizing the professional views of the service chiefs.”