Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
CQ Today
May 15, 2008 By John M. Donnelly and Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
Democrats brushed aside GOP attempts to restore money to President Bush’s missile defense program Wednesday as a House panel headed toward approval of a $601.4 billion defense authorization bill.
During a sometimes-heated markup Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee rejected amendments to restore several hundred million dollars left out of the bill, but requested by the president, for an anti-missile shield in Europe and for the Army’s next generation of weapons, the Future Combat Systems.
The committee was also poised to consider amendments that would block the Air Force’s $35 billion contract to build a fleet of refueling tankers based on a modified Airbus jet.
The bill (HR 5658), as drafted by Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., would authorize defense programs at the Pentagon and Energy Department in fiscal 2009, including $70 billion for several months of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It would shift authorization for billions of dollars requested by Bush for futuristic weapons systems to today’s battlefield priorities and the pay and health care needs of military families. And it would make room in the budget for billions of dollars in earmarks for ship and airplane programs that create jobs in members’ districts.
“This bill continues the committee’s commitment to restoring the readiness of our military as its first priority,” said Skelton, “Our military is under strain after six years of combat and five years of fighting on two fronts.”
The House may take up the defense policy measure the week of May 19, though partisan wrangling over unrelated bills could delay it. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved its own $612.5 billion defense authorization bill (S 3001) on April 30, and the Senate does not plan to take it up until June.
Missile Defense Stirs Passions
Missile defense is always a controversial issue in the defense authorization debate, and this year’s House Armed Services markup was no exception.
The committee considered a draft bill that would authorize $10.2 billion for missile defense programs in the coming fiscal year, including $8.6 billion dollars for the Missile Defense Agency. That would fall about $719 million below Bush’s request.
Within that total, the most hotly contested change was a $372 million reduction in the administration’s $954 million request for anti-missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic — $232 million taken from weapons investments and $140 million from construction accounts. The panel also conditioned most spending on the project on the administration’s submission to Congress of a certification of the system’s effectiveness and approval of the plan in the Polish and Czech parliaments.
“We don’t believe the American people should be digging holes in Poland for a system that will eventually cost over $4 billion when we don’t have ratified and signed agreements with their government,” said Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
Duncan Hunter of California, the full committee’s ranking Republican, complained: “This reduction sends a terrible signal to our foreign friends ... who have supported us in this endeavor. ... I also wonder about the message this reduction sends to Russia and Iran.”
Republicans tried but failed repeatedly to reverse the missile defense cuts. Terry Everett of Alabama, the top Republican on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, proposed an amendment that would fully authorize the president’s request and allow procurement to go forward. It was defeated by a vote of 24-34.
Everett also offered an amendment to restore half of the $10 million that the committee recommended eliminating from the request for the study of a Space Test Bed, which would pursue space-based interceptor weapons. That amendment also failed, 26-33.
The committee rejected, 25-34, an amendment from Trent Franks, R-Ariz., that would have added $100 million for the Multiple Kill Vehicle program, which aims to launch several interceptor warheads at once to defeat multiple incoming missiles or decoys.
Franks vowed to try on the House floor to restore the funds.
Reductions for Future Combat Systems
Another flap occurred over a proposed $200 million reduction to Bush’s $3.6 billion request for the Future Combat Systems, or FCS, an integrated group of vehicles, aircraft and computer technology designed to enhance Army capabilities.
The program has faced technical challenges and ballooning cost estimates. The Senate Armed Services bill would authorize the full $3.6 billion request for FCS.
The committee rejected, 23-33, an amendment by H. James Saxton of New Jersey, the ranking Republican on the Air and Land Subcommittee, to bring the authorization up to the president’s request for FCS.
“At some point Congress must give the Army the opportunity to demonstrate whether the system can perform,” Saxton said. “Let’s give the Army one year of stable funding in order to let the secretary of Defense and the Army decide the fate of the FCS program in 2009.”
Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Air and Land Subcommittee, defended what he called “modest” proposed reductions to the FCS program.
“These adjustments are based on the need to shift funding to higher-priority Army readiness needs and the fact that the FCS program, in addition to a history of delays and cost overruns, continues to operate in violation of many major Department of Defense acquisition policies,” Abercrombie said.
Submarine Funds Approved
Bush requested procurement of one new Virginia-class submarine in his fiscal 2009 budget request.
The House committee bill endorsed that request, but it also outlined another $300 million to start building a second one in fiscal 2010. The committee approved by voice vote an amendment offered by Hunter that would add $422 million for the Navy to start preparing for a second sub in fiscal 2011.
In comparison, the Senate panel’s bill would add $79 million to Bush’s request for advance procurement of a second sub.
All told, the House measure would authorize the Navy to start building up to 13 ships. The administration had requested eight, the number that the Senate Armed Services Committee’s bill would authorize.
The House panel’s generosity did not stop there. Its bill would authorize $800 million more than Bush requested for National Guard and reserve equipment, $932 million more for operations and maintenance funds, and billions more to fund unmet readiness needs.
The measure would also authorize funds for C-17 transport planes, up-armored Humvees, parts of F-22 fighter jets and other initiatives the administration did not request.
The bill that the committee was poised to approve Wednesday night contains no language ordering a withdrawal of troops from Iraq or other hot-button war-related policy provisions. However, those issues will play out prominently in the debate over a supplemental war spending bill.
For U.S. military personnel, the House Armed Services measure would authorize a 3.9 percent pay raise, 0.5 percentage points more than the administration’s request. The bill does not contain the administration’s proposed increases in fees and co-payments under the military’s Tricare health care program and adds $1.2 billion to cancel out Bush’s assumed savings in the program. The Senate Armed Services Committee’s bill echoes the House measure on the pay raise and Tricare rates.
Lydia Gensheimer contributed to this story.
May 15, 2008 By John M. Donnelly and Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
Democrats brushed aside GOP attempts to restore money to President Bush’s missile defense program Wednesday as a House panel headed toward approval of a $601.4 billion defense authorization bill.
During a sometimes-heated markup Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee rejected amendments to restore several hundred million dollars left out of the bill, but requested by the president, for an anti-missile shield in Europe and for the Army’s next generation of weapons, the Future Combat Systems.
The committee was also poised to consider amendments that would block the Air Force’s $35 billion contract to build a fleet of refueling tankers based on a modified Airbus jet.
The bill (HR 5658), as drafted by Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., would authorize defense programs at the Pentagon and Energy Department in fiscal 2009, including $70 billion for several months of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It would shift authorization for billions of dollars requested by Bush for futuristic weapons systems to today’s battlefield priorities and the pay and health care needs of military families. And it would make room in the budget for billions of dollars in earmarks for ship and airplane programs that create jobs in members’ districts.
“This bill continues the committee’s commitment to restoring the readiness of our military as its first priority,” said Skelton, “Our military is under strain after six years of combat and five years of fighting on two fronts.”
The House may take up the defense policy measure the week of May 19, though partisan wrangling over unrelated bills could delay it. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved its own $612.5 billion defense authorization bill (S 3001) on April 30, and the Senate does not plan to take it up until June.
Missile Defense Stirs Passions
Missile defense is always a controversial issue in the defense authorization debate, and this year’s House Armed Services markup was no exception.
The committee considered a draft bill that would authorize $10.2 billion for missile defense programs in the coming fiscal year, including $8.6 billion dollars for the Missile Defense Agency. That would fall about $719 million below Bush’s request.
Within that total, the most hotly contested change was a $372 million reduction in the administration’s $954 million request for anti-missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic — $232 million taken from weapons investments and $140 million from construction accounts. The panel also conditioned most spending on the project on the administration’s submission to Congress of a certification of the system’s effectiveness and approval of the plan in the Polish and Czech parliaments.
“We don’t believe the American people should be digging holes in Poland for a system that will eventually cost over $4 billion when we don’t have ratified and signed agreements with their government,” said Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
Duncan Hunter of California, the full committee’s ranking Republican, complained: “This reduction sends a terrible signal to our foreign friends ... who have supported us in this endeavor. ... I also wonder about the message this reduction sends to Russia and Iran.”
Republicans tried but failed repeatedly to reverse the missile defense cuts. Terry Everett of Alabama, the top Republican on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, proposed an amendment that would fully authorize the president’s request and allow procurement to go forward. It was defeated by a vote of 24-34.
Everett also offered an amendment to restore half of the $10 million that the committee recommended eliminating from the request for the study of a Space Test Bed, which would pursue space-based interceptor weapons. That amendment also failed, 26-33.
The committee rejected, 25-34, an amendment from Trent Franks, R-Ariz., that would have added $100 million for the Multiple Kill Vehicle program, which aims to launch several interceptor warheads at once to defeat multiple incoming missiles or decoys.
Franks vowed to try on the House floor to restore the funds.
Reductions for Future Combat Systems
Another flap occurred over a proposed $200 million reduction to Bush’s $3.6 billion request for the Future Combat Systems, or FCS, an integrated group of vehicles, aircraft and computer technology designed to enhance Army capabilities.
The program has faced technical challenges and ballooning cost estimates. The Senate Armed Services bill would authorize the full $3.6 billion request for FCS.
The committee rejected, 23-33, an amendment by H. James Saxton of New Jersey, the ranking Republican on the Air and Land Subcommittee, to bring the authorization up to the president’s request for FCS.
“At some point Congress must give the Army the opportunity to demonstrate whether the system can perform,” Saxton said. “Let’s give the Army one year of stable funding in order to let the secretary of Defense and the Army decide the fate of the FCS program in 2009.”
Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Air and Land Subcommittee, defended what he called “modest” proposed reductions to the FCS program.
“These adjustments are based on the need to shift funding to higher-priority Army readiness needs and the fact that the FCS program, in addition to a history of delays and cost overruns, continues to operate in violation of many major Department of Defense acquisition policies,” Abercrombie said.
Submarine Funds Approved
Bush requested procurement of one new Virginia-class submarine in his fiscal 2009 budget request.
The House committee bill endorsed that request, but it also outlined another $300 million to start building a second one in fiscal 2010. The committee approved by voice vote an amendment offered by Hunter that would add $422 million for the Navy to start preparing for a second sub in fiscal 2011.
In comparison, the Senate panel’s bill would add $79 million to Bush’s request for advance procurement of a second sub.
All told, the House measure would authorize the Navy to start building up to 13 ships. The administration had requested eight, the number that the Senate Armed Services Committee’s bill would authorize.
The House panel’s generosity did not stop there. Its bill would authorize $800 million more than Bush requested for National Guard and reserve equipment, $932 million more for operations and maintenance funds, and billions more to fund unmet readiness needs.
The measure would also authorize funds for C-17 transport planes, up-armored Humvees, parts of F-22 fighter jets and other initiatives the administration did not request.
The bill that the committee was poised to approve Wednesday night contains no language ordering a withdrawal of troops from Iraq or other hot-button war-related policy provisions. However, those issues will play out prominently in the debate over a supplemental war spending bill.
For U.S. military personnel, the House Armed Services measure would authorize a 3.9 percent pay raise, 0.5 percentage points more than the administration’s request. The bill does not contain the administration’s proposed increases in fees and co-payments under the military’s Tricare health care program and adds $1.2 billion to cancel out Bush’s assumed savings in the program. The Senate Armed Services Committee’s bill echoes the House measure on the pay raise and Tricare rates.
Lydia Gensheimer contributed to this story.