Long-Term Defense Plans Conflict

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
CQ Today
May 2, 2007
By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff
Democrats will have a chance to craft a defense authorization bill this week that would substantially reorder the White House’s defense-spending blueprint for the coming fiscal year.
The House Armed Services Committee plans to provide in its bill (HR 1585) about $1.6 billion less than requested for missile defense and Army future development plans — in part to help fund the committee’s own priorities, such as new combat vehicles for use in Iraq and more ships and aircraft than the military has sought. Lawmakers also would again reject fees sought by President Bush for military health care.
The three subcommittee markups Wednesday and two Thursday come at a time when Democrats are at an impasse with the president over Iraq War policy and spending. With Democrats in control of the House for the first time in 12 years, the authorization will be another front in that battle.
Although it is unclear whether the new bill would include language on redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq, because it is “the definitive statement of policy on national defense,” as one senior aide described it, amendments on the House floor calling for a withdrawal are expected. Other amendments could seek tighter oversight of war spending.
The fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill would set spending levels for national security programs in the Defense and Energy departments. The president requested $647.2 billion for those programs in the coming fiscal year: $483.3 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget, $141.7 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and $22.5 billion for Energy Department nuclear-weapons programs and other initiatives, according to the Pentagon comptroller’s office.
The full-committee markup is May 9, with floor action possible as early as the following week. The Senate Armed Services Committee has tentatively set its markup for the week of May 21.
Different Priorities
Billions not sought by Bush would be authorized for new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for use in Iraq, plus three new warships and a host of aircraft, according to members, aides and lobbyists.
The committee would pay for those programs partly by withholding $860 million of the $3.7 billion the Army had sought for its top-priority new weapons program, the Future Combat Systems. The program would develop a group of vehicles, aircraft, radios and weapons all integrated on a network.
The committee also would provide $750 million less than the $8.8 billion sought by the president for the Missile Defense Agency, according to knowledgeable lobbyists and aides.
The committee intends to provide more than $4 billion for the MRAP vehicles, which have V-shaped bottoms to help deflect the blast of roadside bombs, according to Mississippi Democrat Gene Taylor, who chairs the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee. The administration’s request, he said, was on the order of $400 million.
“We are going to do substantially better than that,” he said.
Taylor also said the panel would authorize 10 ships, or three more than the Navy sought: an LPD-17 amphibious warship, a T-AKE cargo ship and a nuclear reactor for a new attack submarine. The committee also will encourage the Navy to build ships capable of functioning for 30 years, which is “the only way we can get our fleet numbers up,” Taylor said.
The panel is expected to rebuff Bush administration attempts to end several programs, from the C-17 transport plane to a second engine for the F-35 jet fighter, aides said. It will allow the Pentagon, however, to retire C-5 transports, something Congress has barred previously, according to H. James Saxton, R-N.J., ranking member of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.
Repeat on Health Care
On health care issues, the committee is expected to repeat last year’s rejection of administration attempts to shift the rising costs of military health care onto participants.
The administration last year sought increases in enrollment fees, deductibles and pharmacy copayments for some participants in the military’s Tricare health insurance network. The fiscal 2007 defense authorization act (PL 109-364) set up a task force to study the issue in a broader way.
In February, the administration’s defense budget request assumed nearly $1.9 billion in savings based mostly on unspecified changes to Tricare payments, pending receipt of the task force report.
New York Republican John M. McHugh, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee, said it would not be any more receptive to raising Tricare rates this year than it was last year. An aide said the panel is expected to block any attempted increases.
At a February hearing, Arkansas Democrat Vic Snyder, chairman of the personnel panel, said the assumed savings in the budget had “poisoned the water” for the task force.
Also on Wednesday, the personnel subcommittee is expected to ratify the administration’s proposed increase in “end strength,” the required number of men and women in uniform.
By 2012, the administration plans to add 92,000 soldiers and Marines to the military’s ranks. In fiscal 2008, the number would go from 512,400 to 525,400 in the Army and from 180,000 to 189,000 in the Marine Corps.
The committee is expected to support those proposed increases, but probably not more, McHugh said. He said that it would be difficult to recruit, train and retain more personnel than the administration proposed.
Josh Rogin contributed to this story.
 
Back
Top