More

Defense Spending Bill Unveiled By House Appropriations Committee

Defense Spending Bill Pentagon Budget

DONNA CASSATA   05/31/11 03:22 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — A House panel on Tuesday unveiled a $649 billion defense spending bill for next year's Pentagon budget that funds the nation's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and wades into the long-running fight over the multibillion-dollar, next generation jet fighter.

The House Appropriations Committee bill would provide $119 billion for the two wars, $841 million more than President Barack Obama sought but $39 billion below the current amount. Americans combat forces are slated to leave Iraq at the end of the year and Obama is weighing the first round in the drawdown of the 100,000 troops in Afghanistan in July, with all combat forces scheduled to be out by 2014.

The legislation would provide $13 billion to train and equip Afghan security forces and $1.1 billion for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, although 75 percent of the money would be withheld until the defense secretary reports to Congress on how the money would be spent.

The bill, which the defense subcommittee will consider on Wednesday, provides money for many of the programs spelled out in the defense blueprint approved overwhelmingly by the House last week. Lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee took similar action to place conditions on aid to the Pakistan fund as a frustrated Congress has questioned what Islamabad knew about terrorist leader Osama bin Laden's whereabouts after he was found deep inside Pakistan.

The bill would provide $530 billion in overall spending for the budget year beginning Oct. 1, an increase of $17 billion over the current year but $9 billion less than Obama sought. It provides the money for a 1.6 percent pay raise for military personnel and prevents the administration from spending any money to transfer terrorist suspects from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States.

"Despite being $9 billion below the request, this bill fulfills our obligation to the brave men and women who selflessly serve our country, as well as their families," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the defense subcommittee. "My long-standing commitment is that we will not adversely affect any soldier or have an adverse effect on our nation's readiness."

Young said the committee made "sensible, rational reductions."

The committee rejected efforts by some in Congress to spend money on construction of an extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. The bill includes no money for the extra engine. Neither Obama nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants the alternate engine, arguing that it's a waste of money in a time of tight budgets.

The Pentagon plans to buy engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter solely from Pratt & Whitney of Hartford, Conn. The department recently notified General Electric and Rolls Royce, which are working on the alternative in Ohio and Indiana, that it had terminated the contract. The companies said they would continue work on the alternative engine using their own money.

The crux of their argument is that forcing Pratt & Whitney to compete against them will produce more efficient, less expensive engines for the nearly 2,500 F-35 fighters the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps plan to buy and fly over the next 40 years. Eliminating the GE-Rolls Royce team gives Pratt & Whitney a "$100 billion monopoly" on the engines, according to the two companies.

The House defense blueprint tries to revive the extra engine, including a provision that would force the Pentagon to re-open competition if the department has to ask Congress for more money so Pratt & Whitney can build the chosen engine. The House appropriations committee provided no money for it, however.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 224
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
10:04 PM on 05/31/2011
Its a positive first step that the House at least cut the Defense Budget to a small extent at least. By cutting the Joint Strike Fighter. Which will save 20B$, money we don't need to spend on this fighter and money that could be used to pay down our deficit and debt. But we need to go a lot farther then just the JSF in the Defense Budget as a broader package to get our deficit and debt under control. The money that we'll be saving from bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq should go to pay down our deficit and debt as well. But we should be going even much farther then that. We could easily be saving 100-200B$ from the Defense Budget on things that we don't need to pay for. We are currently responsible for the defense of the United States but also the defense of other Developed Nations. Countries that have the Financial Resources to defend themselves. And not just in Europe but Saudi Arabia, Korea and Japan. We should bringing those troops home as well and demand that those nations contribute more to their National Defense. And work with them as partners instead as their own Ministry of Defense.

America has enough problems of its own in America, these Developed Nations around the World that we defend. Need to step up to the plate and defend themselves. So we can take care of our own problems.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeyJaii
Socialism.
09:26 PM on 05/31/2011
Tell me where do they get this 17 billion from, hell I'm sure my state is broke.
08:31 PM on 05/31/2011
Thirteen billion to train Afgan troops,they have got to be kidding,they don't even know which ones are on our side after ten years.
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
07:58 PM on 05/31/2011
Just from the months of January - April of this year, the DoD has spent over $86 billion on publicly-reported Defense contracts. Wonder what the privately-reported contracts totaled!
07:54 PM on 05/31/2011
Cut unnecessary hardware - the F-35, the Ford class carriers, BMD, the Littoral combat ship, etc. Close most of our 700 foreign bases; countries like Germany, Japan and S Korea can afford to defend themselves. Bring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to prompt conclusion. Cut the number of flag officers by attrition.

I'm not saying this can be done overnight - lets cut ~$70B a year for five years and then see where we stand. That's $1T over the next 5 years, $3T over a decade. (about 2.5K/year for every household)

Sure, it would put some engineers at Lockheed, Pratt and Whitney, Boeing, et al out of work. Put them to work designing renewable energy technologies. We'd have to figure out what to do with the 250,000 troops we'd be bringing home. Then there would be the assorted defense service contractors - excuse while I shed a tear for Haliburton.
photo
scorpioman
The Naked Truth
07:51 PM on 05/31/2011
Building bombs does NOTHING to help our economy!
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
07:56 PM on 05/31/2011
America's economy is a war economy.

We spend over half our tax dollars on war.

http://wallstreetwarzone.com/america
photo
scorpioman
The Naked Truth
07:49 PM on 05/31/2011
OMG! Whadda buncha H.Y.P.O.C.R,I,T,E,S.!!!
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
07:45 PM on 05/31/2011
The US Government has more than enough money to spare for war, death and destruction and never quite enough for the American people who are footing the bill for the war, death and destruction, which many in Washington, US energy industries, corporations and military contractors have reaped a great deal of wealth in war profiteering.

How many more years can America fight wars across the globe before our whole country completely implodes economically?
photo
scorpioman
The Naked Truth
07:50 PM on 05/31/2011
Bridges crumbling.......people starving....looks more and more like...BLADERUNNER!
06:44 PM on 05/31/2011
if 119 billion is appropriated for the wars, what on god's green earth are we doing with the other 530 billion?????
this is unconscionable
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
07:51 PM on 05/31/2011
That would be to "provide funds to modernize the nation's nuclear arsenal and heavy bomber force and help Defense implement other requirements of the New Stategic Arms Reduction Treaty" (whatever that would be).

Federal 2012 budget.

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110215/AGENCY01/102150302/
photo
Nutcase
Of, By and For - Elsewhere known as Psycho MD
06:22 PM on 05/31/2011
It's a good thing that they agreed to cut back.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scottsman
Carpe Diem
04:41 PM on 05/31/2011
Oh Joy .. More money for crap like the F-35 lightning,
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
07:52 PM on 05/31/2011
America is in the war-making business. Military world dominance. Then we take whatever we want from wherever we want.
03:46 PM on 05/31/2011
Why don't we stop spending money for super secret scifi weapons for wars that won't be fought. America already the most technologically advanced fighters in the world; why don't we stop pouring BILLIONS of dollars into Mideastern rat holes -
WHY DON'T WE CUT THE PENTAGON TOY BUDGET IN HALF?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldcliche
05:36 PM on 05/31/2011
In half is fairly generous, I think in quarter would be a far better starting point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stretchumall
"With Liberty and Justice for All"
02:55 PM on 05/31/2011
MMRDO 245 FansBecome a fan
Unfan
14 minutes ago (2:34 PM) You're missing my point. Those guys risk losing their jobs over that type of issue, and tax hiking every port and refinery in the country is a surefire way to get a recession.

They don't necessaril­y have the training or education to do that job. People know how to do the turbines (our friends from that MIC you dislike, GE and the air companies.­..) and its a machinists gig.
--------------------------------------------------------------
We have had 3 yrs of ultra high unemployment. The turnover of those jobs to Green jobs could have already taken effect and we could be on our way to record growth. The question is, How much more suffering needs to be done by our workers when in the end this has to take place eventually anyway?
photo
christopherflynn
The wreligious wright is always rong...
02:46 PM on 05/31/2011
too much ph*u*c*k1ng war m0ney...not enough for peace (or a p1ece of somethin')... ;-)
chris
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldcliche
05:37 PM on 05/31/2011
The real money is in war though. Since they can go on and on and on...
photo
christopherflynn
The wreligious wright is always rong...
06:17 PM on 05/31/2011
peace can too...if we really want it....
02:39 PM on 05/31/2011
Where are the "Spending Cutters" when we need them? Oh yeah, they're throwing Grandma under the bus to save chump change.
photo
Moshe
Shalom to all
02:40 PM on 05/31/2011
. . . along with the kids, teachers, police, firemen . . .