GovernmentExecutive.com

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday unanimously approved a $453.5 billion defense spending bill that makes substantial cuts to several major weapons programs, including the Joint Strike Fighter, Army Future Combat Systems and the replacement fleet of aerial refueling tankers.

The cuts to those and other programs helped strip $9 billion from the Defense Department's fiscal 2007 budget submission, a funding level that already has drawn a veto threat from the White House and could lead to contentious negotiations with House appropriators, who cut $4.1 billion from the Pentagon request.

Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, stressed that the drastic cuts were not his doing. Earlier this week, he said the bill, which includes a $50 billion supplemental bridge fund for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during the first months of fiscal 2007, is adequate to meet the department's needs.

"I didn't cut $9 billion from our bill," Stevens told reporters. "The budget process cut $9 billion from our bill," he said, referring to the budget allocations imposed by Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., that shifted defense spending to make up shortfalls in other areas of President Bush's budget.

Although Stevens wants the Senate to take up the bill as soon as next week, he acknowledged that other pending business could delay floor consideration until after the August recess.

The committee approved the bill and three other spending bills en bloc, 28-0, agreeing to cut more than $1 billion from the procurement accounts for the $250 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, a move that will delay the Air Force's plans to buy five aircraft next year.

The decision could set up a conference battle with House appropriators, who trimmed only $212 million in procurement funding. Senate appropriators "had to take something from somewhere," Stevens said of the deep cut to the fighter program.

But the panel opted to add $340 million to Navy and Air Force research and development accounts to continue funding for an alternate engine for the fighter, which top defense and Air Force officials recently inaugurated as the Lightning II. The Pentagon had wanted to cancel development of a second engine to save $1.8 billion over the next several years.

The committee's decision mirrors those made by House and Senate defense authorizers and House appropriators, all of whom shared concerns that terminating the second engine would drive up the aircraft's long-term costs.

Senate appropriators also cut $243 million from the Army's Future Combat Systems, $83 million less than the House cut from the $3.9 billion the Pentagon sought for the program.

In addition, they eliminated the $203.9 million requested for research and development for the Air Force's aerial refueling tanker program. In its report, the committee explained that the amounts appropriated in fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2006 are "sufficient" to being the system's development and demonstration.

The committee also included language prohibiting the Air Force from shutting down production lines on the C-17 cargo aircraft in FY07, as the service planned to do after the 183rd aircraft is completed. Shutting down those lines would be "premature and ill-advised," the panel said in its report.

The Air Force argues that the money saved by ending C-17 production could be used to buy new refueling tankers. But lawmakers are loathe to stop making C-17s, which involves manufacturing contracts in dozens of states.

For missile defense, the committee safeguarded the Pentagon's requested $9.3 billion from cuts, but shifted funds from high-risk programs such as the Kinetic Energy Interceptor to more pressing needs, such as the Ground Based Midcourse Defense system.

Meanwhile, the National Guard and military reserves fared well in the markup, with the committee opting to add $340 million to their equipment accounts. The measure also directs the military's reserve components to provide Congress with a detailed assessment of their modernization priorities.

During the brief session, Stevens said he rejected much of the $3 billion in non-defense related medical research requested by senators. The defense bill, he complained, has become a catchall for pet medical projects.

Despite those concerns, he approved $150 million in breast cancer research programs. "You women are probably the most persistent, persuasive lobbyists there are," he quipped to reporters.

COMMENTS

• The last posting illustrates the lack of knowledge of the general public concerning weapons systems and their costs. 1. The poster has already given up about 30 percent of his or her total salary and much of it is to support weapons systems. 2. The weapons systems are not to help troops fighting today. They are mainly to develop new systems, such as the F-22 and star wars. It is highly questionable if these are necessary or even if they ever will work and achieve the purposes for which we spend the money. 3. There also are weapons systems that are favorites of certain politicians and military people. The politicians because the systems development provides jobs for their congressional area to pay for their re-election and the military so they have the latest toy to play with until it is needed if ever. I think Congress should set a dollar limit on development of weapons systems and hold that amount constant over time in nominal terms. Then the Defense Department should decide how to spend the money and what systems will be developed using the fixed funding amount. This is how Congress funds environmental cleanup that probably is more important in the lives of the U.S. citizens than are weapons systems. However, the cleanups generally do not lead to congressional trips to St. Andrews or money to put in your freezer! Taxpayer Posted July 31, 2006 8:03 AM
• I will gladly give up my raise in 2007, 2008, etc. to fund the weapon programs. I'm sure there are many other American citizens and government workers who would also give up their raise to ensure our troops are protected. Our troops need our support and the best of equipment we can provide. There are other ways of saving money such as do not allow new politicians to completely renovate office space by replacing the carpet, office furniture, etc. The same is true with officer housing. Money could be saved by only replacing carpet every three to four years or replacing carpet with hardwood floors. These things are not as important as giving our troops the best equipment to go into battle to protect our freedom and interests. GovExec.com reader Posted July 27, 2006 9:45 AM