The Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee trimmed or cut altogether 517 programs in the defense budget to make room for higher-priority spending, including additional planes, ships and ground vehicles that will help keep the defense industrial base stable.
The subcommittee passed its $549.3 billion spending bill Tuesday morning with little fanfare. It includes $489.6 billion in base budget spending and $59.7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations spending for fiscal year 2015, which is about $23 billion less than the Pentagon was given for FY ’14.
Subcommittee chairman Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said during the markup that the senators found several areas to supplement the president’s spending request, adding a total of $11.7 billion in unrequested procurement. The subcommittee provided $348 million, about double the requested figure, for Israel’s Iron Dome, David’s Arrow and Sling programs; $1.3 billion to purchase 12 additional EA-18G Growlers for the Navy rather than shutting down the production line; $849 million to refuel and modernize the aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73); $800 million to help incrementally buy a 12th LPD amphibious transport dock; $338 million to maintain the A-10 Warthog fleet for Air Force close air support missions; and $31 million to continue operations of the full fleet of 31 E-3 AWACS radio aircraft.
The bill also stabilizes the ground vehicle industrial base by adding $75 million to the budget request for the Improved Recovery Vehicle, $37 million for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, $120 million for the Abrams tank and $61 million for Stryker vehicle development and production.
To allow for the extra spending, “we cut over 500 programs. And we did it so that we don’t waste money, number one, and we have resources for things that are important,” Durbin told reporters after the markup. “When I talk to you about the industrial base here, it’s a real concern. You go down to Newport News and you look at the thousands of men and women working down there who are building the best in the Navy, of any place in the world–I just don’t want to lose that workforce. And I think if we are thoughtful in the way we contract and in sequencing these purchases, we can maintain this industrial base.”
He touched on a similar point during the markup, saying “the question we have to ask ourselves is, as we withdraw from these two wars, what will happen to these men and women? Will they disappear into the workforce? If they do, recreating their ability to build and defend the United States isn’t easy, and it’s more expensive. So were trying to have a thoughtful continuance of building the things we need to protect America in a fashion that maintains the industrial base of our nation.”
Durbin said all 500-plus programs were wasteful or duplicative in some way. Billions of dollars were diverted instead to boost competition, in the case of the Air Force’s space launch program, to protect allies in the case of the Israeli missile defense programs, or to appease the majority of lawmakers, as was the case with sparing the A-10 from its proposed retirement.
“Chairmen not only have to evaluate the merits, they have to evaluate political realities,” Durbin told reporters. “The sentiment among members is very strong when it comes to the A-10, and we’ve acknowledged that and we’re trying to move forward to spend our money wisely.”
The full committee will meet Thursday to mark up the bill. Durbin said the bill, which maintains some of the savings measures included in the president’s budget request but deviates in many of the procurement line items, has overall support from the subcommittee members and is not expected to face any major opposition during the markup.
“We’ve worked really closely with the members and their blood pressure is not up, which is good,” Durbin said. “I think there’s a sense of relief–after living through sequestration, I think many of the members have been conditioned to [make] some hard, hard choices. And I think our bill tried to strike a balance and most, if they’re not 100 percent in favor of the bill, are in favor of it enough to vote for it.”