By Emelie Rutherford
The House dug into the fiscal year 2009 defense authorization bill yesterday, debating proposed cuts to missile defense and the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) programs, as the White House highlighted multiple provisions that would spur a veto.
The Bush administration “has a number of significant concerns” with the bill that could lead to a veto–including the bill’s rejection of White House earmark reform, a cut to requested missile defense funding, and a series of defense contracting provisions the administration dubs “marketplace barriers,” according to a statement of administration policy (SAP).
The administration also is concerned about a “Clean Contracting Act” amendment and cuts to its request for the DDG-1000 Navy destroyer, High Integrity Global Position System, and Reliable Replacement Warhead programs in the bill before the House yesterday, the SAP from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says.
The OMB also balks at unrequested funding authorizations added to the House bill for buying C-17 transport planes, extending the F-22 stealth fighters’ production line, maintaining a second-engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, buying a 10th LPD-17 transport dock ship, adding advance-procurement funds for a second Virginia– class submarine in FY ’10, requiring the next-generation of amphibious ship be nuclear powered, and mandating the Air Force maintain 46 KC-135E aircraft.
The earmark reform matter heated up in Congress this week.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) tried unsuccessfully to bring an amendment to the House floor yesterday that would have struck a section from the bill that the White House objects to. The Section 1431, added by House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), says the bill does not heed an executive order Bush signed in January banning federal agencies from spending money on earmarks in committee report language, instead of in the actual legislation.
Some HASC members have argued the executive order would force them to put funding tables in defense legislation, and take away the Pentagon’s and their budgeting flexibility (Defense Daily, May 22).
“The President’s goal is to reform the earmarking culture that often slips earmarks into bills at the last minute, without discussion or debate–which contributes to the wasteful and excessive pork-barrel spending the Administration has seen in recent years,” the SAP says. “Section 1431 of the bill is also constitutionally objectionable in that it seeks to prohibit the President from supervising Executive Branch agencies as to discretionary matters and to have agencies implement informal preferences of Congressional committees that are not enacted into law.”
The four House bill provisions the OMB labels “marketplace barriers” would: mandate an Air Force review of the impact illegal government subsidies had on the disputed KC-45 tanker competition if the World Trade Organization (WTO) deems the subsidies illegal; ban future Pentagon contracts with companies from WTO member countries that benefit from illegal government subsidies (including firms’ ties to pending disputes); require the Pentagon consider domestic-industrial-base impacts during program competitions; and require a “comprehensive proposal analysis” during source selection.
“Such provisions could jeopardize our military readiness; reduce competition; undermine our ability to acquire the best goods, services, and technologies for our warfighters at the best value for our taxpayers; adversely affect U.S. companies teamed with certain foreign entities; and provoke retaliation against U.S. companies within the global market,” the SAP states. “The cumulative effect of these provisions could adversely impact national security policy.”
The House continued debating the defense authorization bill past Defense Daily‘s deadline, but was expected to cast a vote late last night.
Democrats and Republicans clashed yesterday on the floor over reducing proposed cuts to the administration’s requested funding for missile defense and FCS, though they delayed actual votes on related amendments.
An amendment from Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) to add $193 million for FCS, to restore a $200 million cut to the Army program in the bill, was expected to fail last night. Akin sought to move the funds from Navy research and development, Defense Department personnel and defense health accounts.
The House also was expected to vote down an amendment from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) to add $719 million to the bill for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense, and Tests & Targets within the Missile Defense Agency account. The bill marked up by the HASC last week calls for multiple missile defense funding cuts, including $372 million less than the administration request for the planned European Missile Defense installation in the Czech Republic and Poland.