By Emelie Rutherford
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is hoping to add funding for Pentagon weapon systems to the $888 billion economic-stimulus bill now before the Senate, legislation that also includes Coast Guard shipbuilding monies lacking from the House version.
The massive Senate package of $366 billion in spending and $522 billion in tax cuts contained no funding, as of Monday, for large defense-procurement programs.
Democratic lawmakers and aides have said military aircraft and vehicle acquisition efforts do not spin out fast enough to give a near-term jolt to the faltering economy, and thus qualify for inclusion in the bill. Pentagon spending in the Senate bill, like in its House-passed counterpart, is largely for military-construction activities.
Inhofe, though, argues U.S. jobs could be bolstered by including in the legislation money for defense initiatives that are already underway and have been eyed for funding cuts: missile-defense programs, the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) modernization effort, and the Air Force’s C-17 airlifters and F-22 stealth fighters.
“Right now we have these really great needs on platforms,” Inhofe, the No. 2 Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), told Defense Daily. The four programs, he said. “all could be shaved and (given funding in the stimulus bill and)…be put then back on track.”
“And it does affect jobs,” he added.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said yesterday they expect multiple amendments to and extensive debate on the stimulus legislation in the coming days. Senate Republicans late last week decried the bill destined for the Senate floor as unacceptable, and all House Republicans voted against the bill that passed their chamber.
Inhofe said he would like to offer one or more amendments removing funding items in the bill and replacing them with monies for the missile defense, FCS, C-17, and F-22 programs.
“On any of those areas, it’s better than the things that are on there now,” Inhofe said, holding a summary of the stimulus legislation the House passed Jan. 28, which differs from the Senate bill.
“What (the House) passed are stuff like $650 million for digital-TV coupons,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “I would love to have the $650 million just in the FCS….It would have a tremendous effect on it.”
Inhofe cited other potential spending substitutes in the House-passed bill: remove $600 million for the federal government to buy energy-efficient cars and spend the money to continue Boeing‘s [BA] C-17 production line; instead of spending $1.5 billion on homelessness prevention, direct the money to any of the four defense programs he highlighted.
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) indicated potential support for adding such defense spending items to the stimulus bill if they can be shown to bolster the economy.
“If they are needed, and if (they) would help to stimulate the economy and create jobs, then I think Republicans generally would be very supportive,” Kyl told reporters late last week.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the No. 3 Republican on the SASC, said he would like to see more defense spending in the stimulus legislation.
“We’re spending $900 billion for all kinds of social programs and domestic programs, and (a small percentage) of that might benefit the Defense Department,” Sessions told Defense Daily. “And we’re being told that we could even see a cut in next year’s defense budget….Ignoring of the Defense Department in this process is troubling to me, and I am worried about it. And what does that signal about this administration’s priorities as we go forward?”
Powerful Senate Democrats, though, maintain that Defense Department programmatic funding does not belong in the stimulus legislation.
“I don’t think this is the place to do it,” SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said, noting the slow-spin-out argument and the pending arriving on Capitol Hill of the next war- funding supplemental spending bill.
“We’ve got a defense bill coming up where we’re going to handle issues that need to be handled,” the SASC chairman said.
Lawmakers hope the Senate will pass the stimulus bill this week so a House-Senate conference committee can convene next week and send a final version to President Obama by mid- February.
The Senate bill includes Coast Guard funding for a polar icebreaker and high-endurance cutters, according to the report on the spending part of the bill the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) marked up Jan. 27.
The $819 billion stimulus bill the House passed Jan. 28 does not include Coast Guard shipbuilding funding. The Senate legislation includes $87.5 million for “the competitively awarded design of a new polar icebreaker or the renovation of an existing polar icebreaker, and major repair and maintenance of existing polar icebreakers,” the SAC report states.
The legislation, it says, also calls for spending $35 million for “emergency maintenance of the Coast Guard’s high endurance cutters.”
The Senate bill calls for spending a total of $572.5 million for Coast Guard “acquisition, construction, and improvements,” with additional items including $255 million for “shortfalls in priority procurements due to materials and labor cost increases,” and $195 million for “construction of high priority shore facilities,” the report says.
“These funds will generate significant economic activity while addressing critical needs,” the report states. “The Coast Guard estimates that these funds would create approximately 1,235 jobs.”
Pentagon spending in the Senate bill, as approved by the SAC, includes: $3 billion in operation-and-maintenance funds for Department of Defense (DoD) facilities’ repair, including energy-efficiency improvements; another $3 billion in military-construction funding for family-oriented housing and facilities; $200 million in DoD operation-and- maintenance monies for the military services to lease alternative-energy vehicles on military installations; $100 million in DoD procurement funding for fuel cells and other alternative technologies for next-generation vehicles; and $200 million in DoD research-and-development funds for energy-efficient technologies for operational forces and installations.