Share This Page

White House, Congress increasingly at odds over Defense spending bill

| Tuesday, May 20, 2014, 6:45 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The White House is escalating an election-year dispute with Congress over military spending as lawmakers bucked the Pentagon and spared favorite ships and aircraft despite diminishing budgets.

One day after a veto threat, Chief of Staff Denis McDonough met privately with House Democrats on Tuesday and criticized the $601 billion Defense authorization bill for parochial changes as the Defense Department deals with smaller budgets. Projected Defense spending has been reduced after a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as congressional deficit hawks demand less federal spending.

The House began three days of debate on Tuesday on the policy bill that saves the A-10 Warthog aircraft, which provides close air support, steers millions to refuel an aircraft carrier and upgrades tanks while rejecting Pentagon pleas to close unnecessary military bases and increase out-of-pocket costs for housing and health care for personnel and their families.

“Denis said, ‘If there's no bill, that's fine. We can live with that,' ”Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., told reporters as he emerged from the closed-door meeting.

Congress has passed the bill that authorizes spending and sets policy for 52 consecutive years as it remains one of the most popular, bipartisan measures. A separate spending bill provides the money for the Defense Department, and the military could operate with that alone.

On Monday, the White House complained that the House bill increases “the risk to the department's ability to implement the president's Defense strategy, contributing to a military that will be less capable of responding effectively to future challenges. In addition, the bill's continuation of unwarranted restrictions regarding detainees held at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, undermines our national security.”

Pentagon officials have been vocal in their criticism of Congress, warning that the changes would reduce the money available to train men and women to fight wars.

“Readiness has no constituents. You know what I mean?” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the Atlantic Council recently. “Weapons systems have constituents, bases have constituents, but readiness has no constituents, except those who have to apply the military instrument when the time comes.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.