Get Involved!
More!
Programs!
Connect With Us!
NDAA SUMMARY: Pentagon & War Spending Run Amok
Check back for regular updates as debate begins on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (NDAA) that will set policy and authorize funds for over $600 billion in Pentagon and war spending.
The NDAA passed the House of Representatives on Friday, June 14, 2013 with a Final Passage: Agreed to 315-107.
Specific Updates:
In the wee hours of the morning of Thursday, June 6, the House Armed Services Committee completed its “markup”, or preparation, of the National Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA) that is being considered by the entire House starting Wednesday, June 12. The committee process was a 16 hour marathon of debate covering issues ranging from conventional weapons programs, nuclear weapons and missile defense, war spending and policy, and this time there was much discussion about the crisis of military sexual violence. Below are some summary highlights of key issues that WAND has been following, along with some forecasts of what we expect will be debated this week on the House floor.
There are currently nearly 300 amendments that have been submitted, but not all of these amendments will be allowed a debate and vote. Late on Wednesday, we should know which amendments will be considered by the whole House of Representatives and we will post progress updates right here. Votes on amendments to the NDAA are expected to begin on Thursday. Please stay tuned right here as we update progress on the NDAA.
Key issues in the NDAA
With this NDAA we see runaway spending for the Pentagon with dollars pouring into weapons with cost overruns and testing failures and some that even the Pentagon does not need or want. The base budget (excluding war spending) of $552.1 billion is $52 billion more than current law caps set by the Budget Control Act, or sequestration.
- In Committee, we were especially proud of Representative Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) who offered an amendment to require testing and assessments before spending more on theoverpriced, failing F-35. We were disappointed that the amendment failed. For more about Rep. Duckworth please see WAND’s profile here.
- Floor amendments have been offered to reduce the overall amount of Pentagon spending, force the Pentagon to undertake an audit and restrict particular weapons programs, reduce troops and bases in Europe and more. Please check back to see what amendments will be considered.
The NDAA includes a special Cold War-era interest in nuclear weapons and missile defense that is completely unchecked by fiscal realities and out of touch with 21st Century needs.
- In Committee, there was a vigorous debate late into the night on nuclear weapons and missile defense issues. Republicans won out in promoting expanded East Coast Missile Defense, placing restrictions on the President’s ability to reduce nuclear weapons and even potentially taking money from a program to prevent nuclear terrorism and using it to move forward the B 61 nuclear bomb. (To see more about the B61 bomb, see information and listen to a recording from our most recent webinar, Is it time to boot the B61 nuclear bomb?) For more analysis of this debate that hearkens back to the Dr. Strangelove era, see this blog post from Kingston Reif at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. We continue to be very proud of Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)who again championed efforts to cut back on excessive nuclear weapons and missile defense spending. Congratulations to Rep. Sanchez who also was successful in adding funds to the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an essential program in preventing nuclear terrorism.
- Floor amendments have been offered to reduce funding for missile defense, consider NATO contributions to the expensive B61 nuclear bomb, to support New START implementation and further nuclear weapons reductions, to look at alternatives to spending on 12 nuclear submarines, to support and expand nuclear nonproliferation, Cooperative Threat Reduction programs, and more. There are also some proposed amendments we would strongly oppose. Please check back to see what amendments will be considered.
The NDAA provides $88.5 million in Overseas Contingency Operations, or war spending primarily for Afghanistan. But wait, aren't we withdrawing troops? While the troops deployed in Afghanistan are expected to be reduced by about 39% this year, the NDAA war spending authorization only dropped by 3.8% percent compared to last year. Floor amendments have been offered addressing the dollars spent and the timeline and process for troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. Also debated will be our involvement in Syria and Iran, and the general Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) polices and drones. Please check back to see what amendments will be considered.
Military Sexual Violence, which has been much in the news, was also greatly debated on during committee consideration, where a number of WAND’s women leaders including Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA), Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), and Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), added to the debate and led efforts to address this issue. Special congratulations to Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) who joined with Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) to pass with unanimous bipartisan support an amendment expanding protections for whistle-blowers and sexual assault victims in the military. For more on the issue of military sexual violence, please see WAND’s blog post, Military Sexual Violence: Outrage to Action. Additional floor amendments have been offered addressing this issue. Please check back to see what amendments will be considered.
Special Account From a Budget Hearing:
Congressmen Voice Concerns of Wasteful Spending on Nuclear Weapons
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Surprising remarks regarding nuclear weapons were made at the House Committee on the Budget hearing titled “The Department of Defense and the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget”. The witnesses, Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, General Martin E. Dempsey, and Robert F. Hale, testified at the hearing on Wednesday, June 12 regarding aspects of the proposed Pentagon budget.
Congressmen Earl Blumenauer (D, OR-03) and Jared Huffman (D, CA-02) both voiced concerns of wasteful spending on nuclear weapons at the hearing.
Blumenauer opened his question to the witnesses with a request for an analysis on nuclear weapons. He said, “It is mind boggling to me that we’re looking at upwards of three quarters of a trillion dollars over the next ten years.” He was also concerned as to why less than one percent was being spent on dismantling nuclear weapons.
Huffman talked about a “bloated nuclear arsenal.” He said, “In the post-Cold War era, in a time when we’re struggling to address our long term debt and deficits, we still have a huge nuclear arsenal. Even with the progress we've made in the START Treaty numbers; 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons. Some estimate as much as $52 billion a year to maintain that arsenal, and we’re being asked to pay for modernization of it all. In light of all of that, can we afford this type of a nuclear arsenal in this day and age and do we need it?”
The witnesses did not respond with promises for decreases in nuclear weapons spending. Instead, Hagel testified that the budget aimed to modernize “the military’s aging weapons inventory in keeping with the president’s strategic guidance." As the defense budget moves through the House and the Senate, it is important for leaders like Blumenauer and Huffman to continue to fight for reduced spending and a reduced nuclear arsenal. Raising concerns of nuclear weapons spending in the House Budget Committee provides attention to skewed priorities for American’s tax dollars and wasteful spending by the Department of Defense.
-Chelsea Miller is interning at WAND this summer. She is a student at the University of Colorado.
No comments:
Post a Comment