Ignoring Obama’s veto threat, Congress approves more funding for Marietta’s F-22

Updated at 5:15 p.m. Thursday.

Congress moved to add more funding for the Marietta-made F-22 Raptor on Thursday, setting the stage for a bruising fight with the White House — which threatened only 24 hours earlier to veto a major defense funding bill over the issue.

In the Senate, the Armed Services Committee finished closed-door negotiations by accepting an amendment by U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss to add $1.75 billion for seven more of the Lockheed Martin stealth fighters. The measure now goes to the full chamber.

In a separate action, the U.S. House this afternoon passed a $550 billion defense bill with an added $369 million in additional spending on the F-22. The House measure also includes language that would permit the sale of a different, less potent version of the fighter to other countries such as Japan.

Both actions occurred less than a day after the White House issued a memo detailing its objections to the House bill. The additional F-22 spending — for parts — was first on the list:

The Administration strongly objects to the provisions in the bill authorizing $369 million in advanced procurement funds for F-22s in FY 2011. The collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments suggests that a final program of record of 187 F-22s is sufficient to meet operational requirements. If the final bill presented to the President contains this provision, the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.

The emphasis is in the original. The veto threat is the first of the Obama administration, and reflects a strategic shift backed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates away from expensive weapons designed for large-scale, conventional warfare and toward simpler systems geared for “assymetrical” conflicts like those in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The House bill includes $130 billion in funding to support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere — which makes some wonder whether Obama would carry out his veto threat.

“Is he bluffing? I wish I was clairvoyant and could answer that question for you,” Gingrey said by phone, shortly before the House vote. “I would hope that he’s bluffing. But if he’s not, I think he’s making a bad mistake — let me put it that way — for the defense of this country. I think he’s making a huge mistake.

“If he vetoes this defense authorization program for 2010 on the basis of that, then he has got that wrapped around his neck and on his shoulders. He and no one else can take responsibility for killing that program,” the Marietta congressman said.

The fight is over spending, jobs and military philosophy.

“In the past several months, Air Force leaders have consistently stated before Congress and to the media that they have a requirement for additional F-22s beyond the 187 that have already been purchased. Repeatedly, military leaders have confirmed that the decision to limit funding to 187 planes is driven by budgetary decisions, not military requirements,” said Chambliss in a prepared statement.

“It is regrettable that the administration needs to issue a veto threat for funding intended to meet a real national security requirement that has been consistently confirmed by our uniformed military leaders.”

The same press release quotes U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson: “The federal government must tighten its belt in these tough economic times just as Americans have to do, but we must also maintain a strong national defense in order to protect our country. This plane is vital to 21st century American military superiority.”

The House could direct even more money toward the F-22, Gingrey said — perhaps for as many as 20 more planes in a second supplemental defense bill.

Democratic support for the F-22 in Congress is considered substantial, but not overwhelming. And remember that U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is one of those advocating a cap on the F-22 program.

This is posted at airforce-magazine.com:

House Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) supports further buys of the F-22 and is optimistic that more will be bought, but he said that it will take some wheeling and dealing in Congress to make it happen.

Speaking with defense reporters Wednesday in Washington, D.C., Murtha said, “I think we can reach a compromise” on Capitol Hill that would allow the F-22 to go forward. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its defense panel, “feels very strongly about it, and I do, too,” Murtha added.

Another defense blog, Chandler’s Watch, has this from the same meeting with Murtha:

Three of the most senior House appropriators are planning to discuss exporting Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor fighter jet to the Japanese government, which wants badly to buy the stealth plane.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, said Wednesday that he intends to meet in the coming days with Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and Rep. Bill Young (Fla.), Murtha’s GOP counterpart on the Defense subcommittee, to discuss lifting the export ban on the F-22.

The key player in that briefing will be Obey, who in 1998 wrote the legislation that bans the exports of the F-22 mainly to keep secret the aircraft’s radar-evading stealth technology. Obey has not budged since, and it’s unclear whether he is willing to relent.

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.

119 comments Add your comment

aeroguy

June 25th, 2009
4:50 pm

During Viet Nam, we found out the hard way by air superiority in a third world country is hard to come by (from SAM’s and foreign trained pilots). Let not be naive again.

Mark Twain

June 25th, 2009
4:50 pm

All weapons systems have fixed costs. The initial estimate was that the Air Force would order 648 F-22 aircraft thus reducing cost per aircraft. The program now is stabilized at 183. The last sixty ordered in 2007 cost 121 million each.
Secretary Gates said in April 2009 that the US will buy 2443 JSF-35 Lightning II’s at an estimated cost of $83 million each. That will put the total cost of the fighters, minus sunken development costs, at $202,769,000.
There goes your free healthcare.

Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you are a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

That’s the difference between governments and individuals. Governments don’t care, individuals do.

G.L. Huggins

June 25th, 2009
4:52 pm

Having followed many contracts as a retiree from LMASC, I can tell you that politics figures heavily in awarding aircraft monies. Because people voted a dem in for pres, republican states stood to lose money. As some would say” We won, get over it”. Facts of today unfortunately won’t take care of future
needs in military hardware. The time to R&D aircraft such as the F-22 won’t be available for an unprepared US. There is never a second chance for making fatal mistakes. Such is the biggie that this regime has made. By The Way assembly workers at auto makers have better wages, benefits, and more job security than aircraft industry professionals. Pity , but so……..

JT

June 25th, 2009
4:52 pm

CVL – it is not a political debate really. You can be a Democrat and still want the best and most advanced military equipment possible.

And yes, the Russians have the best fighter jet in the world now, not really even up for debate.

jc_atl

June 25th, 2009
5:03 pm

Good riddance to wasted tax dollars. Please veto it, Obama.

???

June 25th, 2009
5:04 pm

Is this the same Saxby Chambliss who dodged the draft and voted 3 times to cut spending on VA hospitals during a time of war? If so I sure would NOT trust him.

JT

June 25th, 2009
5:05 pm

Military = wasted tax dollars???? Idiotic.

LFP6

June 25th, 2009
5:21 pm

This is troubling, and not just for Marietta, but for those that have to fly and service the F-22s. Not having the proper parts handy to properly maintain such a complex machine, in my opinion, is a clear and present danger to our airmen.

Conservative

June 25th, 2009
5:31 pm

Wonder how much Saxby is being paid for his time, normally he is busy playing golf this time of the year.

Copyleft

June 25th, 2009
5:40 pm

JT: Yes, it IS in fact possible to waste tax dollars, even on military spending.

Remember the $800 toilet seat and $140 wrench? Those were defense contractors stealing our money and delivering bupkis in return… kinda like the no-bid contractors in Iraq did.

Family Values

June 25th, 2009
5:55 pm

One truly have to believe if Obama decided to do all the republicans wanted him to do, and even become a republican himself, these haters will still not vote or approve of him. HYPOCRASY, HYPOCRASY,…

Obama, stay focused and steady, we had enough of poor leadership from republicans in the last administration. The origin of this lack-luster economy can be traced back to lies, lies, and more lies (WMDs’…)
Not again hate mongers, you can’t fool the American people any more.

Saul Good

June 25th, 2009
6:02 pm

Just a “waste” of money. Time to “break ties” with the Military Industrial Complex. It’s not Obama’s job to go against what the GA rethug wants for his state. talk about PORK?! The Pentagon recommends AGAINST purchasing more f-22’s. Weak on Defense you say? Obama is spending MORE that sissy boy Bush did last year. The very one who got us INTO this mess of WASTING ONE TRILLION DOLLARS fighting a war that not only WASTE money…it ended WAY too many lives…most of them GOOD, HONEST, HARD WORKING, MUSLIM IRAQI’s…. they who never ASKED us to come invade their country was was as much a threat to us and the world at large…as Iceland was!

Saxby….GOODBYE! Nobody is listening to a rethug from GA any longer. You really don’t even figure into the equation in DC any longer… you’re a Bookmark on a BAD CHAPTER in history… one who Rubber Stamped ALL that was EVIL in this World…Bush and Cheney. People will listen to Dr. Phil before they listen to what YOU have to say.

GA: Last in Education and showing it every single day!

When you vote republican you vote against your OWN best interests!

Cruzin

June 25th, 2009
6:26 pm

Money goes to bail out the loser car companies, but money isn’t available to keep the F-22 program going. What Obama is saying, if you make stuff we don’t like, you will lose your job. Keeping America safe and strong is not what the Democrats plan to do. Y’all voted for change, now you got in rammed down your throat sideways….

Shameless

June 26th, 2009
6:02 am

How much is Saxby selling our vote for? Saxby the draft dodger could care less about the defence of the US he is in it for the money. Don’t forget his son is a lobbyist. The F22 is just a total waste of our tax money.

Copyleft

June 26th, 2009
9:19 am

Cruzin: Just because you’re unhappy with Obama doesn’t mean we all are.

And he IS keeping America safe and strong, thank you. He’s just not doing it the expensive and stupid way that previous administrations favored….

What happened to "Country First" ?

June 26th, 2009
10:13 am

The military doesn’t want this, it has never been used in the wars we are fighting today. It is a WASTE OF MONEY.

The Snark

June 26th, 2009
11:16 am

Copyleft, you are out of your mind. Obama is not doing “it” the expensive way? Really? Trillions in new dbt for programs that history proves will not work. The only thing The Obama. peace be upon him, is not expanding is the military. Lets see how well universal health care and that stupid Cap and Tax bill serves us when we are no longer a super power and unable to defend ourselves? You libs never learn. You just throw more cash at your idiotic, but well intentioned (rolling eyes), programs. I am convinced that Obama will be far worse than Jimmy Al-Carter.

I have been meaning to ask, with the economy in the crapper, unemployment still rising, inflation just around the corner and a the knowledge that Obama is weakening our defenses… How is that Hope and Change working out for you?

Copyleft

June 26th, 2009
12:01 pm

Snark: Quite well, thank you. It’ll be a long time recovering from the Bush Depression, of course, but we knew that even before Pres. Obama was sworn in. Fortunately, he’s handling it the right way (although a bit too moderate in his approach, still pandering to the lobbyists who want their failed and broken schemes propped up).

The point about spending was specifically about MILITARY spending, of course. And that’s been out of control and unaccountable for far too long. Cancelling wasteful boondoggles like the F-22 makes good economic AND security sense for America.

You wingnuts never learn; spending on ourselves is better than spending to prop up, overthrow, and invade other countries.

DontTreadOnMe

June 26th, 2009
1:26 pm

Cancelling wasteful boondoggles like the F-22 makes good economic AND security sense for America.

You wingnuts never learn; spending on ourselves is better than spending to prop up, overthrow, and invade other countries.

——

Wow. I wish I could live in your Fantasyland.