House panel would cut Defense budget by $9 billion from Obama request

The House Appropriations Defense subcommittee is proposing a $544 billion budget for the Pentagon in 2012, $9 billion less than the White House requested.

That level would be a $11 billion hike from the 2011 Defense
spending measure approved after an eleventh-hour compromise between the White
House and congressional leaders earlier this year.

The subcommittee on Wednesday will take up a $530 billion
base Defense Department appropriations bill. Another House Appropriations
subcommittee has already passed a $14 billion military construction bill.

{mosads}The subcommittee also is proposing $119 billion for the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, an increase of $841 million over the White House’s
request.

The sum of those three spending measures is $663
billion.

The base Pentagon funding bill would cover a 1.6 percent pay
hike for military personnel, the same as a House-passed Defense authorization
bill.

It would provide $107.6 billion for procurement, $3.6
billion less than the Pentagon requested. But it would be an increase of $5.5
billion over the 2011 enacted level.

The legislation does not provide funding for a project to
build a second F-35 fighter engine, a hot political issue in
recent months. It would give the department $15.1 billion to buy 10 Navy ships;
$5.9 billion to purchase 32 F-35s; $2.8 billion to buy 116 Blackhawk
helicopters; and $699 million to acquire 48 MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft,
according to the Appropriations Committee.

In a statement, the panel points to several “common-sense
reductions” it is proposing be made from the White House’s request. That list
includes $500 million for “unjustified supply increases,” $40 million in
logistic support contract savings and $435 million from savings resulting from
delays to the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) missile
program.

“Despite being $9 billion below the request, this bill
fulfills our obligation to the brave men and women who selflessly serve our country,
as well as their families. My long-standing commitment is that we will not
adversely affect any soldier or have an adverse effect on our nation’s readiness,”
Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the subpanel’s chairman, said in the same statement.
“While making sensible, rational reductions, we have provided the department
the resources it needs to continue our overseas commitments. It also allows us
to continue to modernize and maintain readiness.”