|
WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 14, 2009) - When the
Obama administration outlined its plans to cut big weapons
programs, some of the military industry's allies in Congress
assumed, as they have in the past, that they would have the final
say.
But over the last week, the White House has prodded
Congressional leaders to strip several billion dollars' worth of
extra equipment out of a wartime spending bill.
Experts say that effort suggests that President Obama should be
able to reshape the Pentagon's spending practices.
The developments have shaken up the industry. In the past,
military contractors have routinely beaten back attempts to cancel
weapons programs by lobbying Congress. But Mr. Obama's popularity
and the financial crisis are changing this well-choreographed
dance. The White House is trying to demonstrate that when the
president says no, he means it.
"It's the best possible moment politically to exercise this kind
of budget discipline," said Gordon Adams, a professor at American
University in Washington who closely monitors military
spending.
Even Democratic Congressional leaders who want to protect
defense jobs are falling in line. "They are saying, 'Let's not go
too far,'" Mr. Adams said.
The White House has not blocked everything that Congress wanted
to add to the supplemental war-spending bill, which is expected to
be approved by the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday. And
Congress will have another chance to reverse some of the cuts when
it considers the administration's budget for the 2010 fiscal year,
also expected to be released Thursday.
The administration wants to shift money from futuristic weapons
to simpler systems needed by the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Other political changes also appear to be helping the Obama
administration overturn past practices.
In the House, Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania
Democrat who has long been the point man for contractors seeking
extra money, has been weakened politically by a string of federal
investigations of contractors or lobbyists close to him.
Congressional aides said that during the negotiations over the
bill, the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, called House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative David R. Obey, the
Wisconsin Democrat who leads the House Appropriations Committee, to
insist that they strip out some of the extra spending on planes and
combat vehicles that Mr. Murtha had sought.
The result was that Mr. Murtha, who is chairman of the defense
appropriations subcommittee, had to call his panel together to say
he could not deliver some of the things he had promised.
House aides said the White House wanted to head off possible
Republican criticism over earmarked spending and to ensure that the
bill was clean enough to pass quickly to avoid disrupting the war
financing.
The Senate on Wednesday began considering a bill to strengthen
the Pentagon's contracting process. One of its chief sponsors,
Senator John McCain of Arizona, who was Mr. Obama's Republican
rival in the presidential race last year, strongly supports many of
the changes that Mr. Obama wants to make.
Senate aides say Mr. Emanuel also asked Senator Harry Reid, the
Democratic majority leader from Nevada, to limit the amount of
money added to the Senate version of the war bill.
House leaders cut about $3 billion from the $7.5 billion to $8
billion that Mr. Murtha had wanted to add for weapons systems. Mr.
Murtha had proposed buying 15 Boeing C-17 cargo planes, but the
House cut that to eight. It also eliminated proposals to buy more
Boeing F/A-18 fighters.
But the House panel also plans to add $2.5 billion to accelerate
purchases of mine-resistant vehicles and armored Stryker ambulances
that the Pentagon could use in Afghanistan.
Analysts said that once the debate turned to the 2010 budget,
legislators were likely to pitch other efforts to add more money as
vital to covering shortages of crucial equipment.
James McAleese, a military consultant in McLean, Va., said the
Army was hit hard by plans to cancel a troubled program to develop
new combat vehicles. He said officials were concerned that it could
take two to five years to create replacements.
But analysts said the Pentagon had also limited criticism by
focusing many of the cuts on programs still in the research stage.
It also would add money to new programs that would offset some of
the losses contractors face in other areas.
|
