Pressing for larger defense budget
House armed services panel chairman offers blueprint
WASHINGTON — Declaring the U.S. military in dire need of rebuilding, an influential House committee chairman pressed his case Monday for a $696 billion defense budget in 2018 — more military spending than at any point during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, who heads the Armed Services Committee, argued the sharp increase is badly needed to address shortcomings that have driven the combat readiness of the armed forces to a level Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has described as shocking.
“Today, we have too many planes that cannot fly, too many ships that cannot sail, too many soldiers who cannot deploy, while too many threats are gathering,” Thornberry said.
His blueprint is $28.5 billion above the $603 billion that President Donald Trump requested for core Pentagon operations along with just under $65 billion for warfighting missions. Thornberry said his plan address key areas such as aviation, ground forces and missile defense that Trump “neglected” in the budget proposal he submitted to Congress last month.
Thornberry’s blueprint, which will be considered by the Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, would supply $2.5 billion more than the nearly $10 billion Trump sought for missile defense programs.
Thornberry’s plan also would buy 87 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, 17 more than Trump asked for, as well as four additional V-22 tiltrotor aircraft and eight F/A-18 jet fighters. He also wants to acquire additional ships for the Navy. The Army would get more upgraded Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles.
Thornberry has been at odds with fellow Republicans over how much the Pentagon should get in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
Conservatives who dominate the Budget Committee agreed last week on a budget outline that promises $20 billion less than Thornberry envisioned for the core military budget that pays for weapons, training and troop salaries.
Thornberry has told reporters he would be willing to accept a lower budget number, but only if he’s assured the Pentagon will no longer be hamstrung by a herky-jerky budgeting process that leaves the armed services unsure of how much they’ll get each year and when the money will arrive.