Congress Ignores WH Veto Challenge Over Fighter Jets

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Domestic Issues

(U.S. Air Force/Kevin J. Gruenwald)

Congress is moving forward with plans to fund the construction of additional Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter jets, even though the Obama administration has said the president would veto such a move.

A Senate panel on Thursday approved $1.75 billion to build seven more F-22s and the House of Representatives voted in favor of a Defense Department funding bill that would allocate more funds for the planes, the New York Times reported. Both chambers are also asking for a report from the administration on possibly exporting the planes to Japan and other allies.

On Wednesday, the Obama administration made it clear it opposes the extra funding. The Office of Management and Budget said the funding for more F-22 fighters runs counter to the "collective judgment" of the military's top leaders. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said production of the jets should stop after 187 have been built. Last week, he called the funding boost a "big problem." He said the jet does not fit well into 21st century warfare.

Both the Senate and the House have also approved the development of an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, another program that the White House wants to get rid of.

While some politicians have argued the jets are necessary for national security, some also say reducing their production would result in more jobs lost, especially in Georgia, where the planes are produced. According to Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, there are 95,000 jobs directly or indirectly tied to F-22 production, the Associated Press reports.

"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," Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said in a statement.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.), who both voted against the funding, said Congress will ultimately side with the administration because of the high regard for Gates' opinion, according to the Hill.

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

20 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 20 Comments


by scabbard2 June 27, 2009 11:16 AM EDT: "Frankly, to be blunt about it, the notion that not buying 60 more F-22s imperils the national security of the United States, I find completely nonsense," Gates said; Reply to this comment


by zonkzilla June 27, 2009 10:59 AM EDT: The F22 is already obsolete.
The F 16 has proved over and over again that a larger number of the quicker "sports car" type fighter is the way to go not those ultra expensive "star wars" aircraft that we never really use.
B-1, B-2, F17, now the F 22. They have been proved no better than the B 52's (which we always use) or the F-16's ( which get more flight time per plane than any other in inventory).
Now we are going to export the F 22 so it can get in the hands of our enemies and they can easily defeat it with counter measures then we will have to build another ultra expensive white elephant and the industrialists who control our country can get even richer.
I can see a lot of people on these boards have never served in the military or they would know that a lot of less expensive capable aircraft are better than a fewer number of so called "advanced aircraft".
Remember when the Serbs easily shot down our stealth F 17?
Remember when Iraq shot down our F 17?
Stealth techonology is good but is now easily detected and you can't even leave the things in the rain.
185 F-22's is plenty.
I remember seeing photos of all those thousands of "super" aircraft built during the cold war that we never even used in Vietnam because we were afraid one might get shot down and they were too expensive to fly.
Here we go again.; Reply to this comment


by krotec54 June 27, 2009 10:31 AM EDT: It looks like 0bama is making it a lot worst than what the republicans left behind.; Reply to this comment

by flsunjnky June 27, 2009 7:18 AM EDT

If this jet does not fit well into 21st century warfare, then we need to identify and build what does!

Reply to this comment


by npkppprc June 27, 2009 10:27 AM EDT: According to Obama diplomacy and being warm and fuzzy always works don?t need our military to protect us.


by longtree-2009 June 27, 2009 6:55 AM EDT: lobbyists? someone is pressuring congress. wondering who poses a threat, as fighter jets go, these days? what nation state has superior fighters to our existing fighters? when was the last time fighters were used to win a war? thinking it was ww2. we lost korea, lost nam and all the other limited wars since ww2. after several years, we haven't won in iraq or afghanistan. wondering where fighters have been that significant to victory since ww2. reportedly we have piles of nuclear weapons but haven't used any since ww2, our last victory in a war.; Reply to this comment


by gravyboat3000 June 26, 2009 10:03 PM EDT: Intersting time in American history.

We're at war. However, do we need to fund EVERY military plan? Do we REALLY need the F22?

I don't know, but I do know that the REAL problem with our military is PEOPLE. We need more of them.

As the numbers dwindle, as a result of the Iraq war, and our proud military members being stretched too thin, more young people will be needed to join our military.; Reply to this comment


by wdh3007 June 26, 2009 9:57 PM EDT: Build the jets and use them against North Korea who launched missiles and fire that lousy lame duck of a Defense Secretary who said "I would say were not prepared to do anything about it".; Reply to this comment


by dragon8me June 26, 2009 9:45 PM EDT: Remember what President Eisenhouser said about our biggest enemy was the military industrial complex. As it is they snap their fingers and congress jumps, and when you build all these weapons, you just gota use them. This is our biggest economic disaster. We could fund real universal health care and ensure social security is solvent for a century if we just cut back on the things we don't need in military spending.; Reply to this comment


by Aldymac June 26, 2009 9:45 PM EDT: The military causes nothing but death and destruction, so,,, lets shut the military down completely and let Obama and his cronies in congress protect us just by their personality alone. Riigght?; Reply to this comment


by pvperson3 June 26, 2009 9:34 PM EDT: I love the way Chambliss is always so concerned about his vested interests rather than the good of the country, which lobbyists pocket are you speaking from today Saxby. Not to mention, who can take a person named Saxby seriously?; Reply to this comment