Political Hotsheet
June 26, 2009 3:04 PM

Congress Ignores WH Veto Challenge Over Fighter Jets

(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.
Tags:
F-22 ,
Defense Department ,
budget ,
Robert Gates
Topics:
Defense
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 22 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 Sloughfoot June 27, 2009 9:35 AM EDT
Another Dem. Pres., another Iran issue, another dismanteling of the military, another "peanut farmer".
Reply to this comment
by Ordflyer June 27, 2009 3:15 PM EDT
You need to read your history: Jimmy Carter was Naval Officer AND a "nuke." He was the one who started research and approved eventual production of the F-117 Stealth Fighter and the B-2 Stealth Bomber. He also oversaw the building up of Naval forces with new armaments including the Phoenix missle which was the first mass-produced, long-range, "fire and forget" air to air missle.

What he lacked was the charisma (and guile) of Ronald Reagan. He took a beating from the press for canceling the B-1 Bomber (he knew about the B-2) and he took a hit for his lack of cheerleading (the infamous "malaise" comment).

He started the military build-up which Reagan accelerated and (to his credit) successfully promoted.

BTW he didn't start any wars in the desert for imaginary reasons (WMDs in Iraq - remember that??).
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
by stn_sage June 26, 2009 9:03 PM EDT
The price per plane is OUTRAGEOUS! And the money that is spent on this only produces DEATH and DESTRUCTION!

It doesn't clothe anyone. It doesn't feed anyone. It doesn't house anyone.
It doesn't educate anyone. It doesn't provide medical care for anyone.
And it doesn't ENSURE the future prosperity and/or domestic tranquility of anyone!

SO, WHY do this incredibly stupid and wasteful thing?

Primarily, so your Congressmen or Senator can get HIS CONTRIBUTIONS, DONATIONS, or GRATUITIES from some seedy lobbyist representing some corporation!

Tens of millions of American's lives are being infringed upon so a very few can become wealthy! Do you REALLY want to re-elect these "people",
and I use the term generously?!
Reply to this comment
by tincup356 June 26, 2009 7:13 PM EDT
Whatever isn't broken in America will be after BOTH the corrupt parties get through with us. "We the people " have been sold out by BOTH parties ...the ONLY solution to our problems is have everyone who has lost a job, home , 401k, or anything due to the conspiracy going on between congress and corporate America,,,,March on Washington,,,,The sound of 20 million broke ,mad former middle class citizens, stomping through the streets headed towards capitol hill, completely surrounding them till they know there is no escape from facing the people the betrayed and committed TREASON against.
Reply to this comment
by chabuka-2009 June 26, 2009 7:00 PM EDT
Ya' see, it really doesn't matter in the long run..go ahead and "fire" your Senator or your Representative, they have a job waiting for them if you do...as long as "they do right" for the corporations...whether its private Health Care Companies, Wall Street, Big Defense contractors, Gas and oil, Big Pharma, Media corporation,etc., as long as the Congress critters do what these corporations want them to do (stop all regulation, stop all government competition, and never hold any of these corporations accountable or liable for any thing (tort reform)..even if they get voted out by the people..they will have a nice cushy Executive or a (high paying, all the "perks") lobbying position waiting for them...the floor of the Congress has become the first rung on the Corporate Executives ladder...(Corporations are were the real money is, Congress makes sure of it...while protecting their own economical futures...!!!)
Reply to this comment
by kphx June 26, 2009 4:47 PM EDT
Our fine Miltary Industrial Complex at its best. Let us build more weapons that we don't need. All we care about is the profit of our private defense contractors. Who cares about budget and balancing ? Our hardworking sheeple will foot all the bill and pay for the deficits by working harder even.
Reply to this comment
by TooComplex June 26, 2009 4:20 PM EDT
Odd that all the experts, including those in the military, oppose the production of more of this type of jet; yet our supposedly intelligent elected leaders in Congress plow ahead anyway. And I don't buy the jobs loss concern of the Republicans; when was the last time that a Republican cared for the little man? What's missing in this picture?
Reply to this comment
by Ordflyer June 26, 2009 10:19 PM EDT
It is the last export that Americans build - we don't build cars, RCA is just a brand - the factories are all closed. We don't build or make anything except aircraft WE STILL DO THAT REALLY WELL.

I think that some pork to save the last American industry won't hurt anybody. Besides we may be in another Cold War with China in a few years anyway...

The United States was a lot more succesful, and a better neighbor, when we scared of the big bad Soviets.

I am concrned about the small production numbers - ultimately the real reason we won World War II was because we built good products in GREAT numbers. The Germans built technical masterpieces in very small numbers - we won they lost - it might be better to build 400 F18s than 178 F22s....
by earlysaid June 26, 2009 4:03 PM EDT
When President Obama listens to the Secretary of Defense and is making efforts to cut out projects that can be cut from the defense budget, it is time for legislators to get behind Obama to make these cuts. Republicans should be standing with the policy to cut what can be cut from the budget. What gives? Oh, I know defense lobbyists who are not worried about doing things that balance out government spending.
Reply to this comment
by sabre1111 June 26, 2009 9:38 PM EDT
Rowdy, wrong again as usual. The F22 was designed in the 1980s to defeat the Russians and Chinese. Our biggest threats in 2009 are rogue states and terrorists. 187 F22s are enough. Seven more won't make a difference.

But of course if Obama was for the sale, you would then be against it, so arguing with you is like arguing with two magnets who are constantly pushing each other away. No matter what one says, you automatically go the other way.
by nextgenman09 June 27, 2009 5:29 AM EDT
Yet another Rowdyculous rant. Neveer has any facts, never has any supporting documentation, never is right.
See all 22 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER