Pentagon Firms Fear McCain; More Defense Dollars Are Going to Obama

By Ashley Roque
Roll Call
September 4, 2008

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose military experience and ties would be the deepest of any
president since Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, would seem a lock to have the backing of the
multibillion-dollar defense industry in his White House bid. But many contractors worried about
the Arizona Senators reform talk and penchant for opposing Congressional earmarks are
backing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, at the end of July Obama had raised
$410,443 from supporters associated with the defense companies, while McCain had received
$393,954.

On paper, John McCain should be the favorite with the defense sector, said Massie Ritsch, the
centers communications director. So for whatever reason, he is not following the predictable
path. Ritsch added that Republican presidential candidates normally receive about 60 percent of
all defense contractor dollars.

John Lehman, a former Navy secretary whos frequently mentioned as a possible Defense
Secretary under McCain, said theres no question McCain would target weapons spending. I
think everything is on the table. There have go to be tradeoffs [in the Defense budget], said
Lehman, a top national security adviser to the McCain campaign.

Lehman said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld initially sought to take on out-of-control
weapons spending, but he was sidetracked by the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War. He said a
McCain Pentagon would likely renew those efforts, along with pushing other business reforms,
including cutting civilian personnel and limiting costly changes to defense contracts after they
are awarded.

Speaking at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Orlando, Fla., last month, McCain
vowed to fight earmarks if elected and veto any spending bill that contains them. The annual
Defense spending bill has traditionally contained more earmarks than any other appropriations
measure.

McCain declined to comment for this article.

Contractors have also not forgotten that McCain helped derail a multibillion-dollar tanker aircraft
deal between Boeing and the Air Force several years ago. Ultimately, McCains efforts helped
send a top Air Force procurement official and Boeing executive to jail and led to increased
scrutiny and new limits on some defense contracts.

As the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain has not only targeted
Air Force weapons. He has also questioned the Armys plan for building the multibillion-dollar
Future Combat System and expressed frustration with the Navy over soaring shipbuilding costs.

Despite McCains promise to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as necessary a move that likely
would keep money flowing to the Pentagon several lobbyists said they are nervous that he
would target weapons programs and halt Congressional earmarks that have proved lucrative for
both contractors and the Pentagon.

One defense lobbyist who is backing Obama said, Everyone is nervous about McCain coming
in; he is unpredictable. He wants to wield the big hammer about premier military power and then
spew how defense companies are taking the American people for a ride.

Critics of McCain say the prime concern is his attack dog mentality could lead to a shake-up in
the top ranks on the Pentagon.

Were afraid of more regulations and the unknown, a defense lobbyist said. The big fear is not
what he wants to do or how he will act, but he never gives up. Its both a virtue but a bane to
those on the wrong side of the issue with him.

One Capitol Hill veteran agreed that McCain would make changes at Defense Department but
said that would happen with any new administration.

There would be a reorganization. There always is, the former staffer said. If McCain takes
over the people who are there are gone, no senior officials will hold over.

Joe Carnevale, a senior defense adviser at the Shipbuilders Council of America, cautioned
against a massive reorganization regardless of who is elected, warning it would only delay
weapons work. In my mind a reorganization results in kicking the can down the road,
Carnevale said.
Anti-War Democrats, GOP Join Forces to Fight Domestic Spending on War Bill

By: Ashley Roque

CongressNow
Apr 23, 2008 5:56 PM

In an unusual move, both Republicans and anti-war Democrats are trying to force House leaders
to abandon the idea of adding domestic dollars to a controversial war spending bill that could hit
the floor as soon as next week, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) told CongressNow.

People shouldn't have to choose between voting for food stamps for hungry people and for an
occupation that is keeping our young men and women in harms way, said Lee, a co-founder of
the Out of Iraq Caucus.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and other Republicans have also said they wouldn't
accept any additional spending.

Boehner told reporters this week, There's rumors about adding all types of extraneous spending
on the backs of our troops. We're not going to allow that to happen.

Although the groups have different agendas the GOP to keep money freely flowing to units in
Iraq and anti-war Democrats to bring troops home both are now asking House Democratic
leaders to scrap plans for attaching billions in domestic funding to the $108 billion spending bill
for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The anti-war group has met with key leaders, among them House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Defense Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.), but no agreement has been reached to limit funding,
Lee said.

For several weeks, House and Senate Democrats have been crafting a war bill that would cover
not only war costs, but possibly offer an extension of unemployment benefits, increased food
stamps spending, more money for wildfire protection and new funds federal infrastructure
projects. Backers say the domestic spending would help jump-start the slowing economy.

We're trying to decide what will be in the war supplemental, House Majority Leader Steny
Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters today. Hoyer said he expects the bill to be unveiled next week.

Lee explained that although the Out of Iraq Caucus supports the domestic spending, they do not
want to be forced to vote against it because of their opposition to more war spending. Instead,
they are asking Democratic leaders to split the measures into two or more bills.

The only money we should give for this president is for the protection of our troops and to
provide for a safe and responsible redeployment, Lee added.
GOP Members, meanwhile, are also opposing any add-ons to the bill because they worry it could
slow getting money to troops. President Bush has said he opposes adding domestic spending and
has threatened to veto the bill if it exceeds $108 billion. Republicans say they will not oppose the
bill if it includes additional fiscal 2009 war spending.

With both GOP and anti-war lawmakers opposed, leadership is caught in a precarious position, in
part because the supplemental may be the only spending bill signed into law before this falls
elections.

There is a lot discussed about that concern but we run that risk, Lee said.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats may be hard-pressed to pass the spending bill if domestic dollars
are attached. They currently do not have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster threatened by
Republicans if domestic projects are attached.
Democrats Put Advocates for Veterans in Spotlight

By Ashley Roque
Roll Call
August 27, 2008

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) caught many by surprise when she suggested her choice for vice
president would be Texas Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards. While Pelosis pick was seen by some
as a jab at President Bush, whose Crawford ranch falls into Edwards district, her choice also
reveals the growing importance Democrats are placing on veterans issues.

For years, our colleagues have said to [Edwards], why dont you run for president? Pelosi told
ABCs This Week earlier this summer. He is an extraordinarily talented person. He is a
champion for veterans in the Congress. Under his leadership, we have passed the biggest
increase in funding for veterans health benefits and other benefits in the history of our country.

Edwards, a nine-term moderate Democrat from central Texas, is chairman of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies.
From that perch, Edwards has led Democratic efforts since 2007 to boost spending for veterans
benefits.

For a decade, veterans were on a budget treadmill trying to keep up with inflation [while] losing
with health care and other benefits, Edwards said. Pelosi made a commitment that the VA ...
would make it a highest of priority in the Congress.

That commitment, Edwards said, prompted the Speaker to recommend that he become Obamas
running mate.

Democrats increasingly want to move veterans issues to the top of the Congressional agenda
with a goal of showing their support for the military even as they oppose the Iraq War.
Despite initial opposition from the White House and some in the GOP, Democrats passed
legislation, sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb (Va.), this year to bolster veterans educational benefits.

Were doing these things because it is the right thing to do, Edwards said.

Webb, a freshman Senator who was mentioned as vice presidential candidate before taking
himself out of the running, has also emerged as the partys point man on veterans issues. Webb,
a former Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan, sponsored the legislation dubbed the
new GI bill and has been a lead critic of the Iraq War.
Moreover, the House already has approved $47.7 billion in spending for the Veterans Affairs
Department in fiscal 2009. The spending is $2.9 billion more than the amount sought by
President Bush and $4.6 billion more than Congress approved for veterans in fiscal 2008.

Democrats have repeatedly chided the Bush administration for not spending enough money on
veterans injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, the bulk of the proposed House increase,
about $1.6 billion, would improve health care facilities and treatment by increasing spending for
prosthetics, caseworkers and medical research for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said he would push
for more VA funding, particularly services for troops who lost limbs or suffered brain damage in
Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would say if we could get an additional $1 billion, that the VA would be in good shape,
Akaka said. The Senate has yet to approve a fiscal 2009 VA spending bill.

Akaka said Democrats believe that additional spending for veterans should be considered a cost
of the war. He said additional spending could come in annual spending bills or could be tacked
onto emergency war spending measures.

While Republicans have generally backed increased VA spending, some GOPers suggest that
Democrats support is aimed at making partisan gains.

Since Democrats have taken over, they have tried to convince people that although they are
against the war, they support the troops by increasing VA spending, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.)
said.

Republicans and Democrats have been trying to out do each other on VA benefits, but in the end
it has been good for vets, said Wamp, the top Republican on the House Appropriations
Subcommittee for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies.

Wamp said there would be a narrow window after the new administration takes over for
lawmakers to settle on a permanent annual increase for VA. He suggested Congress should
consider increasing mandatory spending on VA health care services by 1 percent to 2 percent
annually.

Not all lawmakers are thrilled with the notion of increased VA spending.

Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.), the top Republican on the Veterans Affairs Committee, told
CongressNow that he believes lawmakers are properly funding VA right now and the additional
$1 billion figure was pulled out of the sky.
Instead, Burr said lawmakers should focus on boosting spending on private sector health care
services for veterans.

During a breakfast with reporters last week, Veterans Affairs Secretary James Peake said the
departments current health care funding levels are about right. Peake said he supports
partnering with private health care providers in a more business-like manner. However, he
does not believe that will lead to privatization of all VA health care.

Dennis Cullinan, the national legislative director for Veterans of Foreign Wars, said such a move
would direct VA participants and dollars to the private sector.

There is no way that the private sector could provide the same quality of care at the same cost,
Cullinan said, clarifying that veterans living in remote areas could benefit from limited
privatization as long as dollars are not directed away from the VAs infrastructure.

However, Cullinan said his chief concern is that Congress wont send the president the fiscal
2009 military construction and Veterans Affairs spending bill before lawmakers break for the
year in early October.

Right now the concern is just getting the money, Cullinan said. As the casualties rise, people
will need the care, some for the rest of their lives.