Terrorism Attacks Spur House Plans for Sharp Hikes in Defense Funds

Terrorist attacks on the U.S. will open the floodgates on Pentagon spending for at least the next several years, lawmakers agree. And House action over the next few days should show by just how much the old spending limits will be broken.

Allied in the push for more defense money are House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and his frequent nemesis and ranking Democrat on the panel, Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin.

Previous caps on spending are “pretty much off,” Young said.

Obey agreed, saying, “It’s our patriotic duty” to add spending to the Pentagon bill.

Boost Expected for the Pentagon

Obey traditionally has opposed many Pentagon spending requests. But after the anthrax scare forced him out of his regular Capitol office, he set up shop in a number of different government agencies, including the FBI and National Security Agency. In those places he heard firsthand testimony on unmet needs to fight terrorism. So he is now determined to add money to the defense bill for the FBI, NSA and other agencies.

The defense bill for fiscal 2002, as reported out of the House Appropriations Committee last week, stood at $317 billion, close to the cap set before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Reps. Young, Obey, Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) are directing the House rewrite, which is expected to boost the amount for the Pentagon to around $340 billion.

Also, House and Senate leaders are trying to make sure their respective defense spending bills are as similar as possible to minimize time-consuming negotiations later.

Although details of new spending proposals for the House bill still are being worked out, a vote on the final measure could come at the end of this week.

The totals for defense in appropriations bills do not include money the government provides for construction of military facilities, family housing and the construction of nuclear warheads. Those activities raise the cost of national defense an additional $25 billion a year.

In a sign of the growing list of new spending for the bill, the committee already voted to add $820 million for a fourth high-technology naval destroyer; the Pentagon only requested three. (The ships would be built in Pascagoula, Miss., home of Senate Republican leader Trent Lott.)

Another significant add-on is $150 million to purchase and convert a commercial Boeing 767 airliner into an aerial tanker for midair refueling. And the committee voted to earmark $50 million for a new Army nonprofit venture capital corporation that would invest in companies offering new products with military and commercial potential.

This sudden enthusiasm for scrapping previously set defense spending limits signals that Congress and the White House have concluded that the war against terrorism has made it politically acceptable to dip into the Social Security trust fund--and perhaps back to deficit financing--to fund government programs.

Indeed, Lewis and Murtha, as chairman and ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee, are facing pressure from colleagues to turn the defense bill into so-called “Christmas tree” legislation that would contain all kinds of legislative ornaments--including many that have little to do with fighting terrorism.

“We’re going to be very tough on this ‘Christmas tree’ business,” Lewis vowed. Proposed add-ons “will have to pass the military smell test.”

If Lewis has his way--and there is a good chance he will--this year’s sharp increase in defense appropriations will be only the beginning.

Don’t Look for Peace Dividend

“I’d like to get the defense budget up to about $350 billion (in fiscal 2003) and hold it there for several years,” Lewis said.

Asked if he would settle for lower defense budgets if extremist Osama bin Laden were quickly captured and the Taliban regime defeated in Afghanistan, Lewis replied: “Do not look for a peace dividend.”

Lewis, echoing an argument gaining strength in Congress, contended that the broader war against terrorism will be long-lasting--like the Cold War--and require the same type of high defense budgets to finance it.

Rep. Norman D. Dicks (D-Wash.), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, predicted the counter-terrorism war will last “for decades.”