The Senate appears ready to buck the White House this week on one of President Barack Obamas top national security policies cutting back on pricey weapons systems.
The Obama administration wants to end production of the Air Forces F-22 fighter jet and did not seek any money for the plane in its fiscal 2010 Pentagon budget.
But the Senate is poised to pass an annual Defense authorization bill that would spend $1.75 billion on seven more of the fighters, which are manufactured by Lockheed Martin.
Pentagon leaders say the Cold War-era planes are no longer needed and that the money could be better spent on a new generation of cheaper weapons. The White House has said it would veto the bill if it contains any more spending on the aircraft.
If we cant get this right, what on earth can we get right? Defense Secretary Robert Gates said. It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual.
But for lawmakers business as usual for the F-22 means tens of thousands of aircraft production jobs spread across more than 40 states. With the economy remaining sluggish, Members see continued F-22 production as a way to protect those jobs in their districts and states.
This has become the best example of Senators putting parochial interests over national security interests, said Senate Armed Services ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.), who along with Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has introduced an amendment that will be voted on this week to cut all
F-22 funding from the bill.
Levin said last week, Were not sure how many votes each side has. Its anybodys guess at this point. The vote is going to be close, no question about it.
Congressional aides and defense experts believe the additional money will remain in place. They note House Defense appropriators backed funding the F-22 in their annual spending bill last week and that the Senate Armed Services Committee refused to cut the funds.
The Senate vote wont be decided along partisan lines, but economic ones, defense observers say.
Liberal Democratic Senators from California, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts, who often oppose large weapons programs, seem more likely to side with conservatives, such as Georgia Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson and Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, than the Democratic administration.
Isakson, whose state is home to a large F-22 manufacturing plant, insists the need for more funding is based on national security. The federal government must tighten its belt in these tough economic times just as Americans have to do, but we must also maintain a strong national defense in order to protect our country, he said.
But Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), an Armed Services member, said lawmakers should take the advice of miliary leaders and cut the funding. They have made a valid case against funding more planes and we should honor that, Nelson said.
Labor unions including the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the United Steelworkers also want to build more F-22s.
Both sides are working furiously to educate Members who are on the fence about F-22 funding. Currently, about a dozen Republican Senators are undecided while about a half-dozen firmly support the amendment. There is significant support on the Democratic side although that is, of course, not universal, said Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst with the Heritage Foundation.
Roll Call has launched a new feature, Hill Navigator, to advise congressional staffers and would-be staffers on how to manage workplace issues on Capitol Hill. Please send us your questions anything from office etiquette, to handling awkward moments, to what happens when the work life gets too personal. Submissions will be treated anonymously.