US House bars arms deal with Russian firm over Syria support

The House lashed out at Russia for its unwavering support for Syria, voting yesterday to stop the Pentagon from doing business with a Russian company that has armed Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The overwhelming vote on an amendment to the defense spending bill came just hours after Russia vetoed a U.N. resolution threatening nonmilitary sanctions against Syria. The United Nations and other Western nations have been pressuring Assad to end the deadly crackdown on his people that has dragged on for 16 months.

The House later passed the defense spending bill for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. The White House has threatened to veto the legislation, criticizing the House for reneging on the spending levels that Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to last August in a deficit-cutting budget.

The vote was 326-90.

Incensed by the unending bloodshed in Syria, the House backed an amendment by Rep. Jim Moran, R-Va., that would bar the Pentagon from contracts, cooperative agreements and loans with Rosoboronexport, a Russian state-controlled arms export company that is providing weapons to the Syrian government. The vote was 407-5.

The Defense Department has bought 33 dual-use Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan military from the company, including an order for 10 aircraft last week. The no-bid contract for aircraft and spare parts is worth $640 million.

The Pentagon has relied on the company because of the Afghans familiarity with Russian-made helicopters. But Russia reportedly sold $1 billion in arms to Syria last year and the Assad government bought 36 combat jets from the state-controlled firm.

"I should think it’s troubling to all of us that we are purchasing helicopters from a Russian firm that is directly complicit in the deaths of thousands of innocent Syrian men, women and children," Moran said.

"This has got to stop."

In a surprise vote, the House agreed to freeze defense spending at the current levels, cutting $1.1 billion from the $608 billion bill. An unusual coalition of liberal Democrats and tea party Republicans jo pleaded for some fiscal discipline from their colleagues.

"Austerity to me means spending less," said Republican South Carolina Rep. Mick Mulvaney. "Total government spending will be up this year. We’re still facing a $1 trillion deficit. We need to do better to get our spending under control."

Defense Department base budgets have nearly doubled in the last decade, and that doesn’t include the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mulvaney was joined by Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who questioned the need for half a trillion on defense.

The military "has three ways to destroy a Soviet Union that doesn’t exist anymore," Frank said.

The vote was 247-167, with 89 Republicans joining 158 Democrats.

Overall, the bill would provide $518 billion for the Pentagon and another $88.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan, $2 billion more than Obama requested. The Senate still must craft its version of the bill.

Democrats challenged the House bill’s spending levels, offering an amendment to return the measure to the levels in the budget deal.

"The bill coming to the floor today is in violation of that bipartisan agreement," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. "It’s in violation of an understanding that in order to get our fiscal house in order we had to make tough decisions" on spending on defense.

Said Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat: "A deal is a deal."

That effort failed on a 243-171 vote.

The administration has complained that the increase in defense spending would come at the expense of job training, health care, research and education.

"The bill undermines key investments in high-priority programs, impeding the ability of the secretary of defense to carry out the defense strategic guidance issues earlier this year, and hindering the ability of the armed forces to carry out their mission consistent with the new strategy," the administration said in a statement last month.

The House bill blocks the Air Force from retiring or transferring aircraft, including C-27Js, C-23s and a version of the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle. It cuts $70 million from the Pentagon’s effort to develop biofuels as an alternative to traditional fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil while adding millions for submarines and Navy destroyers that the Pentagon didn’t request.

The bill would provide a 1.7 percent pay increase for military personnel, but lawmakers rejected a .5 percent civilian pay raise.

House action on the bill came against the backdrop of a fierce political fight over automatic spending cuts that will kick in Jan. 2 unless Congress comes up with a plan for $1.2 trillion in savings.

Republicans and Democrats are at an impasse over how to avert the across-the-board cuts in domestic and defense programs that they voted for last year. The cuts were the unpalatable last resort if a congressional supercommittee failed to produce a proposal, a possibility that became a reality last November.

Republicans blamed Obama for the automatic culls and the stalemate.

Democrats argue that Republican resistance to raising taxes on high wage earners is blocking any effort to come up with an alternative to the automatic cuts.

US Senate candidates spar over Groton sub base

Connecticut's leading candidates for U.S. Senate are sparring over who is best-positioned to protect the Groton submarine base, a huge employer that is vulnerable to Pentagon spending cuts.

U.S. Rep Chris Murphy and former U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays are touting their Washington experience as they target former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, who says politicians like them carry some of the blame for the government being in such financial straits.

None of the candidates argues for anything less than an all-out effort to protect Naval Submarine Base New London. But the posturing over the last week highlights how candidates on both sides are trying to use a theme of government insider versus outsider to their advantage ahead of the November election.

Since the administration of President Barack Obama raised the possibility of base closings in January, Connecticut officials have been rallying to stress the importance of the sub base and the investments made by the state to increase its military value. The base was nearly closed in 2005 by a Base Closure and Realignment Commission, called BRAC, and many fear it soon will be targeted again.

On a visit Monday to Groton, Shays criticized McMahon, his rival for the Republican nomination, for telling a reporter from The Day on a stop there last week that her support for a BRAC round would depend on the proposed cuts. He noted Congress would have to authorize the process before the Pentagon announces the proposed cuts.

"She just really is frankly pretty clueless about this," said Shays, who served in Congress from 1987 until 2009.

Murphy, a Democrat, also said McMahon's initial comments suggest a lack of familiarity with the law surrounding BRAC. He said in an interview that discussion of a new round of base closings is premature because the government has not achieved the savings that the last round was designed to generate.

McMahon, who has the GOP endorsement in the Aug. 14 primary, has benefited from a political climate that does not necessarily favor experience in Washington. Her campaign lumped McMahon's rivals in with other elected officials in criticizing Congress for not doing more to avoid the need for cuts.

"Congress' failure to act is what has led us to this point of even having a discussion of a possible BRAC," said McMahon spokeswoman Erin Isaac, who added that Congress has not made any "meaningful" attempt to cut spending.

Isaac said McMahon would protect the base through a jobs plan that prioritizes defense spending.

Asked about criticism that her comment showed a lack of understanding, McMahon told reporters Monday that she is worried about fighting for the sub base, not the process.

"What I am stressing is that I will fight, tooth and nail, to keep our sub base open here in Connecticut because it is not only central to our national defense, but also to the economy of Connecticut. So, that's exactly where I'm going to be," she said after delivering a speech at the Connecticut AFL-CIO political convention.

The Groton base pumps $4.5 billion a year into Connecticut's economy and supports at least 15,000 jobs around the southeastern section of the state. Since escaping the last round of base closings, the state of Connecticut has committed $50 million for improvements to help increase the value of the base, which is the home port for about 16 nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, a Shays supporter who led the charge to keep the base open in 2005, said he believes Shays is the only candidate with the political connections needed to help the base survive another potential BRAC.

"We're very vulnerable politically. We need a U.S. senator who knows the players and knows the game," Simmons said. "The consequences are potentially disastrous."

Robert Ross, the director of the state's Office of Military Affairs, said whoever wins the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Joseph Lieberman will have a significant responsibility to help keep the base open. But he said he expects whoever wins will be a quick study.

"They'll come up to speed very quickly, just like Senator Blumenthal did," Ross said.

Levin believes January cuts will be avoided

The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman predicted Thursday that Congress will find a way to avoid automatic budget cuts in January that could hurt national security, but he added that any ultimate budget agreement won’t leave the Defense Department unscathed.

Pressure is building, particularly within the defense industry, to head off the automatic across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to take effect in January under terms of last year’s Budget Control Act.

Beginning as early as October — perhaps sooner — layoff notices could be delivered to defense industry workers, and possibly to some DoD civilian employees, as officials prepare for the possibility that Congress and the White House won’t come up with a compromise to avoid the automatic cuts.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who has chaired the armed services committee since 2007, said Thursday during a breakfast with defense reporters that he believes sequestration will be avoided in January, although he isn’t sure how — or when an agreement might be reached.

Related reading

SASC chairman: More defense cuts likely in any budget deal (June 12)

He said he is optimistic about avoiding the cuts, which could reduce defense spending by 10 percent, or about $55 billion, next year, “because 80 to 90 percent” of members of Congress want to prevent sequestration.

Levin is concerned, however, that harm may result from waiting for lawmakers and the White House to reach the almost inevitable post-election, last-minute agreement to either avoid or postpone the budget cuts.

Even if agreement is reached, he said, “If it comes too late, the specter of it could have a negative effect on the economy and on people’s lives.”

Levin is pushing the idea of a pre-election bipartisan announcement of the intention to come up with a later budget agreement. He said such an announcement might soothe the stock markets and reassure the public, and could include some details on areas where lawmakers agree, such as extending middle-class tax cuts.

The House of Representatives has passed a budget plan that would avoid sequestration while also reversing the cuts in defense approved last year as part of the Budget Control Act, but Levin discounted that plan as unworkable.

Defense cuts, he said, will have to be part of any final agreement to achieve $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. He suggested a plan that would include about $200 billion over 10 years in cuts in discretionary spending, with half coming from defense. The impact of a roughly $10 billion annual reduction in defense spending would be far less than the consequences of sequestration.

Levin declined to specify how that $10 billion savings could be achieved, saying providing details at this point would not make it easier to get an agreement.

. U.S. Senators Favor Longer Range for S.Korean Missiles

The head of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday he would not take issue with South Korea's efforts to extend the range of its ballistic missiles if it does it "in a non-threatening way, totally defensive way at its own expense."

Sen. Carl Levin made the remarks at a seminar at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. He said the extended range of South Korean missiles "should not be viewed as a kind of offensive measure, taking an offensive position or threatening position towards China or toward North Korea."

Earlier, Sen. Donald Manzullo, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, also said he agreed "in principle" with extending the range of South Korean missiles. Other U.S. lawmakers are also voicing support.

But a diplomatic source said, "This is not a matter that requires Congressional approval and is entirely up to the Obama administration. The views of some members of the U.S. Congress will probably not impact negotiations between Seoul and Washington."

Seoul is seeking to extend the range of its ballistic missiles to more than 800 km in order to counter possible North Korean provocations. Under the current guidelines, signed in 1979 and revised in 2001, the range is limited to 300 km and the payload o 500 kg.

President Lee Myung-bak in an interview with the Wall Street Journal in March said North Korea's ballistic missiles are capable of reaching South Korea's southern resort island of Jeju and this necessitates extending the range of the South's ballistic missiles.

U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Sung Kim said in an interview with the Chosun Ilbo that Washington's top priority is to ensure there are no problems in South Korea's ability to defend itself. But the Obama administration is worried about protests from China and is taking a cautious stance.

The issue will apparently be discussed behind closed doors during the "two plus two" meeting between the foreign and defense ministers of South Korea and the U.S. on Thursday.