Senate overwhelmingly backs sweeping policy bill to pump $700 billion into the military.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-overwhelmingly-backs-bill-to-pump-700-billion-into-military/

The Senate has overwhelmingly approved a sweeping policy bill that would pump $700 billion into the military, putting the U.S. armed forces on track for a budget greater than at any time during the decade-plus wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senators passed the legislation by a 89-8 vote Monday. The measure authorizes $700 billion in military spending for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, expands U.S. missile defenses in response to North Korea's growing hostility and refuses to allow excess military bases to be closed.

The 1,215-page measure defies a number of White House objections, but President Donald Trump hasn't threatened to veto the measure. The bill helps him honor a pledge to rebuild an American military that he said had become depleted on former President Barack Obama's watch.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other national security hawks have insisted the military branches are at risk of losing their edge in combat without a dramatic influx of money to repair shortfalls in training and equipment. Congress' failure to supply adequate budgets is at least partly responsible for a series of deadly ship collisions and helicopter crashes, according to McCain, the Armed Services Committee chairman.

McCain, who is battling an aggressive type of brain cancer, guided the bill toward passage as he railed against Washington gridlock and political gamesmanship. But he couldn't quell disputes among his colleagues over several contentious amendments that were blocked from votes and failed to be added to the bill.

Among them was a proposal by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, that would have protected transgender service members from being kicked out of the armed forces. Gillibrand and McCain seek to achieve the same goal through separate legislation they introduced late last week. That bill also is supported by Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services panel.

Approved by the Armed Services Committee by a 27-0 vote in late June, the overall Senate bill provides $640 billion for core Pentagon operations, such as buying weapons and paying troops, and another $60 billion for wartime missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Trump's budget request sought $603 billion for basic functions and $65 billion for overseas missions.

With North Korea's nuclear program a growing threat to the U.S. and its allies, the bill includes $8.5 billion to strengthen U.S. missile and defense systems. That's $630 million more than the Trump administration sought for those programs, according to a committee analysis.

North Korea last week conducted its longest-ever test flight of a ballistic missile, firing an intermediate-range weapon over U.S. ally Japan into the northern Pacific Ocean. The launch signaled both defiance of its rivals and a significant technological advance.

The legislation directs the Defense Department to deploy up to 14 additional ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, an increase that will expand to 58 the number of interceptors designed to destroy incoming warheads. The department also is tasked with finding a storage site for as many as 14 other spare interceptors, and senators envision an eventual arsenal of 100 with additional missile fields in the Midwest and on the East Coast.

The White House, in a statement issued earlier this month, called the order for more interceptors "premature" given the Pentagon's ongoing review of missile defense programs.

Despite the push for the additional billions in military spending, major hurdles need to be cleared before all the extra money materializes. Lawmakers will have to work out a deal that lifts the caps on federal agency budgets, including the Pentagon's, mandated by a 2011 law. Congress has passed temporary relief from the limits before, but senior military officials have urged for the law to be repealed altogether.

As their House counterparts did, the Senate bill rejects Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' plan to launch a new round of base closings starting in 2021. He told lawmakers in June that closing excess installations would save $10 billion over a five-year period. Mattis said the savings could be used to acquire four nuclear submarines or dozens of jet fighters. But military installations are prized possessions in states and lawmakers refused to go along.

The bill allots $10.6 billion for 94 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, which is two dozen more than Trump requested. The bill also provides $25 billion to pay for 13 ships, which is $5 billion and five ships more than the Trump sought.

I suppose deficits won't matter again.

The next time there's a democrat in office it will be the number 1 issue.

Is it cliche to post this? Sure. That said it's been true for many many years.

America is run by the army now its becoming the next imperial japan

Jeeze and people wonder why are economy is going down to drain.

Everytime the government makes a big sweeping bill that flushes that much money down the drain, they should get a salary deduction.

The Army is only one branch of the military.

Way too much money spent on the military while cutting or curtailing social programs. Those who support this should be ashamed.

Having a military is expensive. Having a large one is even more expensive. Maintaining our presence in the world is also expensive. Maintaining the bureaucracy even more so. Defunding the State Department and focusing less on diplomacy is even more costly when you think about it.

Considering what the Trump Administration's policies in the Middle East and North Korea, the funding makes "sense." It doesn't mean they're good, effective policies, it's just that if he wants an aggressive foreign policy, he's going to have a larger military that can be more aggressive.

The war economy is doing well. Contractors and PMCs alike. If anything, that much spending could have been more of a benefit in, say, reforming and funding public education, properly maintaining and improving infrastructure and maybe having more affordable healthcare and education for future generations.

Kirsten Gillibrand voted no?

Please run in 2020.

Who is america afraid of?? I mean if the whole world teamed up you guys would probably still bitch slap us to next tuesday

Sadly, that has nothing to do with it. The people in power simply want to bankrupt this nation to fuel the buddy system between all of the defense lobbyists. People here are too stupid to realize that selling security is a scam. Probably because the military industrial complex bankrupted our education system long ago.

Cool.

@LJS9502_basic: Looking forward to the reported trillion dollars in tax cuts which will, of course, be followed in later years in cuts to non defense spending "because we're broke."

The economy is actually doing pretty well and there is a low unemployment.

If you are talking about the debt, then you can thank Obama and his social justice programs for that. Obama put more debt on the books than the 5 previous presidents combined.

We already spend more on our military than combining countries do. We do NOT need to increase spending. It's fiscally unsound.

If the current administration and congress are planning to change that, this sure isn't the way to do it.

Sure, In your opinion it may be fiscally unsound.

But at least it´s better than throwing the cash down the toilet on illegals or a number of the "anti" social justice programs Obama put in place.

Considering the world climate , i on the other hand think it´s a perfect way to make sure the enemy does not win.

China and Russia are knocking on the door of war either by proxy or by their own hand.

smh

We already spend too much. We don't need to spend more. That's like filing up your gas tank and letting it continue to run even though you have enough already. All you're doing is wasting money.

God forbid we use that money for health or education and is one of the reasons we will continue to lag as a first world country,

And people wonder why our education and healthcare are down the drain. Oh, well, better buy more tanks that we'll never use for another world war that will never happen.

And don't you forget it!

Of course, why spend it on infrastructure, education, or healthcare.

We don´t spend to much. State of the art equipment costs money, not to mention that more military spending actually helps boost the economy opposite wasting it on social justice programs.

And we are already spending more than enough thanks to Obama on healthcare and education, not to mention other social programs. Reason why the country is in so much debt that it will take generations to get it down.

Anyone who tries to carry on more than 3oz of liquid

The economy is doing better and the unemployment is lower, courtesy of the Obama Administration's actions and policies. In addition, what "social justice programs" are you referring you? Are you that partisan or are you incapable of understanding that you're an easily offended Trumpflake?

Also, regardless of how the economy is doing, that spending is going to an over-bloated military bureaucracy that has squandered millions and wasted more. That money could have been better spent on improving infrastructure which is something we drastically need. Funding an underfunded education system and improving it in order to better prepare future generations for the next step in their live.

It's spending that can be better spent on programs that help Americans.

Why do people continuously take the bait from the same dumbasses over and over and over?

The people who are really hurting are the defense contractors. Won't someone please think of the poor defense contractors? We should give them another trillion to build a fighter jet that suffocates its pilots that no one actually wants. Because...reasons.

The deep state will be pleased.

Congress no longer represents its people.

Holy shit, do we agree on something?

meanwhile, potholes remain unfilled, bridges keep collapsing, entire counties remain devastated after natural disasters, we have a flawed educational system with some of the dumbest (not their fault) k-12 students in the first world, and we've already spent 400+ billion on a plane that isn't even in production yet (the F-35)...and they want 700 billion more?

Didn't the DOD "lose" hundreds of billions of dollars in the past decade as well? As in, no one can say where the money went.

What do we agree on?

Just in case you didn´t know, the economy doesn't bounce up or down based on a few years , it takes awhile for any effects to be seen. So the economy is not just curtsey of Obama but also Bush. But has any economist will say, the presidents effects are limited.

Where the money goes is your opinion, but any program even the Obama program has buracracy where the money goes, it´s a fact of politics. So sure some of the cash goes to the wrong things, but most of it will go to benefit the military and also our troops.

And spending that will line the left bureaucrats pockets? and not help America as a whole. Luckily that wont be the case.

i guess if we're going to be invading NK, we're going to need the manpower

Nope. Bush made the mess of the economy. Trump will as well. Trickle down fails every time.

fixed :P

Don´t alter my posts , someone might think i would actually post garbage like that.

Funny considering the Obama Debt

But sorry the economy does not work like that, for something to take effect , it takes a number of years not to mention a president is not the only contributing factor.

It depends on what we are talking about. Are we talking about the effects of a slow burning, 10 year jobs bill to add 20,000 jobs nationwide, or are we talking about someone increasing our military spending by 300%, while also cutting taxes and social services........ well we can see those effects very quickly.

Guess which one Bush did?

Ill give you a hint since you always need all the help you can get...... It was not the jobs bill thing.

Such a simplistic view of the world....but republicans take that belief because their party invariably fucks up the economy. Depending on policy the economy can change slowly or quickly. We had twelve and eight years of trickle down under the republicans which is enough time to destroy an economy. When it starts rebounding they come in again and screw it up.

Increasing spending and cutting taxes is NOT a recipe for a healthy economy and the sooner people learn that the better off the country will be. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Voters..........are insane......those that continue this vote pattern anyway.

God forbid you post the truth for once

How come we have money for this bill, but not to help stop the water crisis in Flint Michigan. America has the worst priorties.

I think you got something backwards, Republicans are the fiscal sound people, where the democrats often come in and wreck it with their social programs.

And despite what you think, Bush did not wreck the economy, the world crises did and the do you remember a thing called the sub-prime. And also not forgetting that the auto industry bailout began under bush.

And of course cutting taxes and increasing spending is not good, but neither is Obama´s social programs that is costing a fortune. Which is again why the debt has increased so much and have left future generations with a major problem.

No I don't have it backwards. Republicans USED TO BE fiscally sound. The last few rounds starting with Reagan and continuing they have outspent the democratic presidents.

Wait what? are you claiming Reagan was not fiscal sound? wow and here i thought i had heard it all. But never heard someone being that partisan.

He outspent Carter.

No, he fixed the Economy after a fool like Carter had destroyed it.

Again being this partisan is not good for anyone.

Right. He clearly increased the deficit. He did out spend the previous president and while I'm objectively looking at facts........you ARE being partisan and isn't good. Also he did NOT fix the economy. He and Bush v1.0 made a mess of it. He is also the start of the shrinking of the middle class.

I have no idea what book you are reading but maybe stop looking into Far left propaganda books

Reagan came during a recession and by the end of his first term, had done so much that the economy was at a record growth

And as to the spending, this is where you are wrong, his spending actually decreased from 22.9% of the GDP to 22.1% GDP

So no idea where you got the idea that Reagan was anything but a fiscal sound president who came during a rescission and saved the country.