Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House approves $602B defense bill despite White House objections
foxnews.com ^ | 5/19/16 | ap

Posted on 05/18/2016 8:46:28 PM PDT by ColdOne

WASHINGTON – The Republican-led House voted convincingly Wednesday to approve a $602 billion defense policy bill after rejecting attempts by Democrats to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and to repeal the war powers President Barack Obama relies on to fight the Islamic State (ISIS).

ADVERTISEMENT

The legislation, which authorizes military spending for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, seeks to halt a decline in the combat readiness of the U.S. armed forces by purchasing more weapons and prohibiting further cuts in troop levels. But in a 17-page statement on the policy bill, the White House detailed its opposition to numerous provisions and said Obama would veto the legislation if it reached his desk.

The bill, approved 277-147, must be reconciled with a version the Senate is expected to consider by month's end.

Republicans shot down an amendment by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., to strike parts of the bill that renew a longstanding ban on moving Guantanamo detainees to the United States. The embargo has kept Obama from fulfilling a campaign pledge to shutter the facility. The White House said the restrictions interfere with the executive branch's authority to decide when and where to prosecute prisoners.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: defensebill; guantanamo; isis; military; nadler

1 posted on 05/18/2016 8:46:28 PM PDT by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

A hundred billion here, another hundred there.


2 posted on 05/18/2016 8:52:35 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

WH objections = Odungo’s muzzie advisors


3 posted on 05/18/2016 8:53:33 PM PDT by Doogle (( USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon sThailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Honestly we don’t need a big army or marine corps. Keep our navy and air force intact, we’ll be fine. Just keep West Point running so we have qualified officers in the army just in case.


4 posted on 05/18/2016 8:57:24 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doogle

While I would not put too much store on white hut objections pentagon pork and pandering are driving the U S under.


5 posted on 05/18/2016 8:57:59 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Not even sure what the Air Force does except “aim high.”

Back in the old days fighter pilots aimed at the f&*%^^ target - the enemy that needed shooting down or blowing up.


6 posted on 05/18/2016 9:00:45 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Our military capability is in shambles. It must be rebuilt to adequate strength to support world needs and values...and I agree with Trump that the rest of the world that lives under our umbrella of freedom, must help pay for it.


7 posted on 05/18/2016 9:11:14 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Oh noes! The whitehut is objected to? whatever are we to do? This must be some kind of mistake, GOPe objecting to barkie! Racist! Racist! Racist!


8 posted on 05/18/2016 9:25:16 PM PDT by 867V309 (It's over. It's over now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

I’d just be happy if trump says no to the congressmen wanting aircraft and weapons systems the military don’t want. In the 2018 DOD budget of course.


9 posted on 05/18/2016 9:45:30 PM PDT by napscoordinator (Trump/Hunter, jr for President/Vice President 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

“Our military capability is in shambles. “

The amount of money is secondary to getting rid of the political correctness and cronyism.

Get the transgenders out, fire Obama’s sissy generals and admirals, gut the F35. Plenty to do.


10 posted on 05/18/2016 9:47:21 PM PDT by DaxtonBrown (wrote Harry Reid.s only biography www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

I heard a few days ago that the 2nd ID was deactivated.


11 posted on 05/19/2016 2:38:26 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Ping


12 posted on 05/19/2016 3:20:47 AM PDT by StoneWall Brigade ( America's Party! The Party of the Republic Vote Tom Hoefling/Steve Schulin 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Yes, we absolutely do need a top-notch Marine Corps.


13 posted on 05/19/2016 4:11:07 AM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DaxtonBrown

“..Get the transgenders out, fire Obama’s sissy generals and admirals, gut the F35. Plenty to do.”

As a vet, I can say “AMEN!”


14 posted on 05/19/2016 4:46:55 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StoneWall Brigade
Two major things come to mind. We need to immediately maintain what we have and get what we have fully operational that means funding the maintenance. Deploy then where required. The second biggie is we need enough active duty forces to where we get off the reservist dependency and can rotate even critical need units in a reasonable manner. Our troops are over deployed not allowing for substantial downtime. If a person deploys for 18 months that should be it for that enlistment. Then get them back to the states.

Today's troops have been in war deployments since the early 1990's with very little peace time either in the Middle East such as Iraq or Afghanistan. It's not an issue of not enough volunteers to serve it's a matter of congress has not substantially increased End Troop Strengths since the mid 1990's cuts. We're at the same level we were more or less in proposed 1996 numbers in troops strength.

15 posted on 05/19/2016 8:28:13 PM PDT by cva66snipe ((Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe; Jeff Head; EternalVigilance

Snipe as I recall you use to the exact numbers of our Troop Strength numbers. You’ve posted before in the past, can you post it again?


16 posted on 05/20/2016 1:57:29 AM PDT by StoneWall Brigade ( America's Party! The Party of the Republic Vote Tom Hoefling/Steve Schulin 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: StoneWall Brigade
Be glad too. I don't have the latest numbers I think they stop in 2004. But we all know they didn't go up.

Department of Defense Personnel (End of Fiscal Year Strength in Thousands) Percent Change
FY 1987-1997 is -33% in Total Active Duty

FY 1987 Active Military 2,174,000
Army 781,000
Navy 587,000
Marines 199,000
Air Force 607,000

FY 1996
1,482,000 Active Duty
Army 495,000
Navy 424,000
Marines 174,000
Air Force 388,000

FY 1997 Active Duty 1,457,000
Army 495,000
Navy 407,000
Marines 174,000
Air Force 381,000

1998 authorization for end strength active duty

Army 495,000
Navy 390,802
Marines 174,000
Air Force 371,577

SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES.

The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty personnel as of September 30, 2002, as follows:
(1) The Army, 480,000.
(2) The Navy, 376,000.
(3) The Marine Corps, 172,600.
(4) The Air Force, 358,800.

SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES.

The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty personnel as of September 30, 2004, as follows:
(1) The Army, 482,400.
(2) The Navy, 373,800. currently Active Duty: 381,135
(3) The Marine Corps, 175,000.
(4) The Air Force, 359,300

17 posted on 05/20/2016 1:35:42 PM PDT by cva66snipe ((Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: StoneWall Brigade

This site shows the new numbers for 2016-2017 as well as for 2010. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm


18 posted on 05/20/2016 1:51:31 PM PDT by cva66snipe ((Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson