House passes $643 billion defense bill
May 18th, 2012
01:22 PM ET
3 years ago

House passes $643 billion defense bill

Washington (CNN) - The GOP-controlled House of Representatives on Friday passed a nearly $643 billion military spending bill - a measure at odds with prior defense spending agreements and President Barack Obama's Pentagon plans.

The measure passed in a 299-120 vote. An overwhelming majority of Republicans backed the measure, while the bulk of Democrats opposed it.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Budget • Congress • Department of Defense • House
soundoff (28 Responses)
  1. Bill form GA

    Repugs have found a way around Pork Barrel Spending bans. Just masquerade it as Military Spending, even when the Military doesn't want it.

    And, Hey! what Deficit Crisis!?

    May 18, 2012 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  2. WiredweirdinSF

    Good for them. Of course the incompetent, inept, corrupt, union toady president will veto it because it does not give anything to the dope addicts, welfare frauds or corrupt union bosses.

    May 18, 2012 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  3. Moderate Sean

    WiredweirdinSF – just a friendly reminder once again, you are OFF your meds, or forgot to take them.....also, the POTUS doesn't need to veto anything here, because it won't make it out of the Senate in its current form and should it come to both chambers reconcile anything passed, some of this nonsense won't be in the Final Bill!

    May 18, 2012 01:46 pm at 1:46 pm |
  4. Fair is Fair

    "The measure passed in a 299-120 vote."
    -----–
    Wow. That's a lot of Dems that signed on. Go ahead, Obama... veto this bipartisan legislation.

    May 18, 2012 01:47 pm at 1:47 pm |
  5. cali girl

    Well Well well, spending at its best. And this was not an Obama backed measure. Can't wait to see the rethugs throw this one out there and blame the President for his spending.

    May 18, 2012 01:49 pm at 1:49 pm |
  6. joeysmug

    Leave it up to the Republicans to back out of deal that was previously agreed on. Again more proof that Republicans have not negotiated in good faith since this current President has been in office.

    May 18, 2012 01:55 pm at 1:55 pm |
  7. cali girl

    Fair, read the news article again, the bulk of democrats oppossed it.

    May 18, 2012 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  8. Willard

    "Fair", no need for President Obama to do that, you forgat about Senate! We have money to spend on military, but don't have any for our folks here?

    May 18, 2012 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  9. GROVER NORQUIST IS A ENEMY OF THE STATE/ConservaFASCISTS

    Fair, they went against what the SecDef requested. I thought it was all about listening to boots on the ground and the generals. What happened? You just had to push that bloated bill.

    May 18, 2012 02:09 pm at 2:09 pm |
  10. once upon a horse

    well we will probably need that money if Romney wins because he'll want to bomb Iran or Syria or maybe BOTH to prove he's a tough guy!

    May 18, 2012 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  11. Pete

    Republicans rail against Pres.Obama when he wanted to be fiscally responsible ,trying for a deficet agreement and the party of "NO" said no to tax changes,but yes to big increases in military spending.Who's the fiscally responsible adult in the room now,hypocrites,can't change your story now Boehner,can ya!!!If republicans want more military,stick a gun in their hands or relatives and send them to Afghanistan,they'll be welcomed there,I assure ya!!Pres.Obama,if reelected should say no to everything after the election that the republicans want,that'll teach em!!

    May 18, 2012 02:11 pm at 2:11 pm |
  12. Fair is Fair

    "Fair, read the news article again, the bulk of democrats oppossed it."
    -------
    I didn't say that the "bulk" of the dems voted for it... I said a LOT of them did. Which is true... we're talking about 40-50 or so. So Obama is going to have to veto about 30% of his caucus... too bad,huh? So sorry

    May 18, 2012 02:11 pm at 2:11 pm |
  13. Fair is Fair

    Fair, they went against what the SecDef requested. I thought it was all about listening to boots on the ground and the generals. What happened? You just had to push that bloated bill.
    -----
    SecDef isn't "boots on the ground"... it's a political hack-a-rama Obama appointee. Nice try.

    May 18, 2012 02:14 pm at 2:14 pm |
  14. Fair is Fair

    ""Fair", no need for President Obama to do that, you forgat about Senate! We have money to spend on military, but don't have any for our folks here?"
    -----–
    At least the Common Defense is one of the enumerated powers the Federal Government is endowed with.

    May 18, 2012 02:15 pm at 2:15 pm |
  15. GROVER NORQUIST IS A ENEMY OF THE STATE/ConservaFASCISTS

    Who do the generals take their orders from Fair?

    May 18, 2012 02:16 pm at 2:16 pm |
  16. Prosperid

    "FAIR" isn't fair when it comes to the GOP spending. Stop being a hypocite. You scream about caring about the deficit and leadership. Then doing (FOR THE N'TH TIME!!!!) totally opposite or going the against the grain for what OBAMA signs.
    The military already agreed to the cuts...why spend as if we are still in IRAQ!!!!!

    May 18, 2012 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  17. Larry L

    The "chicken-hawks" are asking for more than the Department of Defense actually says they need! You don't think they might be paying back the Haliburtons of the world who've been pouring money into their coffers? How much of this is pork for defense materials made in Republican districts? They'll gladly cut food for poor children, healthcare for the elderly, and all funding for roads and bridges. But don't touch those pork projects! Like all Republican "values"... Their concern for the deficit is a big steaming pile of B.S.

    May 18, 2012 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  18. Larry L

    @Fair is Fair

    Fair, they went against what the SecDef requested. I thought it was all about listening to boots on the ground and the generals. What happened? You just had to push that bloated bill.
    -–
    SecDef isn't "boots on the ground"... it's a political hack-a-rama Obama appointee. Nice try.---------
    -----------------------------------------------------------–
    The Secretary of Defense got his recommendations from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs got their recommendations from the CINCs as each war-fighting command. You need to avoid this subject as you obviously have no experience with military budgeting or strategic projections of required capabilities.

    May 18, 2012 02:23 pm at 2:23 pm |
  19. Pete

    Democrates in states with military related infastructures probibly voted for it,the typical problem not making everyone happy.But that will change when we pull out of Afghanistan,then there'll be no problems cutting back on the countries military complexes,no war,no weapons,no deaths,no worries,no problems!!

    May 18, 2012 02:25 pm at 2:25 pm |
  20. Sniffit

    So they just couldn't resist welching on a promise.

    "GOP leaders, while pressing for overall spending reductions, vehemently oppose the bulk of the defense cuts"

    NOT TRUE. They agreed to legislation that was contingent upon the occurance of an event. That contingency came true when the commission charged with coming up with a budget agreement failed to do so. It is TOO LATE to claim they oppose these spending cuts. THEY SIGNED THEM INTO LAW. What's really happening is that the GOP/Teatrolls think they can rule by whim and that they can just make agreements and break them whenever they want in an attempt gain political leverage or at least take the Dems down with them.

    May 18, 2012 02:25 pm at 2:25 pm |
  21. Fair is Fair

    "FAIR" isn't fair when it comes to the GOP spending.
    -----–
    Fair is VERY fair when it comes to spending on the military... you know, the brave men and women who defend your right to spew your blather on here.

    May 18, 2012 02:26 pm at 2:26 pm |
  22. Sniffit

    "The Secretary of Defense got his recommendations from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs got their recommendations from the CINCs as each war-fighting command. You need to avoid this subject as you obviously have no experience with military budgeting or strategic projections of required capabilities."

    Not to mention that they all testified before Congress that they could make it work.

    May 18, 2012 02:26 pm at 2:26 pm |
  23. Sniffit

    An East Coast missle defense system? The one on the West Coast can't even shoot down a missle under simulated conditions. it's only ever been able to do it when told where the missle is. This is just pork for defense contractors...nothing more, nothing less.

    May 18, 2012 02:28 pm at 2:28 pm |
  24. CB FL

    Makes me wonder for other bills that are attached that have nothing to do with defense?

    May 18, 2012 02:37 pm at 2:37 pm |
  25. sonnie3

    Personaly I want America to be the Superior Power in the Word and able to protect it citizens. Now lets work on
    illegal imigration that we have laws and our lame government don't enforce them. Our leaders need to explain why they let the law breaker keep exsisting in our country.

    May 18, 2012 02:45 pm at 2:45 pm |
1 2