Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 6395

Authorizing $740 Billion in Military Spending for FY2021

Argument in favor

Congress’s foremost constitutional duty is to provide for the national defense. While this bipartisan bill is a compromise, it will strengthen the military at a time when global threats are increasing and funding is hard to come by.

Alison's Opinion
···
07/22/2020
I do NOT support the current military budget! I support reducing it by 10% and using those funds to support pubic programs here at home in the areas of health. education, the homeless, and supporting small businesses all over this country. Anyone know how to change what appears to be me in favor to me being against, which is really where I stand....
Like (184)
Follow
Share
Jim2423's Opinion
···
07/19/2020
I hope the majority of this money goes to American workers and not corrupt contractors. I do support a strong and well trained military. But look at other countries not spending money on engagement of their military in foreign countries, especially areas that were not really a deterrent to begin with 9 trillion dollars so far in Iraq and Afghanistan not counting all the money going for VA expenditures. Do we really need all the cost plus military expenses. Well it appears our representatives do not really look into these Bills. Just wave it off and vote YEA. We all know this is an atrocious expense with NO Accountability. Yes we need a well trained and ready military but this is ridiculous.
Like (70)
Follow
Share
Jarret's Opinion
···
07/22/2020
I’m quite happy that congress authorized a high, robust and necessary defense budget! The Space Force being solidified as fully fledged branch of the military is a real key to growth of our security in the future. Hopefully this budget will go towards modernization of equipment. I think a strong solid defense budget is needed to counter China and other growing threats. Just because we have a large defense budget doesn’t mean other government programs can’t be funded as well. Hopefully the public can soon see the strides the US military has been making on our “loyal wingman” program and the “sixth generation” future fighter jet program.
Like (22)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The U.S. shouldn’t be spending $740 billion on national defense, an amount significantly outpacing America’s most significant rivals. A smaller military would free up funding for other priorities.

Taylor 's Opinion
···
07/22/2020
That money should be allocated towards so many other things. Stop investing in war and guns and start investing in communities and people
Like (212)
Follow
Share
AntwonKey's Opinion
···
07/22/2020
The Pentagon budget is way too big at a cost to domestic programs.
Like (189)
Follow
Share
Jeremy's Opinion
···
07/22/2020
“Overseas contingency operations?” How’s about bringing the troops home instead.
Like (110)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 6395?

(UPDATED 12/6/20) This bill has been amended by Congress to serve as the bipartisan conference report for the fiscal year 2021 defense authorization package. It initially served as the legislative vehicle for the House version of the bill, which was merged with the Senate’s version by the conference committee. In its current form, the bill would authorize $731.6 billion in discretionary defense spending for fiscal year 2021, of which $662.1 billion would go to the base budget and $69 billion to Overseas Contingency Operations. An additional $9 billion in mandatory funding would also be authorized to bring the overall topline authorization to $740.5 billion. A summary of how the various provisions in the conference report impact troops, military families, equipment, the Dept. of Defense (DOD), and various aspects of U.S. defense policy can be found below.

RESOURCES

Troops & Families: This section would fully fund a 3% pay raise for the military, increase hazardous duty pay by 10%, and reauthorize more than 30 types of bonuses and special pay. It would authorize an active-duty end strength of 1,348,375 including 485,900 in the Army; 347,800 in the Navy; 180,000 in the Marine Corps; and 333,475 in the Air Force. The bill would include the Space Force within the Air Force end strength, require the DOD to request a Space Force end strength in the FY2022 budget request, and direct the DOD to provide recommendations on the preferred organizational structure of Space Force reserve components.

This section would also expand the My Career Advancement Account Program, make improvements to the Military Spouse Employment Partnership Program, and allow for the reimbursement of costs incurred to maintain professional licenses and credentials when permanently changing station, including an additional $2.5 million for re-licensing expenses.

Additionally:

  • DOD initiatives to track & report incidents of child abuse on military installations would be improved. 

  • Oversight of privatized housing would be increased, and service secretaries would be prohibited from leasing substandard family housing.

Equipment & Construction: The acquisition & modernization of several key defense technologies would be stepped up under this bill, including:

  • $9.1 billion to procure 93 F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, an additional 14 above the president’s budget request. Additionally, the Air Force would be allowed to utilize, modify, and operate six Turkish F-35s that were never delivered because of Turkey’s suspension from the F-35 program.

  • Funding for nine battle force ships and contract authority for Columbia-class & Virginia-class submarines, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, plus America and San Antonio-class amphibious assault ships.

  • Funding would be increased for test materials, prototyping, and planning of hypersonic weapons development, in addition to hypersonic weapon defenses.

STRATEGIC READINESS

Nuclear Deterrence: This section would fund the sustainment and modernization of the nuclear deterrent, including Nuclear National Security Administration (NNSA) weapons programs and infrastructure; DOD submarines, ballistic and cruise missiles, aircraft, and command and control systems; as well as nuclear non-proliferation activities.

Space: This section would make technical changes needed to continue implementation of the Space Force; continue development of the space technology base including launch vehicles and responsive launch; and authorize increased funding for space domain awareness, launch development, and space-based surveillance capability. The Space Force would continue working with research institutions to establish critical research infrastructure and develop the future workforce.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and service chiefs would be directed to report on the space-related missions and expertise within each service that should remain within each service and whether they require organized or liased Space Force personnel. The transfer of military installations would be prohibited prior to congressional defense committees receiving an analysis from the Secretary of the Air Force.

ADDRESSING THREATS

Russia:

  • The European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) would be fully funded and enhanced to support rotational forces in Europe. The DOD would be prohibited from using any funds to reduce air base resiliency or demolish protected aircraft shelters in the European theater without creating similar protection, or to close or return existing airbases to host nations until the DOD certifies that there’s no need for a rotational military presence in the European theater.

  • DOD would be required to report on Russian support to racially & ethnically motivated violent extremist groups & networks in Europe & the U.S. that pose national security threats, are involved in information warfare, and increase risks to societal stability & democratic institutions. 
  • Restrictions on military-to-military cooperation with Russia and any activities that would recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea would be extended. The DOD limitations on providing sensitive missile defense information to Russia and on the integration of U.S. missile defense systems into Russia’s would be extended.
  • Sanctions would be expanded related to the construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
  • The DOD would assess the value, cost, and feasibility of increased U.S. military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea regions.
  • Turkey would be subject to mandatory sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) for acquiring and operating Russia’s S-400 air missile defense system.
  • Authority for DOD training of Eastern European national security forces in multilateral exercise would be extended.

China:

  • This bill would protect federal investments in defense-sensitive intellectual property, technology, and data acquisition from China by creating mechanisms to restrict employees or former employees of the defense industrial base from working directly for companies owned or directed by the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC); require universities to share information on defense-funded research; limit funding for universities with Confucius Institutes; and require disclosure of external funding for grant recipients.
  • The president would create a whole-of-government strategy to impose costs on the PRC to deter industrial espionage and the large-scale theft of personal information by the PRC.
  • A continuous assessment activity would be established for the industrial bases of foreign adversaries, beginning with China.
  • Chinese military companies operating in the U.S. would be publicly reported in the Federal Register.
  • The U.S. would pursue the graduation of China from receiving World Bank assistance.
  • The DOD and a Federally Funded Research and Development Center would be tasked with comprehensive comparative studies of the notoriously opaque Chinese and Russian defense budgets.

Pacific Deterrence Initiative: This section would establish the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI) to send a strong signal to the Chinese Communist Party that America is deeply committed to defending its interests in the Indo-Pacific region. It would authorize $2.2 billion for PDI in FY2021 for missile defense, enhanced forward posture, and improving interoperability with allies & partners. The PDI would specifically aim to:

  • Improve the lethality of the Joint Force in the Indo-Pacific, including by improving active & passive defense against theater cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missiles for bases, operating locations, and other critical infrastructure.

  • Enhance the design & posture of the Joint Force in the Indo-Pacific by transitioning from large, centralized, and unhardened infrastructure to smaller, dispersed, resilient, and adaptive basing; increasing the capabilities of expeditionary airfields & ports; enhancing pre-positioning of forward stocks of fuel, munitions, equipment, and material; and improving logistics & maintenance capabilities in the region.

  • Strengthen alliances & partnerships to increase capabilities, improve interoperability & information sharing, and support information operations capabilities with a focus on countering malign influence.

Missile Defense:

  • This bill would support missile defense programs, including Long-Range Precision Fires and Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) priorities of the Army such as Precision Strike Missile, Hyper-Velocity Projectiles, Lower-Tier Air Missile Defense Sensor, High-Energy Lasers, Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2, and the IAMD Battle Command System.
  • The DOD would compile a classified report on the integrated air and missile defense; counter-rocket, artillery, and mortar (C-RAM); and Counter-Unmanned Aircraft posture in the CENTCOM area.
  • This bill would ensure the Air Force and Army coordinate their efforts to defend air bases and prepositioned sites outside the continental U.S. from current and emerging missile threats.

Alliances & Partnerships: This section would aim to develop & strengthen mutually beneficial alliances & partnerships as part of the National Defense Strategy, and would specifically:

  • Authorize $4 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund & require an assessment of the Afghan government’s progress on shared security goals & fulfillment of commitments under the joint declaration on bringing peace to Afghanistan. It would also extend & modify support for the Afghan government’s reconciliation activities to ensure it’s only provided for activities including the Afghan government and don’t restrict the participation of women. An interagency assessment would be required to reduce U.S. personnel levels in Afghanistan below 4,000 or current levels, and again before drawing down below 2,000.
  • Provide $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine, require a long-term plan for assistance to Ukraine, and support NATO designation of Ukraine as an “enhanced opportunities partner.”
  • Reaffirm commitments to and support for allies and partners including Taiwan, the Baltic states, Japan, India, and Vietnam.
  • Prohibit reducing the number of servicemembers deployed to South Korea below 28,500 unless certifications and requirements are met.
  • Prohibit DOD’s ability to reduce the number of active-duty servicemembers in Germany below 34,500 until an assessment on its impact has been completed.
  • Allow participation of DOD personnel in the European Center of Excellence for Counter Hybrid Threats in Helsinki, Finland.
  • Provide assistance to Iraq and to vetted Syrian groups & individuals to counter the threat posed by ISIS, and emphasize support to Syrian Democratic Support for the humane detention & repatriation of foreign terrorist fighters, and continue efforts to transition security assistance to standing assistance authorities in Iraq.
  • Authorize funding for the Missile Defense Agency’s cooperative programs with Israel in line with the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding.

MISCELLANEOUS

  • A commission would be established to study and provide recommendations concerning the removal of names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that commemorate the Confederate States of America. The commission would develop an implementation plan, cost estimate, and criteria for renaming, among other procedures. It would allow the renaming of any base, installation, street, building, facility, aircraft, ship, place, weapon, equipment or other DOD property. The implementation plan would include a plan for collecting & incorporating local sensitivities associated with naming or renaming DOD assets, and would go into effect three years after the enactment of this legislation. The bill would exempt grave markers (not monuments) from the removal, and the commission would further define what constitutes a grave marker. The commission would have $2 million in funding to conduct its study and provide recommendations.

  • This bill would prohibit the display of the Confederate battle flag at U.S. military installations.

  • The DOD would develop a strategy for pandemic preparedness and response. DOD would be required to maintain a 30-day supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) sufficient for every active and reserve servicemember, and ensure that DOD’s medical laboratories have the technology needed to facilitate rapid research and development of vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics in case of future pandemic.

  • This bill would restrict foreign military students’ access to U.S. military bases, including their possession of weapons, in response to the attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola in December 2019.

  • This bill would continue long-standing prohibitions on transferring Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) detainees to the U.S. or other countries, constructing or modifying new detention centers to house GTMO detainees in the U.S., and on closing or relinquishing control of GTMO.

  • Funding would be maintained for Stars and Stripes at FY2020 levels, and a report detailing a business case analysis of continued operation of the publication would be required.

  • The DOD would be prohibited from transferring bayonets, grenades (other than stun & flash-bang grenades), weaponized tracked combat vehicles, and weaponized drones to U.S. law enforcement agencies.
  • This bill would establish a grant program to incentivize the manufacturing of semiconductors to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. entities and national security. The grant program would require manufacturers to meet certain requirements, such as employing economically disadvantaged individuals.
  • This bill would increase funding for a study by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention related to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance contamination in drinking water.
  • This bill would add Parkinson's disease, bladder cancer, hypertension, and hypothyroidism to the list of veterans' diseases covered by a presumption of service connection to herbicides (like Agent Orange) used during the Vietnam War.
  • This bill would require the DOD to include an element in annual cybersecurity reports addressing work with academic consortia on high priority cybersecurity research activities.

This legislation is named after House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member William “Mac” Thornberry (R-TX), who is retiring from Congress at the end of this term. Thornberry served as chairman of the committee from 2015-2019 and has been a member of Congress since 1995.

Impact

Members of the U.S. military, their families, and retirees; foreign allies of the U.S. military; and the DOD or other affected agencies.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 6395

The CBO estimates that enacting this bill would authorize $732.4 billion in spending for 2021.

More Information

In-DepthHouse Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) and Ranking Member Mac Thornberry (R-TX) released the following joint statement about the NDAA conference report for FY2021:

“The agreement we have reached includes important provisions affecting our national security. Among the provisions we are most proud of are authorization of hazardous duty pay for our service members in harm’s way, improvements to military housing and programs for military families with children with special needs, addressing the shortage in military child care, authorizing $8.4 billion in military construction projects to fortify  critical infrastructure and base realignment and closure clean up , important new tools to deter China and Russia, reforms to make the Pentagon more efficient, innovative, and cost-effective, significant bipartisan provisions on artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, and provisions that strengthen our alliance with Israel. After the tragic loss of life in Pensacola last year, the NDAA also includes a prohibition on foreign student’s ability to possess firearms on military bases. For 59 straight years, the NDAA has passed because Members of Congress and Presidents of both parties have set aside their own policy objectives and partisan preferences and put the needs of our military personnel and America’s security first.  The time has come to do that again.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI) released a joint statement on the NDAA conference report, which read in part:

“This year’s NDAA will strengthen our national defense now and for years to come. The conference agreement accelerates implementation of the National Defense Strategy, ensuring we not only have the best planes, ships, and tanks, but that our forces are in the right places, at the right time, with the right capabilities. It pushes back on Chinese aggression by establishing the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, and includes numerous policies to counter Russia and other potential adversaries. The bill directs investments to encourage innovation and develop the groundbreaking technology that will keep our children’s children safe. We encourage reform at the Pentagon that will allow it to operate more efficiently and effectively, and we secure our supply chain from overreliance on foreign adversaries. Most importantly, it takes care of our troops and their families — providing a three percent raise, increasing hazardous duty pay, and improving access to high-quality housing, education, and child care.”

President Donald Trump threatened to veto this legislation if it included provisions renaming bases and other military assets named after Confederates, arguing that it’s a concession to “cancel culture”. He also threatened to veto the NDAA if it didn’t include reforms to social media companies’ liability protections, which were left out by lawmakers.

Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper supported the renaming of bases named after Confederates, and his disagreement with the president on the issue was among the reasons he was ultimately terminated by President Donald Trump.

The House passed its original version of the NDAA on a 295-125 vote, while the Senate passed its original version of the NDAA on a voice vote.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Alex Millar / Public Domain)

AKA

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021

Official Title

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate Rejected January 1st, 2021
    Roll Call Vote 81 Yea / 13 Nay
  • The house Passed December 8th, 2020
    Roll Call Vote 335 Yea / 78 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Administration
      Committee on Agriculture
      Committee on Financial Services
      Committee on the Budget
      Committee on Education and Labor
      Tactical Air and Land Forces
      Intelligence and Special Operations
      Military Personnel
      Readiness
      Seapower and Projection Forces
      Strategic Forces
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
      Committee on Armed Services
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Committee on Homeland Security
      Committee on Natural Resources
      Committee on Small Business
      Committee on the Judiciary
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
      Committee on Oversight and Reform
      Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
      Committee on Ways and Means
      Committee on Veterans' Affairs
    IntroducedMarch 26th, 2020

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    I do NOT support the current military budget! I support reducing it by 10% and using those funds to support pubic programs here at home in the areas of health. education, the homeless, and supporting small businesses all over this country. Anyone know how to change what appears to be me in favor to me being against, which is really where I stand....
    Like (184)
    Follow
    Share
    That money should be allocated towards so many other things. Stop investing in war and guns and start investing in communities and people
    Like (212)
    Follow
    Share
    The Pentagon budget is way too big at a cost to domestic programs.
    Like (189)
    Follow
    Share
    “Overseas contingency operations?” How’s about bringing the troops home instead.
    Like (110)
    Follow
    Share
    Updated: 1/1/21. To be clear I opposed the budget submitted because I felt it could be have been reduced in some areas to fund higher priority needs. However, since the budget has already been approved I feel that the allocation of funds to support that budget should be approved without unnecessary delay - because it puts our military in some distress and our country at risk while adversaries are attacking our infrastructure and making threats. … … UPDATED BELOW IN RESPONSE TO Frank-001’s comments. I have commented on this before but it is worth repeating. In an interview a year or so ago with Jimmy Carter, he was asked to what he would attribute China’s rapid economic growth over the last 40 years. He answered that question with the question, “How many wars have they fought over the past 40 years”? The point is that they spent their resources on building their infrastructure capabilities and investing in world partnerships without spending any if their resources on military engagements. Our country did not. China, for example bought 90% of the world’s rare earth mining rights which are critical for lithium batteries, efficient electric motors and a variety of military and commercial electronic devices like smart phones. Our country was too busy fighting endless wars to even notice. … … … Frank-001: your comments on China’s military actions are all well outside of the 40 Year time frame cited in Carter’s comments. Roughly fifty years ago, the Chinese Government committed to long term strategic goals that included avoiding military conflict and the institutionalism of ‘entrepreneurialism’ - which is a much purer form of Capitalism than is practiced in our country, because the awards are reaped by actually competing to make better products and services instead of paying off politicians to protect corporate cash flows. Granted, China’s version is heavily weighted to supporting the state and the rewards that can be reaped are somewhat capped. They strategically chose to add a form a Capitalism and rely on long term goals and strategies instead of highly prescriptive and detailed 5 and 10 year plans; and these changes have certainly contributed to their advances. … … As far as the rare earth mining comments, the future need for these materials should have been recognized as a strategic imperative by our government to incentivize private capital to invest in politically troubled countries where the many of the mining and rare earth deposits are located- and I consider this to be a failure of our government that was much more focused on military engagements than long term strategy. The 90% share of mining rights for rare earth materials was widely reported about a year ago, included countries all over the world and may have changed somewhat since then. … … China did things right and I can see (from pictures taken in places that I visited forty five years ago) tremendous advances in the affluence of the people and major infrastructure improvements. Yes, they cheat by stealing or demanding transfer of intellectual property, engaging in lop sided trade deals, using their expansive economy to engage in their own version of a ‘Marshall Plan’ to buy and demand forced alliances with developing countries and have built the ‘great firewall’ to control information flow within their country and prevent the kind of cyber intrusion from ‘outside’ that they are engaged in elsewhere. China has also logged a number of scientific achievements which could definitely be a factor in their gradual military buildup like quantum entangled satellite communication for unbreakable encryption, satellite ‘buses’ capable of deploying many smaller satellites that have been tested maneuvering toward our military satellites to eavesdrop and possibly damage them, and remotely piloted deep sea submersibles capable of reaching the deepest depths of the transatlantic cables of damaging intercontinental cable communications in locations that cannot be repaired. All true. They have been very successful in their efforts. … … … I am sorry if my comments were seen as an endorsement of the Chinese political system - they are not. My comments are about our government falling behind on the world stage by not thinking strategically and long term, not anticipating long-term consequences of their actions, and the increasing self-serving interests of our politicians. The world is and will be facing severe and consequential long term threats. To just keep up, we will have some solid democratic structural changes to our governance. … … … A strong military defense is important for our country, investment in military offense, not so much. I would suggest reviewing the military budget as consisting of three parts: subsistence and personnel maintenance, military defensive capability and military offensive capability. Then take a long look at investment into offensive capabilities to see what offensive capabilities should be deferred or postponed until they are clearly needed. The freed-up resources would certainly help with the added long term costs from the Covid war attacks that we are currently trying to defend our country from.
    Like (79)
    Follow
    Share
    UPDATED 1-1-21: The only positive aspect of this legislation is The Corporate Transparency Act banning anonymous shell companies used for money laundering, crime & corruption. The enemy is Covid (not other countries, social media, journalists, or the other political party)! This money needs to go to fighting Covid! The US only bought 100M doses (50M people) from Pfizer & turned down a 2nd offer in July. Now they want to buy more but Pfizer won’t have any until June 2021. Penny Wise Pound Foolish decision by the Trump Administration! This bloated Defense Budget does NOT pay our troops well or take good care of veterans. Instead its funding defense contractors & outsourcing to campaign contributors! Thank you Jamie Raskin for voting “Nay” on this bloated defense budget. Hopefully funds can be redirected to higher priorities like COVID-19 control and economic recovery from this disaster, and Justice in Policing. https://www.thedailybeast.com/jared-kushner-okd-trump-campaign-shell-company-that-secretly-paid-inner-circle-says-report https://fortune.com/2020/12/26/ndaa-2021-shell-companies-corporate-transparency-act/?fbclid=IwAR3IUG4DpKybhPTxNSrPLwfYKvvm96liyKO0ayGFl3YClpbOLIXVjnCEWx8 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-rejected-pfizer-offer-more-covid-19-vaccine-doses-2020-12 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/us/trump-covid-vaccine-pfizer.html
    Like (71)
    Follow
    Share
    I hope the majority of this money goes to American workers and not corrupt contractors. I do support a strong and well trained military. But look at other countries not spending money on engagement of their military in foreign countries, especially areas that were not really a deterrent to begin with 9 trillion dollars so far in Iraq and Afghanistan not counting all the money going for VA expenditures. Do we really need all the cost plus military expenses. Well it appears our representatives do not really look into these Bills. Just wave it off and vote YEA. We all know this is an atrocious expense with NO Accountability. Yes we need a well trained and ready military but this is ridiculous.
    Like (70)
    Follow
    Share
    Why is there always ample funding for the war machine, but not for universal health care, the homeless problem, addiction problems, theft from Social Security, numerous golf trips (with Secret Service costs) to Mar-A-Lago, etc.?
    Like (58)
    Follow
    Share
    UPDATEl Andy Biggs, my apologies, thank you for voting against this! This vote however does not undo the damage to my district, my state, and my nation you and the 'reopening committee' have done. Don't plan on a future representing anyone in politics. I plan on a class action suit for your disregard of your constituents and every death in our district. Or you'll be behind bars for the thousands of murders your and the rest of you have exacerbated. Why we should cut the Defense Budget: military spending and the 1033 program. Since 2016, defense spending has increased by close to 20%. Trump asked for a record-breaking $731 billion. Republicans in Congress then jacked that up even more to $740.5 billion. The U.S. spends more on military and war than the next 10 nations combined. REMEMBER, THAT $731 BILLION WAS DISCRETIONARY! SO NOW THERE IS $745.5 BILLION EARMARKED FOR WHATEVER? DOES THE ASS CLOWN NEED ANOTHER GOLDEN TOILET? GOOD GOD! GIVE ME BACK MY TAX DOLLARS! I DO NOT APPROVE! THE UNITED STATES WILL FALL AND BE REMEMBERED IN HISTORY ALONG WITH THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE! Back in 1990, as part of the “War on Drugs,” the NDAA of that year established the 1033 Program to provide military equipment to civilian police forces. Since then, militarization of police has metastasized like a fatal cancer – drones, armored vehicles, explosives, helicopters, grenade launchers, bayonets, large-caliber weapons, and military-type responses to people who are peacefully and legally protesting. Equipping police officers with military equipment does nothing to reduce crime or protect law enforcement officers from violence. Equipping cops with weapons of war inevitably leads to a war within suppressed communities. Police forces that use military equipment are more likely to kill civilians than police forces that have not been militarized.
    Like (49)
    Follow
    Share
    $10 Billion for 79 new aircraft? Imagine what $10,000,000,000 in our education system could do for the future of our society
    Like (48)
    Follow
    Share
    Cut military spending
    Like (44)
    Follow
    Share
    Cut military funding by at least 10%. We are fighting the COVID War at home...and are losing miserably.
    Like (35)
    Follow
    Share
    Not one red cent until they get their accounting books in order
    Like (32)
    Follow
    Share
    I think it is a good idea to have a large amount of money going to our defense operations, however I find it absolutely absurd that our military spending is continuing to skyrocket! We have more than double the amount of China’s military spending and around 11 times the amount of Russia’s. But for some reason we want to keep increasing that number. I cannot comprehend this decision that leaves our education underfunded, our healthcare materials during COVID-19 inadequate, hundreds of thousands of people homeless, and people who work multiple jobs on minimum wage only to not receive the healthcare that they need to stay alive. Just to have our military spending surge. Once again leaving the majority of the middle class and all of the working class Americans to be disappointed in our congressmen and women who voted for this bill.
    Like (31)
    Follow
    Share
    I would like to see equivalent and greater spending for: coronavirus testing; extending unemployment benefits for american workers and families who have lost their jobs due to the coronavirus pandemic; fully funding the centers for disease control; providing states with all the funding they need for PPE and testing; and providing rent/mortgage assistance to families and workers who have lost their jobs and now risk evication and foreclosure.
    Like (30)
    Follow
    Share
    This money is needed elsewhere. Our country is falling apart. Literally! Bridges need to be replaced, roads need work. This money could make needed changes and give people jobs. Our military doesn't need billions for discretionary funding. What does that even mean?
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to start figuring out how to cut this ridiculous budget down. Our impact to the world should not be our military.
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    The military has too much funding already. That money needs to be allocated elsewhere. Like to education or healthcare.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    I’m quite happy that congress authorized a high, robust and necessary defense budget! The Space Force being solidified as fully fledged branch of the military is a real key to growth of our security in the future. Hopefully this budget will go towards modernization of equipment. I think a strong solid defense budget is needed to counter China and other growing threats. Just because we have a large defense budget doesn’t mean other government programs can’t be funded as well. Hopefully the public can soon see the strides the US military has been making on our “loyal wingman” program and the “sixth generation” future fighter jet program.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    The Pentagon is like Midas....no amount of money is ever enough...the more money you give them the more they want. The military budget is way more than necessary to provide necessary defense and Veteran programs. Another thing that is sorely needed is an audit of Pentagon spending. This needs to be done every few years and for all Government departments, Congress and the WH as well. The amount of wasteful spending and money lost or unaccounted for will be astonishing.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE