The week of March 1, Congress approved a two-week measure to fund the government that included about $4 billion in additional cuts from the President’s request. Negotiations involving the White House, the Senate and the House began on a measure to fund…

While key Administration officials continue to vigorously support the war in Afghanistan, there appears to be a less-than-enthusiastic larger view about the war.

Take Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In his recent speech at West Point, he pointed out:

“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”

That does not sound like a high level official who thinks that the United States military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq were bang up good ideas. Gates is not advocating getting out; he just does not think getting in was smart.

This skepticism was amplified at a February 17, 2011 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. There, Admiral Michael Mullen (USN), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not make the situation in Afghanistan sound exactly rosy.

Mullen thinks that the military situation in Afghanistan is going well: “On the military side, Senator McCain, I’m probably — I’m more optimistic than I’ve been.” [unofficial transcript]

The other aspects of the war are not so hot.

“But on the political side, the economic side, I — it’s — at least from my perspective, it looks worse than it has in a long time. So I share your concern. I share — I — the vector is going in the wrong direction overall for the country. We’re very unpopular there. You’ve seen that. It gets highlighted in each crisis, whether — I mean, we provided extraordinary support for the floods last year — we the military. And then that registers in a — in a popular way shortly. You have an incident like the one we’re going through right now, and our popularity is back down in very small numbers.”

Mullen wants to continue prosecuting the war. Neither he nor Gates has joined the “out now” caucus. But for Mullen, two out of three basic indicators of the war – economic and political progress – are in the toilet.

Gates did endorse the withdrawal dates put forward by the Obama Administration in the same hearing:  

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI):Secretary, you indicated that we are on track to end the presence of our combat troops in Iraq by the end of this year, as decided upon by President Bush. Do you continue to support that decision?

Sec. Gates: Yes, I do.

Levin: And are you planning to begin reductions of our troops in Afghanistan by July of this year, as ordered by President Obama, with the pace to be determined — of the reductions determined by conditions on the ground? And do you support that decision?

Gates: Yes, sir.

Levin: And can you tell us why?

Gates: Well, frankly, this was the most difficult part of the Afghan strategy going forward for me to come to support. I steadfastly — as some on this committee will remember — steadfastly opposed any deadlines in Iraq, and so came to this with a certain skepticism.

But I also realized that there is a difference between Iraq and Afghanistan in this respect. The truth of the matter is, the Iraqis want us out of the country as quickly as possible. On the other hand, the Afghans — at least, a certain number of them — would like us to stay forever. They live in a very dangerous neighborhood, and having U.S. forces there to support them and help them, often in the place of their own troops, is something that they would like to see. And so it seemed to me that we needed to do something that would grab the attention of the Afghan leadership and bring a sense of urgency to them of the need for them to step up to the plate to take ownership of the war and to recruit their own young men to fight.

A number of tea party leaders and newly elected Republican Members of Congress have indicated that any package of deficit reductions should target defense spending as well as domestic. Some Republicans have stated that no program should be off the table when dealing with the U.S. budget deficit.

The recently concluded House of Representatives consideration of the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution funding the entire federal government was a good test of that sentiment.

While it is important to avoid going overboard in discussing GOP freshmen’s willingness to cut the military budget, it is clear that this is not your father’s Republican Party – at least in the House.

For example, the bill produced by the House Appropriations Committee and sent to the House floor supposedly walled off the Pentagon budget from any cuts. In fact, it provided $516,214,000 for the Department of Defense, less than the Obama administration’s request of $530,941,000.  While the cut was about $14.5 billion and only 2.8%, much less than the cuts imposed on most domestic programs and the Department of State, it meant that the Defense budget was not totally sacrosanct to Republican leaders. It was enough to bring about howls of anguish from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

The most visible symbol of the change within House Republicans – there is likely to be much less change in the Senate – came on February 16, 2011 when the House approved an amendment offered by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) by a vote on 233 – 198. One hundred ten Republicans voted “aye” on the amendment 130 “nay,” meaning 46% of those GOP Members voted to terminate the engine.

A similar amendment offered by a Democrat, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), on May 27, 2010 failed 193 – 231. 57 Republicans supported the amendment, or 33% of the caucus. Thus close to half of the new Republican caucus voted to cut the engine compared to a third last year.

A second interesting harbinger was an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to cut an, albeit modest, $18.75 million (million, not billion) from the defense budget. This amendment failed by a relatively narrow 207 – 233 on February 15, 2011, with 92 Republicans voting yes and 148 no. The amendment might have passed, but 75 Democrats voted against Flake.

Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) was willing to go much further, brazenly offering an amendment to cut the defense and homeland security budgets by 3.5%, or about $18 billion. Now, $18 billion is not the $100 billion per year proposed by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and the Sustainable Defense Task Force in June 2010, but it is not chump change either. His amendment was crushed 68 – 357 on February 11. Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly opposed his amendment, but 22 Republicans voted for it.

Those 22 Republicans are true hard core defense budget cutters: Amash (MI), Barton (TX), Campbell (CA), Chabot (OH), Coble (NC), Duncan (TN), Flake (AZ), Graves (GA), Heller (NV), Johnson (IL), Labrador (ID), Lummis (WY), Manzullo (IL), McClintock (CA), Petri (WI), Rohrabacher (CA), Rokita (IN), Royce (CA), Sensenbrenner (WI), Stearns (FL), Upton (MI) and Walsh (IL).

The 92 Republicans who voted for the Flake amendment might be labeled soft core defense budget cutters:

[Alexander, Amash, Bachmann, Barton, Bass, Blackburn, Bono Mack, Boustany, Brady, Broun, Burgess, Campbell, Cassidy, Chabot, Chaffetz, Coble, Dent, Dold, Duffy, Duncan, Ellmers, Fitzpatrick, Flake, Flores, Fortenberry, Franks, Garrett, Gibson, Gohmert, Goodlatte, Graves, Griffith, Guinta, Hanna, Harris, Hayworth, Heller, Hensarling, Herger, Herrera Beutler, Huelskamp, Huizenga, Hurt, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones, Labrador, Landry, Lummis, Daniel E. Lungren, Mack, Manzullo, McClintock, Mica, Miller, Miller, Gary Miller, Mulvaney, Myrick, Neugebauer, Paul, Paulsen, Pearce, Pence, Petri, Pitts, Platts, Poe, Pompeo, Quayle, Rehberg, Reichert, Rogers, Rohrabacher, Rokita, Royce, Ryan, Schweikert, Scott, Austin Scott, Sensenbrenner, Shimkus, Smith, Stearns, Stutzman, Terry, Upton, Walberg, Walsh, Woodall, Yoder, Young]

These Republicans probably define the universe of a target group for future amendments aimed at the defense budget – or, perhaps, ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I do not count weapons program cuts quite the same way, as those Members with jobs at stake in their districts may vote for a program regardless of their budget cutting instincts. I also did not count weapons system votes offered by Democrats, because of my strong belief that any successful amendment will have to be offered by a Republican and a moderate-appearing Democrat.

The rhetoric that went along with the amendments was also instructive.

When Flake introduced his provision, he argued: “I realize the amount of savings in this amendment is relatively small compared to the overall defense budget, but I think the point has to be made here that the defense budget is not sacrosanct.”

Rep. Mike Pampeo (R-KS), in discussing the Flake effort, added: “As a former soldier, there is nothing I care more about than making sure we take care of our airmen, our sailors, our marines. I think it is a great place to start to make sure we do just that by eliminating this from the Department of Defense appropriations bill.”

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL) chimed in: “I believe we have to talk and look at every single department, including the Department of Defense.”

These sentiments could have been expressed by liberal Democrats.

When Rep. Campbell (R-CA offered his deeper cut, he suggested:  “We cannot reduce our deficit substantially and deal with our debt problem without reducing the costs of our number one [entitlements] and number two expenses. This amendment deals with number two, which are the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.”

In supporting the Campbell amendment, Rep. Duncan (R-TN) posited: “We can no longer afford to have higher military spending than all the other nations of the world combined.”

On February 16, while the Continuing Resolution was on the House floor, the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen (USN). At times, one might have though that Rafael DeGennaro or Christopher Hellman were asking the questions.

Representative J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) was on his high horse about the Pentagon’s failure to get its books in shape so they can pass an audit:

“One of the things that we saw on January the 26th, when your deputy secretary, Mr. Lynn, was here, he testified that the department had failed to comply with the law requiring audited financial statements be filed annually in the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, all years, of course, that you were secretary of defense. And my first question is, for any of those years — 2007, ‘8, ‘9, or ’10 — were you unaware that the law required that DOD file audited financial statements?”

Representative Mike Conaway (R-TX), a Certified Public Accountant in private life,  piled on about the failure of the Pentagon to get its books straight:

“I wish we had the same kind of commitment to auditing this Department of Defense’s financial statements and/or — or just a statement of receipts and disbursements that we have to greening the military . . . I go home to folks in West Texas and when they find out that the Department of Defense can’t be audited, they are stunned.”

All this adds up to the following: there is an anti-spending fervor among House Republicans that extends beyond domestic programs and entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) to defense

This fervor does not guarantee victory in the future in the House, but it does offer the potential for victory with the right amendment, the right sponsors and the right timing.

House consideration of the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution echoed the famous novel Lord of the Flies authored by William Golding. The book is about a group of British schoolboys stranded on a deserted island without adult supervision who try to govern themselves, with disastrous results.

Around 4:30 AM Saturday morning, the House concluded its marathon, free-wheeling four days of consideration of the Continuing Resolution. The bill passed on an almost party-line vote of 235 – 189, with all Democrats voting against and all but three Republicans voting for.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) gave almost free rein to his flock to offer any amendments on a bill funding the federal government. Republicans then used the measure to target as many New Deal, Great Society and Obama Administration policies as they could. The only reason they could not move against Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid is that these entitlement programs are not funded in the bill.

The major focus in the bill and amendments was on federal government programs in the health, environment, regulatory reform areas and more – with special crosshairs on defunding implementation of the health care reform bill adopted last year.

There was a long debate on an amendment eventually adopted to cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The Environmental Protection Agency would be prohibited from regulating greenhouse gases. the Federal Communications Commission would be barred from initiating net neutrality regulations and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) would be blocked from fighting gun trafficking to Mexico.

The total cuts in the bill even before floor action were about $61 billion from the Continuing Resolution the government is presently operating under and $100 billion from the Obama Administration request.

Politico accurately described the bill as: “More a battering ram than a budget.” The New York Times pointed out: “Virtually no aspect of American life, from farms to the Internet to sexuality to education, was left untouched.”

The Washington Post added:  “The GOP plan would eliminate numerous programs, including the Corporation for National Service, which runs the Americorps program; it would terminate federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It would cut $600 million from border security and immigration programs.”

Going into floor consideration of the bill, the State Department (-21%) and the Department of Energy (-15%) took big hits. The Defense budget was not totally sacrosanct, and was trimmed by 2.8%. One anti-UN amendment failed but another succeeded. An amendment to cut further multilateral organization funding failed.

Going small ball as well as large, Members successfully went after funding for the United States Institute for Peace and the East-West Center in Hawaii.

A comprehensive list of national security-related amendments follows. It is an intriguing conglomeration of topics. Most amendments on defense issues and the wars offered by liberal Democrats went down to resounding defeat. Amendments to cut the defense budget by Members of both parties were defeated, aside from the Rooney (R-FL) amendment to cut funds for the second F-35 engines.

The bill now goes to the Senate, which is expected to ignore the House-passed bill. However, the last temporary Continuing Resolution runs out on March 4. Neither the Senate nor the House is in session this week, leaving little time before the deadline.

In the meantime, threats are flying across Capitol Hill about shutting the government if an agreement is not worked out to satisfy House Republicans, Senate Democrats and the White House

Amendments acted upon

(Click here to see the actual roll call vote.)

Offered By: Mr. Flake (R-AZ) (cuts Defense-wide operations and maintenance by $18.750 million)
   AMENDMENT NO. 370: Page 9, line 15
      Defeated 207-223, Feb. 15, 2011 (Roll call #41)

Offered By: Mr. Pompeo (R-KS) (cuts money from Pentagon innovation grant programs)
     AMENDMENT NO. 87: Page 22, line 18,  Cut $502,400,000
    Defeated 72 – 358, Feb. 15, 2011 (Roll call #42)

Offered By: Mr. Gutierrez (D-IL) (cuts V-22 Osprey)
   Amendment No. 63: Page 23, line 12,
    Defeated 105 – 326, Feb. 15, 2011 (Roll call #43)

Offered By: Mr. Pompeo (R-KS) (reduces Pentagon research on alternative fuels by $115.2 million)
   AMENDMENT NO. 86: Page 32, line 21.
Defeated 109 – 320, Feb. 15, 2011 (Roll call #44)

Offered By: Mr. Quigley (D-IL) (cuts Pentagon R&D money across-the-board by $7.5 billion)
   AMENDMENT NO. 162: Page 33, line 9
    Defeated by voice vote, February 15, 2011

Offered By: Mr. Rooney (R-FL) (Cutting second F-35 engine amendment)
    AMENDMENT NO. 2: Page 33, line 16,
    Approved 233 to 198, February 16, 2011 (Roll call #46)

Offered By: Mr. Jones (R-NC) (cuts $400 million in funds for Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund)
   AMENDMENT NO. 95: Page 127, line 23
    Defeated 135 – 294, February 16, 2011 (Roll call #47)

Offered By: Mr. Holt (D-NJ) (eliminates $1.5 billion Iraq Security Forces Fund)
   AMENDMENT NO. 237: Page 131, line 24
    Defeated Holt 133 – 299, February 16, 2011 (Roll call #48)

Offered By Mr. Weiner (D-NY) (cuts U.S. Institute for Peace by $42.7 million)
AMENDMENT NO. 100: Page 131, line 24
Approved 268 – 163, February 17, 2011 (Roll call #76)

Offered by Mr. Canseco (R-TX) (eliminates East-West Center)
AMENDMENT NO. 248
Approved 274 – 155, February 17, 2011 (Roll call #77)

Offered By: Mr. Heller (R-NV) (cuts several multilateral accounts by $211 million, including International Organizations and Programs by $45million)
       AMENDMENT NO. 29: Page 326
    Defeated 190 – 241, February 17, 2011 (Roll call #78)

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey (D-CA) (bans funds for V-22 and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle)
   AMENDMENT NO. 189: At the end of the bill
    Defeated 91 – 339, February 17, 2011 (Roll call #80)

Offered By: Mr. Fortenberry (R-NE) (bars assistance to Chad)
   AMENDMENT NO. 424:
    Approved by voice vote, February 17, 2011

Offered By: Ms. McCollum (D-MN) (prohibits DOD from sponsoring NASCAR race cars)
   AMENDMENT NO. 50: At the end of the bill
    Defeated 148 – 281, February 18, 2011 (Roll call #90)

Offered By: Nadler (D-NY), Lee (D-CA) & Stark (D-CA) (cuts all but $10 billion for the war in Afghanistan, with the remaining money to be used to withdraw troops)
   AMENDMENT NO. 232: At the end of the bill.
Defeated 98 – 331, February 18, 2011 (Roll call #91)

Offered By: Mr. Kind (D-WI) (cuts Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle & a missile program)
   AMENDMENT NO. 88: At the end of the bill
Defeated 123 – 306, February 18, 2011 (Roll call #102)

Offered By: Blackburn (R-TN)-Jordon (R-OH) (across-the-board cuts of most programs by reducing all appropriations by 5.5%, or $22 billion in total, exempting Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction-Veterans, and funding for Israel)
   AMENDMENT NO. 104: At the end of the bill
Defeated 147 – 281, February 18, 2011 (Roll call #103)

Offered By: Mr. Forbes (R-VA) (bans closing Joint Forces Command in Virginia)
   AMENDMENT NO. 145: At the end of the bill
    Approved by voice vote, February 18, 2011

Offered By: Mr. Weiner (D-NY) (bars assistance to Saudi Arabia because of “their propensity to export terrorists”
   AMENDMENT NO. 126: At the end of the bill
    Approved by voice vote, February 18, 2011

Offered By: Mr. Campbell (R-CA) (cuts defense budget by 3.5%, or about $18 billion, as well as the Department of Homeland Security budget)
   AMENDMENT NO. 519: At the end of the bill
Defeated 68 – 357, February 18, 2011 (Roll call #105)
(Note: 22 Republicans voted Aye)

 Offered By: Mr. Broun (R-GA) (bars funding for United Nations dues)
   AMENDMENT NO. 263: At the end of the bill
Defeated 177 – 243, February 18, 2011 (Roll call #107)

Offered by: Mr. Forbes (R-VA) (bars Pentagon spending on lobbying Congress)
   AMENDMENT NO. 146: At the end of the bill
    Approved 241 – 184 (Roll call #116)

Offered By: Mr. Polis (D-CO) (cuts Armed Forces personnel in Europe to no more than 35,000)
   AMENDMENT NO. 46: At the end of the bill
Defeated 74 – 351, February 18, 2011 (Roll call #118)

Offered By: Mr. Stearns (R-FL) (bars United Nations renovation)
    AMENDMENT NO. 8: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Approved 231 – 191, February 18, 2011 (Roll call #124)

Offered By: Mr. Kucinich (D-OH) (cuts all funds for missile defense)
   AMENDMENT NO. 233: At the end of the bill
    Defeated by voice vote, February 18, 2011

Offered By: Mr. Heller (R-NV) (cuts funds for Yucca nuclear waste repository)
   AMENDMENT NO. 174: At the end of the bill,
    Defeated by voice vote, February 18, 2011

Offered By: Ms. Lee (D-CA) (cuts Pentagon funding to Fiscal Year 2008 levels)
   AMENDMENT NO. 141: At the end of the bill
Defeated 76 – 344, February 18, 2011 (Roll call #128)

Why Tim Kaine matters http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/off-the-line-michigan-on.html Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine continues to mull the prospect of a bid for the seat being vacated by Sen. Jim Webb (D) in 2012, delay…