House Armed Services panel approves $712 billion defense package

WASHINGTON (May 15, 2008) -- The House Armed Services Committee finally approved a $712 billion fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill after a marathon session that started Wednesday morning and wrapped up early Thursday.

The committee alternated between quick bipartisan approval of major segments and sharp party-line disputes over specific issues such as ballistic missile defense, the Army's massive Future Combat System and a number of personnel issues.

It cleared the committee on a unanimous 61-0 vote.

Republicans were outmaneuvered by the majority Democrats on amendments that would place some Democratic members in uncomfortable positions. One vote was a sense of the Congress resolution from Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., calling on the Congress to pass an emergency appropriations bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan unburdened with non-defense spending.

House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., instead offered a second degree amendment to Forbes' original amendment inserting the new language "Congress has provided, and will continue to provide, funds to address readiness shortfalls in the Armed Forces of the United States." Skelton's modifications were approved 33-28.

With repeated interruptions for floor votes, the committee struggled to complete the bill that would authorize total spending of $712 billion, including $70 billion in initial supplemental funding for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The next president would have to decide whether to request additional war funding next year.

The bill is expected to be on the House floor next week.

Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said the committee's priority was restoring the combat readiness of the military, particularly the ground forces, which have experienced severe strains on their personnel and degradation of equipment from six years of combat.

To offset those effects, the bill would allow 7,000 additional soldiers and 5,000 more Marines in the active forces and 500 more full-time support personnel in the Army National Guard and 150 in the Army Reserves. It also would add $800 million for equipment for the Guard and reserves, to replace gear destroyed or worn out in combat, and $932 million more for improved maintenance by all the services.

The committee continued the practice of adding half a percentage point to the administration's requested military pay raise, authorizing a 3.9 percent increase. And it rejected for the third year the administration's request for increased fees for Tricare medical and pharmacy services. That forced the House leadership to give the panel an additional $1.2 billion in budget authority to offset the lost revenues.

The committee's usual bipartisanship was reflected in most of the process, including approving requested funding for most of the major weapons programs.

The full panel endorsed without opposition the Seapower Subcommittee's proposal to provide full or partial funding for four ships in addition to the Virginia class attack submarine, Joint High Speed Vessel and two T-AKE supply ships that were requested. It then adopted an amendment offered by ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., to add $422 million to the $300 million the subcommittee had provided in advanced funding for another submarine. That would allow the Navy to buy two submarines a year starting in 2010, two years earlier than planned.

It also approved procurement of two more of the troubled Littoral Combat Ships, but reduced the requested funding because of unused money from. But it sought to stop the controversial DDG-1000 program, cutting the requested funding and telling the Navy it could use the money to start construction of another of the $3 billion-plus warships or to buy more of the proven DDG-51s, which the Navy does not want.

The full committee also endorsed the panel's proposal to require the Navy to consider using nuclear power in future amphibious assault ships, in addition to the existing requirement for nuclear power in the next generation guided missile cruisers. The Navy has expressed concern about the additional cost and construction delay that would cause.

The Air-Land Subcommittee also added substantially to the administration's request, including $3.9 billion for 15 more C-17 transports that the Air Force wanted but did not request, $526 million for a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the administration opposes, and $523 million in advanced funding for 20 F-22 fighters that the Pentagon did not seek.

The first major dispute was over the Air-Land Subcommittee's attempt to cut $200 million from the Army's massive Future Combat System and to reallocate another $33 million. Subcommittee Chairman Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, noted that his panel approved $3.3 billion for FCS and fully funded every program that is expected to be fielded by 2011.

But Air-Land ranking member Jim Saxton, R-N.J., protested that this would be the fourth straight year of cuts in the Army's major program for future capabilities. He offered an amendment to restore $233 million to FCS, taking the money from a number of personnel, health care and other Army research programs.

Skelton and Abercrombie both opposed the amendment, arguing that the priority had to be on improving current Army readiness. It was defeated on a party-line 33-23 vote.

The next battle was over the Strategic Forces Subcommittee's proposal to cut half of the funding requested for the ballistic missile defense system President Bush wants to build in Europe. The current year's authorization restricted most funding on the project until Poland and the Czech Republic agreed to host the interceptor missiles and the early warning radar and the systems had been tested.

Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairwoman Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., said none of those conditions had been met but the administration requested twice as much as provided this year.

Ranking member Terry Everett, R-Ala., protested the proposed cut, arguing that it would send the wrong signal to the allies and to Iran, whose ballistic missile program was the reason for the European defense site. Everett offered an amendment to restore $372 million to the so-called "Third Site" program. That was strongly supported by a long list of Republican members, but opposed by Tauscher and Skelton.

The amendment was defeated on a 34-24 vote with one member from each party switching sides.

An amendment by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., to restore $100 million to the multi-kill vehicle program, which is intended to counter decoys, was rejected on a similar 34-25 score. And an attempt by Everett to require a study on the potential advantages and cost of a space-based missile defense system was defeated 34-26.

The subcommittee also cut $719 million from the total request for national missile defense, while providing $10.2 billion, an increase of $212 million over the current year. It shifted another $185 million to four programs providing missile defense for deployed forces and allies. Those included the Navy's Aegis-based system, the Army's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the U.S.-Israeli Arrow program.

The Personnel Subcommittee's proposal drew an array of amendments and provoked some angry complaint by GOP members when proposed amendments were ruled out of order because the increased expense was not off-set or because the subject was within the jurisdiction of another committee.

Rep. Thelma Drake, R-Va., protested Skelton's ruling that her amendment to end the so-called "widow's tax" that reduces surviving spouses benefits had to be approved by the House Budget Committee. She argued that the budget resolution the House approved authorized the increased spending.

But her amendment was tabled on a party-line 32-26 vote.

The committee honored a number of its retiring senior members, with an amendment to name the bill for ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and sense of Congress amendments praising Saxton and Everett. All were approved by unanimous voice votes, although Hunter predicted that his honor would never pass the Senate.