Floor vote next for defense bill

Publication: TheHill.com

Roxana Tiron
November 7, 2007

Senate and House conferees on Tuesday agreed on a $471.2 billion military spending bill for 2008 that would pay for future weapons programs and the more immediate needs of troops and their families.

The conferees did not include any funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the base defense bill, except for an additional $11.6 billion in emergency spending for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.

The House is expected to vote on a separate “bridge-fund” likely containing less than $50 billion for ongoing war operations, according to House Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.).

With all 12 appropriations measures still outstanding, conferees have also attached to the 2008 defense-spending bill a new continuing resolution that would temporarily fund the rest of the government.

The House could vote on the defense package and the bridge fund as early as Thursday. The bridge fund would cover about four months of military operations, but Democrats may attach restrictions to the money designed to change the administration’s policy in Iraq.  

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also said that he wants to see the 2008 defense bill and continuing resolution pass by the end of the week. It is not clear how the Senate will proceed on the bridge fund, but Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) said that he wants to see legislation debating a change in Iraq policy soon.

In the defense-spending bill, meanwhile, appropriators boosted funding for shipbuilding programs, the defense health initiatives and equipment for the National Guard and Reserve.  

Defense appropriators decided on an additional $938 million for advanced construction of five extra ships, including one LPD-17 amphibious transport dock, three ammunition and dry cargo carriers, and one Virginia-class submarine.  

Murtha expressed his goal to pay for the construction of 10 ships a year in future defense bills. Conferees also included funding for the Littoral Combat Ship, although the Navy recently announced it was canceling the fourth ship due to escalating costs.

Murtha said that once the Navy decides on a final design for the ship he wants to see an open competition for the program, allowing all shipbuilding companies to vie for the Navy’s projected 55 shore-hugging ships.

Currently, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics are under contract to build two Littoral Combat Ships. The Navy is expected to pick one of the designs.

Conferees also added $480 million for a second-engine program for the multinational, multi-service Joint Strike Fighter, despite the Pentagon’s opposition to paying for a second engine built by General Electric and Rolls-Royce.

The Air Force also received $3.15 billion to buy 20 F-22 Raptor fighter jets.

The Army’s Future Combat Systems, a network of ground vehicles and unmanned systems, took a hit of $300 million, but still received $3.4 billion.

The Army also received $157 million to buy four C-27J aircraft, one of the Army’s most coveted programs.

The Army currently shares the so-called Joint Cargo Aircraft program with the Air Force, but the Air Force received only $21 million, half of its request for the JCA in its research and development budget line. Senate appropriators had zeroed out the Air Force’s request.  

Meanwhile, House and Senate authorizers are still in negotiations over language that could give control of the JCA to the Air Force.

The Army also prevailed in retaining operational control of its Sky Warrior unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) included language in the Senate defense bill to ensure that the Army would retain control of its extended range, multi-purpose UAV.  

Shelby’s language, which prevailed in conference, also prohibits the transfer of research and development, acquisition or program authority of tactical UAVs from the Army. The Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense opposed Shelby’s language.

The conferees provided an additional $980 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment, to make sure the forces have equipment for both deployments overseas as well as the ability to respond to natural disasters domestically.  

Murtha also plans to include $1 billion in the bridge fund for a new brigade of Stryker vehicles. The actual defense bill funds $925 million for additional Stryker vehicles, a small reduction from the Pentagon’s initial request.

Defense appropriators boosted the defense health coffers by $900 million, including money for the Wounded Warrior Assistance program and more than $200 million for breast, prostate and ovarian cancer research. HIV/AIDS research also received $16 million. Most of the funding for these research initiatives comes from member requests, or earmarks.

But Murtha defended funding the health research and said finding ways to prevent certain conditions is vital.

“If you discover it earlier you reduce the impact later on … and save money down the line,” Murtha said.

Murtha also said that conferees reconciled the differences in member-sponsored projects and were able to reduce earmarks by 50 percent. But he brushed off the focus on member-sponsored projects.

“It’s not big with me,” Murtha told reporters. “What is big with me is the future of this country.”

On Tuesday, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit group that advocates for greater government transparency, released a Google Earth application that plots the locations for almost 1,500 earmarks in the House defense appropriations bill.

The foundation said that the graphic illustration of defense earmarks “gives anyone with an Internet connection a bird’s-eye view of exactly where Congress is directing federal spending — and the ability to investigate whether the earmarks address pressing needs, favor political contributors or are simply pure pork.”

The House disclosed earmarks worth a total of $3 billion, about half of last year’s amount. The Senate bill included $5.6 billion, only $1 billion less than the 2006 figure, in earmarks.