[NYTr] And in the Real World, House Votes Nearly $700 Billion for Military

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

AP via Yahoo - Dec 12, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_go_co/defense_budget

House passes $696B defense policy bill

By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer

The House passed a defense policy bill on Wednesday that would
authorize $696 billion in military programs, including $189 billion for
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The measure, which covers the budget year that began Oct. 1, does not
send money to the Pentagon. But it is considered a crucial policy
measure because it guides companion spending legislation and dictates
the acquisition and management of weapons programs.

The Senate intended to follow suit this week and send the bill to
President Bush, who is expected to sign it. The House vote was 370-49.

"It's good for our troops, good for our families," said Rep. Ike
Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, which
wrote the bill. "It will help improve readiness for our armed forces
and bring new oversight to the Department of Defense in areas where
oversight was sorely needed in the past."

The legislation includes a 3.5 percent pay raise authorized for
uniformed service personnel and a guarantee that combat veterans
receive swift health evaluations. It also would block fee increases
proposed as part of the military's Tricare health care system.

The bill has several provisions intended to increase the oversight of
contractors and the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. More
specifically, it would require that private security contractors
working in a war zone comply with military regulations and orders
issued by commanders.

It would establish an auditing system to oversee reconstruction
contracts in Afghanistan that would be modeled after the special
watchdog for Iraq reconstruction.

Final action on the bill comes as Democrats struggle for a way to pay
for combat operations overseas without appearing to support Bush's
policies in Iraq.

Senate Republicans are insisting that war money be added to a
government-wide spending bill. Democrats were expected to agree, but
the legislation stalled this week after Republicans objected to
domestic spending added by the Democrats.

As the budget feud continues, the Pentagon is preparing to notify some
civilian contractors that they will be laid off in February. The
notices would arrive shortly before Christmas, per union contract rules
that require the employees are given 60 days notice.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the situation was unprecedented.

"Not even in Vietnam, at the height of that conflict with the
demonstrations in the street and so forth, did Congress not fund the
war effort," he said. "We are really in a difficult situation and there
are many, many people trying to figure out what the full impact will
be."

A group of Washington-area House members, including Reps. Jim Moran,
D-Va., and Tom Davis, R-Va., counter that the layoff notices could be
delayed until after Christmas, at which point the spending dispute
would be resolved. They cited a new Dec. 13 report by the Congressional
Research Service that found the Army could potentially keep combat
operations afloat through the end of March.

But doing so would require the Army to slow down its expenditures
considerably and defer depot maintenance work, CRS warned.

Moran and Davis said the alternatives were preferable because it would
prevent crippling the military's civilian work force.

"We don't believe that federal employees should be used as bargaining
chips," said Moran.

Additional time also could be bought if the military invokes the Feed
and Forage Act, a mechanism dating to the Civil War. It would permit
the Defense Department to buy clothing, food, fuel, medical supplies
and other provisions in excess of its budget. The last time the law was
invoked was after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Or, the CRS says, the Defense Department could take unprecedented
measures, such as using the Navy and Air Force to pay the costs of the
Army abroad.

But "such measures may weaken congressional war powers and erode
congressional controls on the use of the funds," the CRS said.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.