GovernmentExecutive.com

The White House scored key victories on its fiscal 2005 military spending request in both the House and Senate Wednesday.

House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, was scheduled to mark up a budget resolution Thursday containing $819 billion in fiscal 2005 discretionary spending, including the full Pentagon defense spending request, while the Senate continues to slog through amendments on its version totaling $821 billion after $7 billion in defense cuts was restored on the floor Wednesday.

Nussle agreed Wednesday to restore $2 billion in proposed cuts from the Pentagon's $421 billion request, in a win for House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who had threatened to defeat the budget resolution on the floor next week if the cuts remained.

In exchange, Hunter's panel will be directed to find $2 billion in savings within the Pentagon budget, he said. "We've got the biggest rotation of troops since World War II" in Iraq, Hunter said, stressing the need for full military funding.

That would bring Nussle's fiscal 2005 discretionary spending total to $819 billion, sources said -- after the $2 billion in Pentagon funds was restored -- including an overall freeze on domestic discretionary spending at last year's level and a 0.5 percent cut in homeland security funds from the president's budget. That would represent a $4 billion cut from President Bush's request of $823 billion in discretionary spending.

The Senate voted 95-4 Wednesday to restore $7 billion in proposed reductions from Bush's military request, bringing that chamber's defense total back up to $421 billion and overall budget resolution up to $821 billion in discretionary spending.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., had included the cut in order to bring the budget back under the discretionary cap set by last year's budget resolution. To increase spending above that level requires 60 votes.

COMMENTS

• I can recall when it was the military who were asking for near parity of pay. Having spent 26 plus years in uniform and 15 plus years in civil service, I have thoughts on both sides of the parity issue. I can honestly say that pay was not the primary reason for my wearing the blue suit of over 26 years. Nobody will ever turn down a pay raise but in order to secure America the true warrior won't have to be asked twice to serve. They will sacrifice whatever it takes expecting nothing but grateful for their country's admiration. John Fry Posted March 12, 2004 12:54 PM
• With all this spending being approved in Congress for defense, I personally feel that all federal civilian employees deserve the same pay increase that the military personnel receive. Parity in pay between the military personnel and civilians should be fully funded in the budget. We have too many obligations that are not part of the federal budget that are not funded. For example, funds that will be needed to continue our obligations in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not funded in the federal budget. To make civilian federal employees and the american tax payers the scape goats in funding the federal budget is not the way to run this country. GovExec.com reader Posted March 12, 2004 9:18 AM