TOPICS
TOPICS
Minus provisions on Iraq forces, panel passes Defense bill
The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on Tuesday approved a $495.3 billion funding bill that would provide less than President Bush requested but avoided any provisions on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq in an effort to allow congressional approval before the new fiscal year begins.
The bill includes a 3.5 percent pay hike for members of the military. That would afford them the same raise the full House and Senate appropriators have granted civilian federal employees in a separate appropriations bill. The figure is also half a percent higher than President Bush's request for the military and civilians alike.
The National Treasury Employees Union welcomed the subcommittee's action Tuesday as "the latest show of bipartisan congressional support in the House and Senate" for a "fair pay increase" that reflects the contributions of military members and civilians.
The full committee will take up the measure Wednesday. Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and ranking member Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said they would oppose any amendments that could jeopardize quick passage of the bill.
That clearly was a reference to any attempt to force a troop withdrawal. Inouye said the committee was expected to take up another supplemental appropriations measure to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the next few weeks.
"We would urge our colleagues to hold off on supplemental-related issues until that bill is considered," he said. "Our men and women in uniform deserve our support," which can be demonstrated best by completing the Defense appropriations bill "as quickly as possible."
The measure is $3.8 billion below the president's request and $300 million less than what the House passed last month.
But the Senate bill follows similar lines, adding money for military health care, for National Guard equipment and for a higher pay raise than requested.
It also adds money to allow the Navy to start building two Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines a year, as did the House. But it did not support the four other warships the House funded.
The subcommittee's measure cuts a number of the administration's requests, including taking $310 million from national missile defense, which is slightly more than the House cut. Part of the reduction was from the proposed new missile defense sites in Europe, which the House also chopped.
COMMENTS
- Those who want equal pay come on in the military is hiring, we'll see how much you want the job. dan ketter Posted September 12, 2007 3:16 PM
- I’m amused to learn that for the first time in my years of service, the military are playing catch-up to the civilians; and I am chagrined that some folks are making blanket statements on the unjustness of the two compensation packages. Yes, I could always use more money; or rather my spouse could… but the only inequity I see to come out of this is the continuing differentiation between NOT just the military and the civilians, but also between the contractors and the civilian as in regard to the tax exemption treatment. Of the three groups concerned, why are we being singled out? Still, I can only feel that those who make such blanket statements are either referring to that one difference, or they know not that of which they speak. We both get base pays and locale differentials; at least for now. Yes, green-suiters get one for quarters and one for subsistence, but then we normally have the advantage of not being so mobile; with all the financial difficulties that goes along with such as they inability to build much in the way of home equity. Those civilians deployed do get dislocation allowances. The military also get combat pay; which I am loathed to hear any civilian begrudge them. Even deployed, we are classified as non-combatants and are not expected to perform to the same level of hazardous duty. Perhaps I could consider an additional level of compensation based on degree of exposure, but I do not expect any non-LEO civilian to do the same duty as a Soldier, even in the sand box. Tip off Posted September 12, 2007 12:07 PM
- No wonder the civilian workforce does not deploy. Everybody is Tax free BUT the DOD civilians. Pretty soon they want have anyone to deploy. Congress needs to get off their duff and fix a lot of problems. Deployed Civilian DOD Posted September 12, 2007 9:40 AM









