GovernmentExecutive.com

By a 398-23 vote, the House Friday evening passed the conference report on the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill, and the Senate gave its approval several hours later by unanimous consent, sending the legislation to President Bush.

The $532.8 billion measure had been caught in a stalemate between House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., over Hastert's efforts to attach two unrelated provisions to the legislation. Hastert backed down Thursday night after receiving assurances from Senate leaders that the provisions would be addressed elsewhere.

Meanwhile, President Bush Friday signed the fiscal 2007 Defense appropriations bill. Senators completed action on that legislation earlier in the day by passing it 100-0.

Both the authorization and appropriations measures would provide a 2.2 percent 2007 pay raise for members of the military, in keeping with President Bush's request for service members and civilian federal employees.

National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley issued a statement calling the 2.2 percent figure "a shameful decision during a time of war."

The original House version of the authorization bill had allowed a 2.7 percent pay hike for the military, kicking off a campaign to bump the civilian raise to that level. The House approved a 2.7 percent raise for civilians as part of the fiscal 2007 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, and in July, the Senate appropriations committee matched that figure.

But the Transportation-Treasury bill has yet to be passed by the full Senate or go through the House-Senate negotiations process. With Congress in recess until after the November elections, the civilian figure will remain up in the air until a lame duck session.

Amelia Gruber of GovExec.com contributed to this report.

COMMENTS

• Disgusted has a point. If Disgusted feels so guilty about sending the military to do what the military is hired to do -- then Disgusted should fight to get out of the war at a minimum and/or to eliminate the military. But without the military, Disgusted probably would not have a job or the freedom enjoyed to feel so guilty. There is absolutely no reason to increase military pay across the board when only about 10 percent of the military ever gets in harm’s way, although the services are rotating more and more people into Iraq to reduce the amount of time they spend there. I respect these people and would like to see Congress give a reasonable bonus to the people that actually carry guns and fight in the wars, but not those that sit on their fat seats at the Pentagon and cry for more pay and more money for toys. Everyone is using the poor soldier in harm’s way to justify satisfaction of their own guilty feelings and not to better the life of the soldier. Remember these people went into harm’s way voluntarily and it does not require increased salaries to justify their actions. I vote for a bonus in addition to their battle pay premium but only if they have been in the action for at least a year. Remember that the Pentagon declared the Pentagon as a battle area for premium pay on 9/11 when the plane went into the building. But we civilians only got a cheap pin to stick on our jackets while the military got paid extra. Taxpayer Posted October 19, 2006 7:41 AM
• Our military is well compensated? Would you consider 2.2 percent just compensation if you were spending every second of every day trying to avoid getting shot in the head by a sniper or blown up by an IED? Or if you were going back for your 3rd or 4th combat tour of duty? Or if you were trying to focus on not getting killed while wondering if your family back home had enough to eat or if your house was being foreclosed? Or if you had to watch people being blown to pieces and have nightmares about it for the rest of your life? Yes, they volunteer and thank God someone does, but that doesn't mean we can't pay them justly for what they do. The fact that they are willing to do this seems to me to justify even better pay. GovExec.com reader Posted October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
• Is it a fair raise? I wouldn't ask those receiving it that question. But then, most of us always want more, myself included. That's the American way -- capitalism. But, is it a fair raise for the government and the people? A fair wage is that which is sufficient to hire quality people to do a quality job, within constraints. This raise is to be combined with the current rate to give a fair wage, is it not? Therefore, a fair wage here would, supposedly, be sufficient to recruit folks to die in Iraq. That's the way those being recruited see it. Or rather those who the government wishes to recruit see it. So for the third (and final) time. Is this a fair raise? The subsequent question is: Are we paying a fair wage to our soldiers? Evidently, in accordance with the current recruiting numbers, we may have to rethink that. Tip off. GovExec.com reader Posted October 18, 2006 4:43 PM