GovernmentExecutive.com

Appropriators have resolved most of their differences in the fiscal 2006 Defense appropriations bill during closed-door meetings but have not set a meeting to craft the final conference report, leaving Defense funding issues unresolved nearly two months into the new fiscal year.

With lawmakers expected to leave soon for Thanksgiving, it appears likely the talks will be shelved until after the recess, much to the consternation of Pentagon officials, who are concerned military accounts will run dry.

The House Thursday extended its continuing resolution to Dec. 17, buying both the military and Congress some time to resolve the spending bill.

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman C.W. (Bill) Young, R-Fla., and Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, both said the CR will free up emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military needs roughly $50 billion to cover operations through early spring 2006.

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member John Murtha, D-Pa., Thursday shot down speculation that conference talks have been stalled by House leaders because of White House opposition to a Senate amendment that bans torture and inhumane treatment of military prisoners and other detainees.

Rather, Murtha said, the issue is House leaders want to use the must-pass Defense bill as a vehicle for 1 percent across-the-board discretionary spending cuts and other legislation.

But the Senate amendment on torture, sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., remains an obstacle to a conference agreement, although McCain predicted this week he will prevail.

The amendment passed last month by a 90-9 vote, despite veto threats from the White House. With McCain generating a broad base of public support for his amendment, White House officials have not publicly renewed those threats this week.

Young said he does not have issues with the language banning torture in McCain's amendment, but he disagrees with language that requires the military to publish interrogation standards in the Army Field Manual.

"I don't think that you tell a terrorist what you would do or would not do," Young said.

Murtha, a hawk who raised Republican ire Thursday when he called for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by this spring, has been one of the most ardent supporters of the McCain amendment. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., also supports the language.

Young confirmed that informal talks in recent weeks have allowed the two chambers to resolve many of the funding disparities in the competing defense bills. But he declined to discuss any compromises. "I just don't want to get the whole town stirred up," Young said.

The two chambers have differed widely over funding for several key weapons systems, including the Navy's pricey DD(X) destroyer program, one of the largest differences in the two versions of the bill.

On that issue, Murtha has said the final report will more closely resemble the Senate version of the bill, which added $50 million for advanced procurement to the program. The House, however, has long been wary of the program and slashed $1 billion from it.

COMMENTS

• Here is how they solve things when something is unfinished where I work: leave denied!! Dave Posted November 21, 2005 1:38 PM
• Here is the reality. At the pentagon we are operating with no funding in the Air force because our financial gurus decided to send all the obligating authority to Iraq efforts. how can Congress delay a defense bill when the country is at war -even if it is a stupid war. We probably will not get obligation authority until Feb and then our financial genuises will want it totally obligated by July (contracting stops working after July). That gives us five months to obligate the money that Congress finally agrees to. Then Congresws will want to know why our schedules we gave them have to slip! They slip because Congress does not appropriate on time and goes home for thanksgiving when we are at war! This is all politics and nothing is being done to help the country! Vote these people out of office they are not capable of taking the counbtry's best interests to heart! Professional politians are a menace to our society and should be discontinued with term limits that are relatively short (8 years for all federal elected or appointed offices during one's lifetime with the exception that judges would have appointments of 15 years at all levels and then out.)! Taxpayer Posted November 21, 2005 6:58 AM