House Armed Services panel OKs $441.6 authorization bill
- By Megan Scully
- May 19, 2005
- Comments
The bill, which could go to the House floor as early as next week, includes an additional $49.1 billion in supplemental spending to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House committee's approval of the supplemental comes on the heels of an $82 billion fiscal 2005 supplemental spending package approved last week. In its markup last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a $50 billion supplemental for fiscal 2006.
During the tail end of a 14-hour markup session, Democrats voiced concerns about funding another emergency spending package, which was included in Armed Services Chairman Hunter's mark of the administration's defense budget request.
"We are not being honest with ourselves about what our budget priorities should be," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who has pushed the administration to fund current operations out of the regular defense budget.
He added that the current supplemental process, and limited requirements on the Pentagon to provide Congress with information about its expenditures, was an "open invitation to corruption."
Hunter countered that the "bridge fund" would allow the military to continue to pay for operations from this October through March 2006 without eating into other parts of the budget.
He also warned the committee that the "appropriators are going to put together a supplemental appropriation whether we participate in it or not."
Abercrombie offered an amendment to strike the provision for the supplemental, but it was defeated on a voice vote. Meanwhile, House Budget ranking member John Spratt, D-S.C., pushed for an amendment to require Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to submit a report to Congress on war-related costs, military personnel force levels and other issues. He later withdrew the amendment.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., was the only committee member to vote against the authorization bill.
By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec.com does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
Is Your Privacy Worth 50 Foiled Terror Plots?
Postal Service Eyes Cuba
Tangherlini As GSA's Mr. Fix-It?
Lew Cleans Up Signature for the Nation's Currency
The Plan to Open More Military Jobs to Women
Should Leaders Ever Lie?
Sponsored
Event: Digital Government Success: Meeting the Call for 21st Century Government
What Big Data Means for TSA & Airport Security
Cutting costs: Inside the effort to improve the efficiency of federal operations
