Senate Democrats derail GOP effort to pass Defense bill
Delay makes it more likely a continuing resolution will be needed to cover the department’s initial fiscal 2007 expenses.
Senate Democrats derailed the fiscal 2007 Defense appropriations bill Thursday night, sparking heated floor exchanges as they demanded time to debate as many as 50 amendments after lawmakers return from their summer recess in September.
Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., chided Republicans for taking floor time for same-sex marriage and other issues and for delaying debate on the Defense spending measure until just days before their August break. At presstime, Democrats were working on a finite list of amendments they would like to introduce in September, aides said.
"I'm not going to agree on a time for final passage," Reid said. "We're not going to finish the bill tonight."
By delaying passage of the bill until September, Democrats might set the stage for another Senate debate on the war in Iraq, focusing attention on an issue they believe will hurt Republicans in the November elections.
Indeed, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said the minority would use additional floor time on the bill to address Iraq and other defense issues.
"None of us really feel like this is the time to discuss this," Kennedy said, stressing that the Senate should not rush to finish the massive Defense spending bill this week.
Attempts to stall the bill drew a strong rebuke from Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who was prepared to pass it Thursday night. Doing so would allow the Defense appropriations conference report to be completed before fiscal 2007 begins Oct. 1, he reasoned.
Enactment after then would force Congress to cover the military's expenses through a continuing resolution, a stopgap measure Pentagon officials are loath to have Congress consider. A CR would stall new starts on contracts and generally would temporarily make available a smaller amount of money than would otherwise be appropriated in fiscal 2007.
"We've got to get this bill passed before the end of the fiscal year," Stevens said.
"I wish we could do a lot better," he added. "I think we're going to be criticized, every one of us, for deciding to go home instead of finishing this bill."
At presstime, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., expressed hope the Senate would keep working on the Defense bill, but he acknowledged Democrats were determined to keep debate open on it.
"There's no way to finish it" with the list of amendments Democrats are drawing up, Frist said. He indicated he would try to strike a deal with Democrats that would allow the Senate to resume consideration of the bill Sept. 5, with a final vote the next day.
Democrats remain sharply opposed to the White House's policies on Iraq, and stepped up their criticism earlier in the day during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"Under your leadership there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told Rumsfeld. "We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq."
Although it was unclear what Iraq-related amendments Democrats are drafting to the bill, senior Democrats on the House and Senate defense and foreign relations committees agreed last weekend to call on the president to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the calendar year.
Before Democrats thwarted a planned final vote on the bill, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., won, by a 96-1 vote, passage of an amendment that would require the Defense secretary to post online the details of earmarks, including the congressional districts that benefit.
Under the amendment, the posting should include the total cost of the earmark and an "assessment of the utility" of the earmark, based on whether the add-on furthers Pentagon goals.
The Senate also approved another Coburn amendment that would limit the annual military travel budget to $70 million, despite strong opposition from Stevens. It passed by voice vote, although the presiding officer initially announced erroneously that the amendment had failed.