The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a $422 billion defense bill yesterday that would include more money for fighting in Iraq, expand current troop levels, and protect military bases from closure for at least three years. The vote was 391-34.
While the Bush administration urgently wants the defense bill, the White House has threatened a veto if it retains a provision to delay further military-base closings until after 2007. The administration wants to begin closing more bases next year to free up money for other military priorities. The House ignored the veto threat and voted 259-162 against the White House position.
Supporters of delaying base closures question whether the White House would veto the bill. They are concentrating on gaining support in the Senate, which is weighing a similar measure authorizing spending levels and policies for the Pentagon. The Senate version does not include delaying base closures, but such terms could be added by amendment.
The House version includes $25 billion that the administration requested urgently for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration intends to ask Congress for $40 billion to $60 billion more for Iraq early next year. Congress has already given $166 billion.
Concerned that the military is stretched too thin, lawmakers also mandated that the Defense Department add 10,000 Army soldiers and 3,000 Marines each year for the next three years. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is against the mandate, even though Gen. Peter Schoomacher, the Army chief of staff, has said the Army needs 10 new fighting brigades in the next three years.
The House bill also includes:
A 3.5 percent across-the-board pay increase and raises in hazardous pay and separation allowances. It also would increase survivor benefits and housing allowances.
Line items added for equipment such as tanks, armor, and munitions that the armed services said they needed but that were not part of the administration's official request to Congress in February. The White House objects to the line-item additions.
Republicans fought back a Democratic effort to call for a select congressional committee to investigate prisoner abuse in Iraq. The vote was 224-202.
The House adopted by voice vote an amendment calling for the administration to reach a pact with the new Iraq government, expected be take some control June 30, to pay for its own needs.
"I think the Americans expect this oil-rich country to help pay for reconstruction," said Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "It is not unreasonable to expect that they start investing in their own future as well."
The House also urged the Pentagon to develop a comprehensive policy to address rapes and sexual assaults of female soldiers by their male colleagues in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last week, a Defense Department task force on sexual assaults released its findings from a three-month investigation in Iraq. It said that in the last 14 months, more than 120 sexual assaults had been reported.
Debate on base closings was dominated by uneasiness about the overextended military.
When Congress first approved the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) process, the Cold War had just ended and the Pentagon wanted to take advantage of the "peace dividend" to save money. The Pentagon says it saved about $17 billion from fiscal 1988 to 2001 from closing or restructuring 387 bases.
Supporters of the delay said the Iraq war and the continued terrorist threat preempted the need for future closings until new guidelines were drawn. They noted that many bases were operating at full capacity.
"This provision is neither an election-year stunt nor an effort to kill BRAC forever," said Rep. Joel Hefley (R., Colo.), a member of the Armed Services Committee. "To the contrary, it is reflective of deep bipartisan concern that the U.S. military is undergoing too much turbulence to allow the 2005 BRAC round to be a fully informed, effective process."
Opponents said that lawmakers were letting parochial interests trump national security needs. "Military programs have become jobs programs," said Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.). "We ought to be making our decisions on the missions and military purposes."
The BRAC process was designed to take local politics out of base-closing considerations. Congress and the president would approve the BRAC list but could not amend it. Many lawmakers never liked the process.
"You can never take politics out of the process," Linder said. "This is Congress, after all."
Sound Off...What do you think?
Join the discussion.
Copyright 2004 Philadelphia Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
