By Emelie Rutherford
House and Senate appropriators reached an unofficial conference agreement on the fiscal year 2009 defense appropriations bill last Friday, and agreed to include partial procurement funding for a DDG-1000 destroyer and an LPD-17 amphibious ship, House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said yesterday.
In addition, House-Senate negotiators on the defense authorization bill agreed to a compromise measure early this week, and the House likely will vote on the policy measure today. The House Armed Services Committee was expected to release the details of the authorization legislation last night, after Defense Daily‘s deadline.
Lawmakers are rushing to finish both defense bills, for the fiscal year starting a week from today, before a planned adjournment date of this Friday.
The route of the defense appropriations bill was less clear yesterday afternoon than that of its authorization counterpart.
House Democratic aides on Monday circulated a “discussion draft” of a continuing resolution (CR) that would keep the government running, largely at FY ’08 levels, until March 6 at the latest.
Murtha said yesterday that legislative leaders are sticking to the plan aired last week to attach the full defense, Homeland Security, and military construction-Veterans Affairs bills to the CR. Reporters were to be briefed on the CR last night, after Defense Daily‘s deadline.
When appropriators crafted the unofficial conference agreement on the defense bill, Murtha said “a lot of concessions” were made on shipbuilding.
“That was a big stumbling block,” he said at the Capitol.
The compromise spending bill does not fully fund the Navy’s latest request for $2.55 billion to buy a third DDG-1000 destroyer, or provide all the $1.6 billion in funding the HAC-D previously sought for building a 10th LPD-17 amphibious ship, Murtha said.
Instead, the spending measure includes 60 percent of the necessary procurement monies for buying one DDG-1000 and for purchasing one LPD-17 in FY ’09, he said. The remaining 40 percent of funding for both ship programs would have to be appropriated after FY ’09, he said.
The appropriations legislation includes no funds for restarting production of DDG-51 destroyers, he said.
The HAC-D marked up a bill in July that included the $1.6 billion for buying the LPD-17 but no procurement funds for purchasing a DDG-1000 in FY ’09, though it did have advance-procurement monies for the destroyer. The version of the legislation the SAC-D marked up earlier this month included the full $2.55 billion for buying one DDG-1000, while adding $273 million in advance-procurement monies for a LPD-17 amphibious ship, which the Pentagon did not request.
The Navy in recent months indicated it wants to restart production of the older DDG-51 combatants starting in FY ’10.
The HAC-D’s mark included no funds for DDG-51 production, while the SAC-D’s version added $397 million in advance-procurement funds to be used toward one DDG-51 destroyer.
Asked why appropriators now are not calling for any DDG-51 funds, Murtha said defense officials keep altering their plans for building more of those older destroyers.
“They may change their minds tomorrow,” he said. “They did already.”
On the authorization side, the House is expected today to take up the version of the defense authorization bill the Senate passed last week, with an amendment attached that reflects the compromises agreed to by House-Senate negotiators. Because of Republican objections, a traditional House-Senate conference committee was not convened.
The White House has cited an array of provisions in the versions of the defense authorization bill that previously passed the House and Senate that would spur a veto (Defense Daily, Sept. 19).
Yet Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said yesterday, “I don’t expect the president to veto this bill, if we can get it passed.”
While the authorization bill could make it to the Senate by Thursday morning, Levin said it was not clear if the measure would then pass in time. Because the bill is not a typical conference report it can be filibustered and amended, he noted.