By Emelie Rutherford
The Senate’s Wednesday night passage of a sparsely amended defense authorization bill kicked into high gear House-Senate negotiations over differences between each chamber’s version of the legislation for fiscal year 2009, which starts in two weeks.
Because of the unique nature of the conference committee talks–being held as the House eyes a wrap-up date of Sept. 26, with a Senate bill that was largely untouched on the floor–staff negotiators likely are sticking to big-picture items. That means differences between the two bills over C-17 cargo aircraft, F-22 fighter jets, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, missile defense, and shipbuilding likely are up for negotiations, assuming conferees’ negotiations proceed, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) told reporters yesterday.
If either chamber’s bill has a smaller-picture item the other version lacks, that item will likely remain in the conference report, he predicted.
The Senate passed its version of the defense authorization bill Wednesday night, by a 88-8 margin, without including a manager’s package of more than 90 amendments. After more than a week of squabbling among senators over which of the 200-plus amendments to vote on, the bill’s managers were not able to garner support for proceeding to a vote on a manager’s package–something that is usually passed on the floor–before the final vote had to be cast Wednesday night.
Thus, the Senate’s defense authorization bill is nearly the same as the version the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) marked up in April. The only procurement-related amendments to the bill were taken up during the Senate floor debate last week: a successful one to fund a X-band radar for a foreign nation, and an unsuccessful one to reduce, by $271 million, a $411 million cut in the bill to the Bush administration’s missile defense request (Defense Daily, Sept. 12).
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Airland subcommittee, took to the Senate floor yesterday to lament the process that played out, because he had a thwarted amendment on military voting .
“Many important amendments were blocked by the process…which might have been included in the manager’s package,” he said. There were only two roll call votes on amendments to the defense authorization bill, a process Cornyn noted is highly unusual.
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), and an ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) all did not vote on the defense authorization bill. The eight “no” votes were cast by Sens. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), and David Vitter (R-La.).
House Armed Services Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) told Defense Daily yesterday he is optimistic about the conference committee negotiations on shipbuilding, which already started informally before Wednesday.
The Senate-passed bill calls for heeding the Navy’s request for $2.55 billion to buy a third DDG-1000 destroyer in FY ’09, and adding $170 million in advance-procurement funds not sought by the administration for a 10th LPD-17 amphibious ship.
The version of the defense authorization bill the House passed May 22 calls for outright buying that unrequested 10th LPD-17 in FY ’09, at a cost of $1.8 billion, and includes either-or language saying the Navy can spend $400 million in advance-procurement funds to either restart DDG-51 destroyer production or use toward the DDG-1000 program, though not actually buy a DDG-1000 in FY ’09.
Taylor–a proponent of restarting DDG-51 production–said he is hopeful this type of “either-or” language for the DDG-1000 and DDG-51 programs will remain in the conference report.
“My guess is there is some (language) made available that could go either way,” Taylor said. “It’s not only my guess it’s also my hope,” he said, noting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Mullen’s support for restarting DDG-51 production.
Regarding the proposed funding for buying a LPD-17 next year, over which the House and Senate bills clash, Taylor said, “I think that’s going to be OK.”
Abercrombie, the chairman of the House Armed Services Air and Land Forces subcommittee, played a role in the House’s proposed $200 million cut to the administration’s $3.55 billion FCS request. The Senate called for fully funding the administration’s FCS request.
Abercrombie said yesterday he may not get all he wants regarding FCS. But asked to elaborate on what conferees may decide on funding for high-profile Army program, Abercrombie declined to speculate about the result of negotiations.
Additional differences between the bills defense authorization bills the House and Senate passed include:
- C-17: The House wants to add to the White House’s request $3.9 billion for buying 15 C-17s and keeping the production line running. The Senate does not call for adding funds for more C-17s, but recommends the Pentagon review the feasibility of “a commercial military cargo initiative” for C-17s.
- F-22s: The House bill would tack on to the administration’s request $523 million in advance-procurement funds to keep the line going. The Senate version includes $497 million that can be used either for advance-procurement of F-22s or for winding down the production line, thus leaving the aircraft’s fate to the next administration.
- Missile Defense: The House would reduce the administration’s request by $719 million, while the Senate would reduce it by $140 million.
The House and Senate bills both try to get around an executive order regarding earmarks, though in different ways, thus leaving conferees to address the thorny matter.
That executive order, signed by President Bush Jan. 29, bans federal agencies from spending money on earmarks in committee report language, instead of in the actual legislation.
“As a result of Executive Order 13457, earmarks will be subject to the light of day and an up or down vote by lawmakers,” the White House said in a statement when the executive order was issued.
The House-passed bill states the executive order does not apply to it or to “the Joint Explanatory Statement submitted by the Committee of Conference for the conference report to accompany this Act” or the accompanying House and Senate reports. The Senate-passed bill says the funding tables in the committee report are incorporated into the bill by reference, and that “items in each such funding table shall be binding on agency heads.”
The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Statements of Administration Policy (SAPs) threatening to veto both the House and Senate’s bills. Both SAPs cite the executive-order-workarounds, added funding for extending a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter second-engine effort, and reductions to requested funding for missile defense, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, and the High Integrity Global Position System. The SAP for the Senate bill also notes the chamber’s move to add funding for B-52 flying hours. The SAP for the House bill also balks at unrequested funding the chamber added for buying C-17s, extending the F-22 line, buying a LPD-17, and speeding up the schedule for building two Virginia– class submarines each year. The SAP for the House bill additional cites the reduction in requested DDG-1000 funds, and requiring the next-generation of amphibious ship be nuclear powered.