House Backs Boost in War Funds

The House on Thursday voted to authorize an additional $25 billion to pay for the U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and an increase of 39,000 troops for the Army and the Marine Corps, but headed for a possible showdown with President Bush over another round of military base closures.

The bill, approved 391 to 34, would authorize $447 billion in Pentagon spending for fiscal year 2005, which begins Oct. 1, and would give Bush much of what he sought for the military operation in Iraq. But the GOP-controlled chamber defied a White House veto threat by failing to strip out a two-year delay in the Pentagon’s next round of base closings.

The House bill must be reconciled with a Senate measure, which would allow the base closures to proceed as scheduled next year. The Senate is expected to approve its version of the bill within a few weeks.

The House version would increase the number of active-duty troops in the Army by 30,000 and the Marine Corps by 9,000 over the next three years. It also would provide money for developing new types of nuclear weapons, purchasing more body armor and fortified Humvees for the troops in Iraq and improving military pay and benefits.

“This is a defense bill for the troops,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

With the scandal involving the abuse of Iraqi prisoners still in the public eye, the House included an amendment authorizing the Pentagon, with the approval of the new Iraqi government, to demolish Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. A Democratic effort to establish a special House committee to investigate the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody was blocked on a largely party-line vote. Opponents argued that the issue was already under inquiry.

While the House action was largely devoid of new debate on the U.S. military venture in Iraq, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a leading critic of the war, planned to seek an amendment to the Senate bill that would require Bush to explain his strategy for leaving Iraq, including a timetable for removing U.S. troops.

The House bill would provide the $25 billion that Bush requested for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond Sept. 30. The U.S. has already spent $120 billion in those countries, and the Pentagon has acknowledged that it expects to ask for more money early next year. Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan totals about $4.7 billion a month, the Pentagon said.

“We are at war,” said Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. “The best thing we can do for those currently serving is to pass this bill to make sure they have the wherewithal to continue fighting and keeping the peace ... to say thank you, not just in words, but by our votes.”

All California Republicans voted for the House bill, as did all California Democrats except seven: Michael M. Honda of San Jose; Barbara Lee of Oakland; George Miller of Martinez; Pete Stark of Hayward; Maxine Waters and Diane E. Watson, both of Los Angeles; and Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma.

Congress is not giving the Bush administration the flexibility it has sought to spend funds in response to changing circumstances without coming back to legislators for their approval. Lawmakers protective of their prerogative of the purse said they did not want to write the Pentagon a “blank check,” and thus attached strict requirements for congressional oversight of the spending.

In a letter to lawmakers about base closings, the White House said that if the closings were delayed in the final version of the bill, the secretary of Defense and other senior advisors would recommend a veto. But House members defeated an effort to allow the base closures to go ahead next year, 259 to 162. The House bill would put off the closures for two years.

Pentagon officials have talked about cutting military base capacity by about 25%, or as many as 100 of the nation’s 425 such facilities nationwide. The money saved would be used for modernizing the military, the Pentagon has said.

But efforts to close bases -- often an economic engine for small towns -- have drawn opposition from lawmakers from both parties, including officials from California, which was hard hit by previous rounds of base closures. Of the 97 military facilities closed between 1988 and 1995, more than 20 were in California.

Those seeking to delay the closings argued that it was premature to move ahead without further study, given the uncertainty of terrorist threats. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) said the post-Sept. 11 environment made it crucial to determine the role military bases might play in homeland defense.

“If Congress has difficulty determining what our armed forces’ needs and requirements are” in Iraq, she said, “the next round of [Base Realignment and Closure] commissioners will find it even more difficult to decide which facilities are vital to winning the war on terror.”

A GOP leader said he expected House-Senate negotiations to strip out the provision to delay base closings. Republican leaders do not want to put Bush in the position of having to veto a defense bill as fighting continues.

The Senate earlier this week narrowly rejected an effort to delay base closings as it works toward approval of its version of the defense bill. Typifying the view of opponents of a delay, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said during the debate: “We are in a situation where the defense spending increases and our requirements to fight the war on terror in general and increased costs of the war in Iraq absolutely mandate that we do everything we can to institute savings for the American taxpayers.”

The House bill also would provide $10 billion for continued development of a missile defense system that has been a Bush priority and $27 million for a new generation of nuclear weapons, including “bunker-buster” nuclear bombs that burrow deeply into the ground before detonating. Critics say the development of the new weapons hurts U.S. credibility.

In a show of support for the troops, the House and Senate bills include a 3.5% pay raise for military personnel, a permanent increase in the rate of family separation allowances from $100 to $250 per month and a permanent increase in imminent danger pay from $150 to $225 per month; the proposal also includes increased benefits to National Guard and Reserve members.

Harman and Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-San Diego) attached an amendment authorizing construction of a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia to honor noncitizen soldiers who died serving in the U.S. armed forces.