THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF AMERICAN BASES

May 23, 2003 15:31 PDT
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/23/politics/23DEFE.html?th=&pagewanted=print&
position=
May 23, 2003

Both Houses Back More Military Spending

By CARL HULSE

ASHINGTON, May 22 - The House and Senate tonight
endorsed the Bush administration's continued military buildup, approving
similar $400.5 billion spending measures that add to the United
States arsenal and improve pay and housing conditions for the armed forces.

Approved overwhelmingly, the measures go beyond the administration's
spending requests in many areas. Lawmakers said the advanced hardware and military staffing that the bills will provide were justified as the nation
prepared for an extended campaign against terrorists. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 1, and the House vote was 361 to 68.

"This sends a strong signal throughout the world that we are unified in the
war against terrorists," said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of
Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "There are many provisions in this bill that go directly to our ability to fight terrorism
whether it is abroad or here at home."

The bills authorize more than $70 billion to upgrade and buy weapons. They increase military pay an average of 4.1 percent, raise
hardship bonuses, improve access to military health care and provide
millions for new housing for troops and their families.

Though most Democrats backed the overall framework of the bills, party
leaders on military issues raised serious objections to provisions in the
measures that would lift a decade-old ban on research into new nuclear
weapons, ease the Pentagon's ability to exempt itself from environmental
laws and, in the House version, overhaul civil service rules for 700,000
employees. Democrats criticized the House Republicanleadership for refusing to let them challenge the workplace changes on the House floor.

"They have put a couple of olive pits in this jelly doughnut," said
Representative Ellen O. Tauscher, a California Democrat who is a member of the Armed Services Committee. Ms. Tauscher's effort to
prevent the Pentagon from spending $21 million to study the development of a nuclear weapon capable of penetrating underground bunkers was
blocked.

Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, said that Pentagon
spending had risen 24 percent over two years, not counting appropriations for the war in Iraq, and that the increase ran counter
to pledges by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to transform and
streamline the military.

Mr. Byrd, the only senator to oppose the measure, called the effort to
contain spending while modernizing the military a "distant memory" and
added: "Our defense budget seems more the same as ever. Not more bang for the buck, just more bucks."

The House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled before a measure is
sent to President Bush. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, predicted a difficult
conference because the House incorporated many of the contentious civil
service changes sought by Mr. Rumsfeld while the Senate did not.

"What we left out of the bill was really significant," Mr. Levin said. But
Mr. Warner, who represents large numbers of civilian defense workers,
predicted the issue would be worked out.

As the two chambers wound down hours of debate that extended over the past few days, Democrats in the House and the Senate failed on efforts to allow women stationed overseas and military dependents to get abortions at military health facilities. Advocates of allowing abortions have been trying since 1996 to win the change but said it was especially appropriate now given the role of women in the conflict in Iraq.

"No woman should be forced to surrender her constitutional rights as they
risk their lives to protect our freedom," said Senator Patty Murray,
Democrat of Washington. But Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, said the provision would amount to taxpayer-financed
abortion on demand at federal medical facilities and could jeopardize the
entire bill. Ms. Murray's amendment was defeated by a 51-to-48 vote
while the same effort lost in the House on a vote of 227 to 201.

Under a compromise negotiated on the Senate floor, the Senate included in its bill a provision sought by Democrats aimed at forcing the Pentagon to allow more competition among companies for work on rebuilding Iraq's oil industry.

The administration issued a statement in general support of the measures,
though it criticized the House for not going far enough by only allowing
research into so-called low-yield nuclear weapons rather than entirely
lifting the ban, as the Senate did. The White House said that continuing the
prohibition "will hinder the ability of our scientists and engineers to explore technical options to deter national security threats of the 21st century."

The White House also warned that any effort by the House to slow a new round of military base closings sought by the administration could result in a veto of the measure.

The Senate bill allows $9.1 billion for work on a missile defense system,
provides $450 million to dismantle nuclear weapons in the former Soviet
Union and elsewhere and allocates more than $88 million to create 12 teams to help the civil authorities respond to an attack involving nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons.

The defense bill will ultimately be used as a blueprint by Congressional
appropriations committees in determining specific Pentagon spending.