Reed: House, Senate defense policy bill differences remain

Although lawmakers returned to Washington this week, conference talks to mesh the House and Senate’s versions of the annual defense policy bill have not yet restarted, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Wednesday. 

Armed Services committee chairmen Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) “have got to reestablish, sort of, the ‘Big Four’ process, so we can sit down,” said to Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), referring to talks between the committee heads and the ranking members.

{mosads}”I assume they’re…trying to do that right now,” he said during a small reporter roundtable. But, he added, “We’ve only been back a day or two days.” 

“I hope they’re this week, but you know, I presume they’re working,” he said. “No one wants to get this thing done more passionately than Sen. McCain.” 

A House aide said while the committee leaders had not met yet, staff members of the committee were meeting.

The talks to mesh their respective versions of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act to advance to the president’s desk began in July, with hopes to produce a final conference report before the month-long August recess.  

But while the talks reached the final stages before the recess, involving the “Big Four” — or the chairmen and ranking members of both committees — the goal slipped by as several points of contention remained. 

The defense policy bill, with authorizes Pentagon activities and programs, has passed for 53 years in a row. 

However this year, the process has been complicated by a larger budget fight that has garnered the bill a presidential veto threat. 

The White House has urged Republicans to lift 2011 federal budget caps for the Pentagon and non-defense spending in 2016. 

The Republican-proposed budget would leave those caps in place for non-defense spending but boost defense spending through a war fund not subject to those caps. 

The defense policy bill would authorize $612 billion in funding for the Pentagon — which is what the administration is asking for, but $38 billion of that would be in the war fund instead of the base budget as the administration wants. 

On Tuesday, Thornberry argued the bill only authorizes funding, not allocates it, and the White House veto threat is misplaced.

He also said a number of Armed Services Committee lawmakers were reaching out to the White House to prevent a veto, which would cause lawmakers to start over and potentially break its 53-year passage streak. 

More significantly, it would also prevent troops from receiving pay raises. 

Reed said outstanding issues between the House and Senate included changes to Tricare, the military’s health care system, other benefits for troops and their families, and provisions to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. 

The Senate’s version would raise those Tricare pharmacy co-pays for name-brand and other drugs. House lawmakers oppose those moves. 

Both sides agree that the military retirement system should be reformed, but there were minor differences on how it should be implemented. 

There were also some disagreements on housing allowances for troops living off-base. The Senate bill would trim those allowances, which the House also opposes. 

Reed said the Senate’s concern was that troop costs were rising and were squeezing the Pentagon’s budget for training. 

“Sen. McCain has been very committed to making changes, which I support, that would be long-term helpful to the military,” he said.  

“If we can’t train, then we’re not in a very good position,” he said, adding it was better to make changes now with plenty of advance notice to troops. 

He also said the two sides were still discussing differing provisions in the bills over the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.” 

The Senate bill includes language that would lift Congressional restrictions on Guantanamo Bay detainee transfers to the U.S., but the House would strengthen them. 

“I know that’s one of the issues we’re still talking about,” he said.