With the 2016 Defence Bill up for a vote in the House, the President plans to veto the bill given that there are differences over how defense should be funded.
In response to the President’s threat to veto the bill, Thornberry said, “It is unbelievable to me that an American president would threaten to veto a defense bill that supports our troops and gives him additional tools to use against aggressors, especially at a time when the world situation is spiraling out of control from Eastern Europe to the Middle East and South Asia. This is a time to stand together for our nation’s security, rather than play cheap political games.”
Until now, only one conference committee Democrat refused to sign the bill. This clearly reflects a compromise between the House and Senate house committees over the differences that they’ve had over the two versions of the defense bill.
Prior to this and at a press conference, chairmen of both committees (along with ranking Democrats) said that the report was finalized. Of course, Reed and Smith said that they had collaborated on the report but weren’t in a position to support it.
The Republicans have sought to meet Obama’s military budget by using the wartime overseas contingency operations account which is exempted from sequestration budget caps but is part of the bill. Unfortunately, this discourages any deal on the federal budget that removes the caps.
While the bill does not appropriate funding, it still authorizes officials to spend money on a number of acquisition programs across the armed services. This bill also includes measures that covers providing lethal aid to Ukraine, keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention facility open, banning torture, reforming troop pay and benefits as well as overhaul acquisition rules.