THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, December 22, 1995 TAG: 9512220397
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY DALE EISMAN, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium: 79 lines
Congressional Republicans sought Thursday to blame President Clinton for a defense budget dispute that could leave the nation's military families with smaller-than-expected increases in their pay and benefit checks next month.
GOP leaders on the House National Security Committee said Clinton's threat to veto a bill setting policies for Pentagon spending jeopardizes 2.4 percent increases in military pay and food allowances scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. Also endangered is a 5.2 percent jump in the basic housing allowance.
Increases in all three categories will be limited to 2 percent unless Clinton signs the legislation, known as the defense authorization bill. The White House has promised a veto because of objections to provisions that would increase funding for a possible national missile defense system.
The authorization bill, which received final congressional approval last week, is distinct from the defense appropriations bill, which Clinton accepted last month. The appropriations measure provides money to the Pentagon; the authorization bill provides congressional oversight for how the money is spent.
In a news conference, Rep. Floyd Spence of South Carolina, the National Security Committee's chairman, argued that Republicans have ``tried to accommodate the administration'' on all of Clinton's stated concerns about the missile defense provisions.
He said the White House is mistaken in suggestions that those provisions could be interpreted by Russia as in violation of a treaty limiting such defensive weapons.
The dispute over missile defense and Clinton's veto threat has led to some suggestions that both sides might agree to quick passage of a separate bill on military pay, allowing service members to get the full increases while the missile fight continues.
But Spence and Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Senate's second-ranking Republican member, refused to discuss such an approach, saying it would invite Clinton to veto the larger bill. The Senate's schedule does not call for any more votes during 1995 on any subject, Lott said.
The veto threat ``is a terrible message to send at Christmas, while our troops are in the field in Bosnia,'' Lott said.
The smaller pay increases coming to the military in the event of a veto would amount to only a few dollars per month for most service members. A Navy seaman or Army private 1st class with two years in the service, for example, would draw only about $4 less per month with a 2 percent pay hike than with a 2.4 percent increase.
The smaller increase in his housing allowance would cost the seaman or private about $8 a month; the smaller jump in the food allowance would amount to less than $1 for any day he was eligible to receive the aid. In general, enlisted members can not draw the food allowance when military rations are available to them.
More senior officers and career enlisted members would be hit harder, but even Adm. Mike Boorda, the chief of naval operations, would see only about $38 a month less in his paycheck if the bill is vetoed than he would receive if Clinton signs it. As the Navy's top officer, Boorda makes about $118,000 a year. MEMO: POSSIBLE EFFECTS
How the pay dispute could effect various service members:
Navy lieutenant or Army captain with six years' service:
$3,067 salary a month if authorization bill signed by Clinton
$3,055 a month if bill vetoed
Navy senior chief petty officer or Army master sergeant with 15
years' service:
$2,383 a month if bill signed
$2,373 a month if vetoed
Navy captain or Air Force colonel with 20 years' service:
$5,319 a month if bill signed
$5,298 a month if vetoed.
KEYWORDS: BUDGET MILITARY PAY by CNB