Key majority staff members on the armed services committees said Tuesday that both chairmen agree an additional $18 billion is needed for defense heading into conference on the fiscal 2017 defense policy bill.
The sticking point that negotiators will have to reconcile, however, is how Congress can provide the military the additional funding within budget caps set by last year’s deal.
“We have no disagreement on the need for this,” Chris Brose, staff director for the Senate Armed Services Committee, said at an event sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute. “The question is, how do you live in a top line that both of us agree is inadequate?”
The difference in funding mechanisms is one of the biggest hurdles lawmakers will have to overcome during the conference process. The Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act matches the president’s funding level, which would use $5 billion of the overseas contingency operations account for base priorities.
The House version, however, would take an additional $18 billion out of the war chest for base priorities to boost readiness. As a result, only $36 billion would remain in funding for overseas operations and would run out in April.
Brose said that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, have not gotten together on this issue yet, so wouldn’t speculate on what sort of compromise lawmakers might reach in the final bill.
He did, however, note that many items that were funded by an amendment from McCain that would have increased the overseas operations fund by $18 billion are paid for under the House’s plan, and that McCain’s proposal got majority support in the Senate, though not the 60 votes needed for adoption.
The Senate still must introduce a motion to go to conference, followed by lots of discussions among members of the armed services committees and subcommittees. The staffers said there is no timeline yet for when meetings might begin or when lawmakers hope to have a finished product.
Some analysts have speculated that because of Congress’ election year schedule, the NDAA might not be finalized until after the election.
President Obama has threatened to veto both the House and Senate defense policy bills over the House’s funding method, as well as a number of policy provisions, like tightening transfer restrictions on Gitmo detainees, getting rid of the defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics and capping the size of the National Security Council staff.
Brose pushed back on criticism from the administration, noting that some reforms, like to the Pentagon’s acquisition, technology and logistics workforce or the president’s National Security Council, are making changes to bodies that were created by Congress. For others, like cutting the number of three and four-star officers, there’s long precedence.
“My sense is that Congress has been authorizing the end strength of our officer corps since the Washington administration,” Brose said.
Bob Simmons, the staff director for the House Armed Services Committee, said that the administration’s plans to close Guantanamo Bay and defeat the Islamic State put together are still shorter than the 23 pages of criticism of the NDAA in the veto threat.
Other than reaching a compromise on the funding mechanism, Brose said he expects major sticking points to be on reforms to the acquisition system and defense health. He wouldn’t, however, speculate on what compromises lawmakers might reach.
“We’re going to start sitting down and going through all of this, but I’m not here to tell you where the conference is going to land,” he said. “My view is we work through those every year. I’m going to make a bold prediction that we’re going to work through them again this year and have a National Defense Authorization Act.”
