The House Committee on Armed Service’s proposal for next year’s defense budget covers sharp policy disagreements between the panel’s majority Democrats and its minority Republican members, setting off a series of likely political skirmishes.
The plan by Chairman Adam Smith would cut $17 billion from the Trump administration’s $750 billion request. The proposed Senate defense authorization bill is at the president’s $750 billion requested level, creating yet another point of tension of Capitol Hill.
Smith, D-Wash., says the extra money would “not be particularly well spent.” But his goal in drafting the proposal was to put together a bill that will make it through Congress.
“We are not trying to score political points with this bill, we are trying to produce the best possible product,” said Smith during a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Monday. “We want to work together to produce this product, which is not that we don’t have differences.”
Republicans and Democrats agree on 98% of the bill’s provisions, according to Smith, but ranking member Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, believes the proposal fails to meet today’s national security needs. Thornberry noted the traditional bipartisan support for the NDAA has helped improve readiness, support military families, and reform the Pentagon.
Congress has until the end of September to come up with a budget deal, or it risks returning to strict spending caps set forth by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
“Those caps forced the Pentagon into unwise choices, deferring needed training, maintenance, and modernization,” Thornberry said. “These choices contributed to a lethal readiness crisis we are only now arresting. I am concerned that by imposing another insufficient and arbitrary topline, the chairman’s mark is forcing those unwise choices once again.”
Smith’s version of the bill contains several provisions that would ban construction projects on the southern border, according to Thornberry, a move that is likely to frustrate Trump as he continues to look to the military to aid in border security. Democrats have been highly critical of the administration’s decision to shift Pentagon money toward border wall construction projects.
Another issue likely to frustrate the White House is the bill’s lack of language establishing the Space Force, one of Trump’s key goals for the military. Thornberry questioned why this was not included, considering the bipartisan support for space reform.
Nuclear modernization was also reduced in Smith’s bill, despite the Department of Defense’s continuing efforts to reorient itself towards countering the threats posed by the likes of China and Russia. The bill would specifically prohibit the deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons and cut investment in hypersonic missile development, according to Thornberry. Defense officials and some experts have expressed concern that the U.S. risks falling behind in nuclear modernization, as both China and Russia continue to improve their nuclear and missile capabilities.
Another issue likely to cause partisan debate is a provision Thornberry said would ultimately require a plan to transfer detainees to the U.S. from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Smith’s mark reportedly contains no language prohibiting the transfer of detainees to U.S. soil and does not fund the building of a new facility for high-value detainees.
A $2.3 billion provision for additional disaster relief funding for military bases damaged by natural disasters is not authorized in the bill, though it does make several provisions addressing climate change and resiliency, according to Thornberry. Floodwaters up to seven feet deep caused hundreds of millions worth of damage to Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska in March. In October, Hurricane Michael destroyed or damaged 95% of the facilities at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. In September, Hurricane Florence severely damaged 800 buildings at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
Thornberry and other committee members will have the opportunity to address their concerns on Wednesday, when the bill enters the amendment process.
