House Armed Services Chairman Downplays Party Differences Over 2020 Defense Spending
The
House Armed Services Committee chairman downplayed the partisan differences
over the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization but said the “biggest
threat” to adequate defense funding was the failure to reach agreement on
lifting punishing spending caps.
Although
the chairman’s mark he released would ban funding for low-yield nuclear warheads
for a submarine-launched ballistic missile and defense money to build U.S.-Mexico
border barriers and provide $17 billion less in total defense spending, which
the Republicans oppose, “the overwhelming majority of this bill, that is
incredibly important, is not controversial,” said the chairman, Rep. Adam Smith
(D-Washington).
Addressing
a Defense Writers’ Group breakfast June 10, Smith cited a 3.1 percent military
pay raise, funds to continue improving readiness, efforts to fix deteriorating family
housing, funding for 11 Navy battle fleet ships, including three attack
submarines, and “countless other projects, all of which we agree on,” that are in
the Democrats’ proposal. “The amount of stuff that we disagree on is about 2% of
the bill.”
But
in response to a Seapower question about the impact on defense funding if
Congress and the administration cannot agree on lifting caps enacted with the
Budget Control Act of 2011, which would cut nearly $90 billion from the base
defense budget, Smith said: “You have correctly identified the biggest threat
we face.” Senate Republicans were expected to plead for a deal to lift the caps
during a White House meeting on June 10.
“The amount of stuff that we disagree on is about 2% of the bill.”
Rep. Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee
The
committee will take up the NDAA on June 12, and the debate is likely to go well
into the night as Republicans have attacked provisions that came out the
subcommittee process as an unusual breach of HASC’s tradition of
bipartisanship.
Smith
defended the proposed total defense funding of $733 billion as the number
initially recommended by the Pentagon and said the $750 billion requested later
by the Trump administration “would encourage inefficiencies.” Committee
Republicans, however, insisted $750 billion was necessary to meet the 3% to 5%
real growth recommended by last year’s Strategic Capabilities Commission.
Although
Smith repeated his long-held view that the military wants to spend too much on
nuclear arms, he noted the Democrats would fully fund the new B-21 strategic
bomber and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine to replace the aged
Ohio class and would increase overall spending on strategic programs. Smith and
some arms-control advocates argue that the new W-76.2 lower-yield warhead for
the submarine-launched Trident D-5 missile would reduce the strategic load of
the Ohio boats and increase instability.
Other
controversial issues in the proposed NDAA are a ban on use of defense funds to
build President Trump’s border wall, would require that any use of troops for
border security not affect combat readiness and would be paid for by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. It also would restrict the administration’s
ability to reprogram defense funds to use for border security, which the
president did this year.
Although
the proposal would increase the purchase of F-35s for the Air Force, it would
fence some of the funding for the Lightning II pending analysis of ways to
improve the parts supply line for the fighter. Similarly, funding to buy more
of the Marine Corps’ CH-53K heavy-lift helicopters would be curtailed until the
U.S. Navy submits reports on how it will fix technical problems hampering the
program.
There
also will be debate on the nature of a future command to manage space programs,
with the Democrats resisting the president’s demand for a separate service,
which Smith called too expensive and bureaucratic. But Smith said he believes
the Air Force has done a poor job managing space.