The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee threw cold water on the panel’s plan to boost defense spending by tens of billions of dollars, saying the increase will not materialize if Congress does not resolve a broader budget debate.
While the committee’s fiscal year 2018 defense authorization bill contains $631.5 billion in base budget funding, $28.5 billion above the Trump administration’s request, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said June 28 that base funding will be slashed to $549 billion if Congress does not do something to prevent the return of across-the-board federal budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011.
While such a reduction would be “disastrous” for the military, Congress is struggling to figure out how to avert the cuts, Smith said at the start of the committee’s markup of the bill. While some lawmakers want to do away with the BCA, others, especially fiscal conservatives, would prefer to leave the budget caps in place.
“The path we’re on right now is $549 billion, unless something changes,” Smith said. “Imagine … if we have to stumble all the way back to $549 billion, which is going to happen if we don’t vote to repeal the budget caps.”
The committee proceeded to consider various amendments to the bill, including one by Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) that would require an assessment of military installations that are most likely to be affected by climate change, such as rising sea levels. The committee approved the amendment by voice vote.
Langevin said that climate change threatens to have “a devastating effect on the readiness of our armed forces.” Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) opposed the amendment, saying the military should focus on more imminent threats, such as China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and terrorist groups.
The committee approved dozens of other amendments in “en bloc” packages, including one that would require the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to brief lawmakers on the viability of “space-based debris remediation” in low Earth orbit, and another that would require the Defense Department to brief lawmakers on emerging counter-drone technologies and tactics.
By a 19-43 vote, the committee rejected an amendment by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) that would have cut the Navy’s FY 2018 purchase of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) from three vessels to two and shifted the savings to munitions.
Moulton and other Democrats said LCS, which has been plagued by cost overruns and schedule delays, remains an unproven platform and that money for the third ship would be better spent on rebuilding depleted inventories of critical munitions. Amendment opponents said LCS is in high demand by the Navy and that an annual production rate of three ships is needed to sustain the industrial base and ease the transition to LCS’s more-capable successor, the Future Frigate.
By voice vote, the committee rejected another Moulton amendment that would have called for the Navy’s first Ford-class aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), to undergo shock trials before being deployed. Rep. Robert Wittman (R-Va.), chairman of the seapower and projection forces subcommittee, opposed the amendment, saying many of the ship’s components have already been shock-tested and that the amendment would delay the availability of the urgently needed carrier by two years.
The committee was expected to meet late into the night to finish the markup. Committee members submitted more than 330 amendments for potential consideration.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), the committee’s chairman, said the bill’s “two driving priorities” are “rebuild and reform.” The reforms include creating a space corps in the Air Force Department and increasing congressional oversight of cyber operations. The bill would add money to the administration’s request for a host of weapon systems, including aircraft, ships and missile defense.