National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 Mark Up

On Wednesday May 11, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) marked up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 (NDAA).  The mark up, a process which means debating and preparing a final text for consideration by the whole House, started at 10am and went through the night, with breaks for Members to head to the floor for other votes and to eat. The HASC session wrapped up at 2:30am on May 12!

During the course of the debate it was made evident that most the HASC Republicans are pursuing Cold War-era policies and envisioning a well-funded Pentagon that will remain untouched by the budge-slashing austerity measures that have been imposed on the rest of the federal budget.

Here is a sampling of few notable issues.

Funding for Weapons Systems Even the Pentagon Doesn’t Want

• The F 35 “alternate” engine. You might recall that this weapon system, an alternative to the F-35 plane that the Department of Defense says it does not want, was actually voted down in the House during the February consideration of the FY 2011 Appropriation (HR 1). An amendment to allow contractors to continue working on the alternate engine and requiring the Defense Department to pay to support access to equipment and data was supported by all but five Committee members. While contractors and their supporters undoubtedly hope that this foot in the door will lead to resurrection of the alternate engine, there is broader opposition that we hope will keep this program buried.

• Ground-Based Midcourse (GMD) Missile Defense. The HASC Subcommittee on Strategic Forces had added $100 million above the Pentagon request for the GMD system. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D- CA), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, offered an amendment to reallocate that $100 million to equipment for Reserve and National Guards. She noted that the Missile Defense Agency Director, Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, had told her that the program is not at a point to spend these generously bestowed extra funds on its planned 2012 work. After feisty debate, this amendment was defeated by an alternate amendment offered to reallocate funds for the National Guard and Reserves from another program. All of the HASC Democrats and two freshman Republicans, Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY), Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) voted for the Sanchez amendment. We’ll be watching to see if a similar amendment makes it to the full House debate during the week of May 23.

Return to Cold War Nuclear Policies

• The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), and the nuclear reductions it mandates, had strong bipartisan and military support. The HASC Republicans clearly have a different vision for nuclear weapons policy. The committee engaged in an ill-informed, partisan debate on Republican proposed amendments that would tinker with New START and related nuclear weapons policies. These provisions were largely drawn from a bill that Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), Chair of the HASC Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, worked out with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). You’ll remember Sen. Kyl as a staunch opponent of New START. Each amendment was passed on a party line vote and included provisions aimed at ensuring that the United States would maintain  its expensive Cold War-sized arsenals (including tactical nuclear weapons in Europe) and policies (including targeting plans from a bygone era) for many years to come. The debate also revealed that HASC members have very little understanding or knowledge of nuclear weapons policies and management. For example, there was a great deal of confusion about how many nuclear weapons are in the U.S. arsenal, (see our Wonk-speak 101 blog so you can be in the know), and some of the amendments would have the unintended consequence of interfering with the surveillance, maintenance and management of the nuclear stockpile. We hope that the debate in the Senate regarding a parallel measure to be introduced by Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) will be more sensible and that the outcome will affirm the bipartisan support for New START, future nuclear reductions, and policies that move us beyond the Cold War.

Promoting Permanent War - Expanding the Authorization for Military Force (AUMF)

• Less than two weeks after Osama bin Laden’s death, many are thinking about how to exit Afghanistan and transition from the decade of wars. In contrast, the HASC Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) included language in the NDAA to expand the scope of military response to terrorism and empowering the President to initiate military action even more broadly, without the consent of Congress. We anticipate that this will be debated by the full House during the week of May 23, and also in the Senate. See this New York Times editorial from Monday, May 16 which addresses the issue.