The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday began considering its $886 billion fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, with lawmakers eyeing the uncertainty on the appropriations process after the panel completes its work on the defense policy bill.
With the topline settled after the debt ceiling bill passed earlier in June set a defense spending cap for FY ‘24, HASC’s markup began with debate around amendments related to divesting of older platforms within Air National Guard fighter squadrons and lifting the cap on the number of foreign-made used vessels that can be purchased for the sealift fleet.
“I urge all members to work together to get us through this process in a timely manner. There will be disagreements. But we all have the same goal – to support the men and women who serve our nation. If we can keep that goal in mind, I am very optimistic that the bill we report today will enjoy strong bipartisan support,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the HASC chair, said in his remarks at the open of Tuesday’s markup.
Rogers noted 800 amendments were filed for consideration, with many non-controversial provisions considered as part of large amendment packages, and as HASC’s marathon markup session is expected to continue into late Wednesday night or early Thursday morning.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the HASC ranking member, noted the bipartisan support that went into crafting the FY ‘24 NDAA, while previewing the precarious outlook ahead for the appropriations process required to support the provisions included in the defense policy bill.
“It’s imperative that we get through this process, pass that piece of legislation so that we can meet that paramount duty of standing up for our national security,” Smith said. “I do want to mention, I hope our appropriators have a similar approach. I’m increasingly worried about where the appropriations process is at right now. And the good work that we do here is significantly undermined if we don’t pass appropriations bills.”
The House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee advanced its FY ‘24 spending bill out of committee on party lines last week, while the panel’s top Democrat said it likely won’t become law with the current GOP-proposed policies in the legislation (Defense Daily, June 15).
“I will have more to say about these and other provisions during the full committee markup. But it is very clear that all these divisive riders must come out, or this bill will not gain the bipartisan support necessary to become law,” Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), the HAC-D ranking member, said at the time, with the full committee set to take up the bill on Thursday.
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), chair of HASC’s Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, said he supports moving forward with the set topline while adding he wants to ensure HASC uses the NDAA to “rapidly access every programmatic efficiency available.”
“I’d like to begin by stating that I am an unapologetic defense hawk. I’m not convinced that the topline agreed to earlier this year provides for adequate defense funding to meet our national security challenges. But I am confident that we need to get our domestic house in order. The overall debt agreement enacted earlier this year and the associated appropriations allocations are the right medicine to our rampant government spending,” Wittman said.
The debt ceiling bill locked in an $886 billion defense topline, the level requested in the president’s budget for FY ‘24 and a 3.3 percent increase over FY ‘23, and authorizes a one percent increase in FY ‘25 to the defense and nondefense toplines.
Senate leadership has offered a commitment to keep open the possibility for supplemental funding measures to add a defense boost, noting the debt ceiling bill does not block the use of emergency spending measures to address security-related items (Defense Daily, June 2).
“As the ranking member and I have told all of y’all, because of the debt ceiling deal we’ve got to stay under the agreed upon number of $886 [billion]. So [for] any amendment that costs money, we’ve got to have an offset,” Rogers said on Wednesday.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) introduced the amendment that would limit the Air Force’s ability to shut down Air National Guard fighter squadrons until the service delivers a recapitalization plan, with the provision adopted by voice vote.
“I am very concerned about the Air Force making irreversible decisions to shut down fighter squadrons, particularly in the Air National Guard,” Bacon said. “I realize many of these fighters we’re taking out will be older ones that will not be the right ones for China, but they are the right ones for the Middle East and they provide deterrence in Europe. And we cannot let our Air National Guard be cut to a size that we cannot grow back easily over the next decade or two decades.”
Rep. Donald Norcross (R-Ga.), ranking member on the HASC Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, opposed the amendment and said it would “slow down” the Air Force’s ability to modernize the Air National Guard with newer platforms.
The provision to lift the Navy’s cap on the number foreign-built used vessels it can purchase for the sealift fleet from nine to 10 ships, which was sponsored by Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), was not adopted.
“We’re talking about one additional ship. We’re talking about buying ships made in Singapore, South Korea, Japan. We’re talking about replacing ships that were built in the 70’s. I love the U.S. shipyards, but the fact of the matter is they don’t have the capacity to build everything we need and that’s the purpose of the amendment,” Austin said. “I would lift the cap to 20 instead of 10 if I wasn’t trying to get to a compromise.”
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the HASC Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, opposed the measure and said the focus should be finding opportunities for U.S. shipyards to build these logistics ships rather than looking to the “very unstable” overseas market.
“The used sale foreign purchase program, which this country has been limping along on for a decade, it’s time to cut it off. It’s time to recognize that this country is fully capable of building a sealift program as we have done over and over again in the past,” Courtney said. “The continued reliance on overseas sales, which just triggers more costs and shorter service lifes, is a bad bet for this country. And again, we should look at programs that we know are working with American shipyards and American shipbuilders that will provide us with a consistent, reliable system to address this need.”