- Filed Under
WASHINGTON — Pentagon policy legislation largely reflects the Obama administration’s plans, but fireworks are afoot when the full US House Armed Services Committee takes up the bill next month, congressional aides and analysts say.
HASC members largely held fire on controversial issues such as an East Coast missile defense shield and a controversial interceptor system the Pentagon is developing with two European allies. But don’t be fooled by the subcommittees’ work, which one analyst dubbed “a benign bill” that will be the starting point when the full panel begins work its version of the 2014 defense authorization bill June 5.
Aides, lawmakers and analysts all expect ample partisan haggling over a long list of controversial program and policy issues during what promises to be a marathon full-committee markup.
Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee announced several weeks ago they intended to include in the panel’s version of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) a provision clearing the Defense Department to spend up to $250 million on construction of the proposed missile defense site. And they’ve urged top House appropriators to write a check for around the same amount.
There were signs in recent weeks that the system was becoming more politically acceptable. Some congressional Democrats have even started talking as if the proposal, killed last year by skeptical Senate Democrats, likely will eventually become reality.
Then came a twist — even if temporary.
The committee’s Strategic Forces subcommittee raised eyebrows in national security circles by opting against including in its portion of the bill any mention of a Republican-proposed East Coast missile shield. Nor does the subcommittee’s piece of the NDAA mention the expected provision greenlighting DoD to spend $250 million next year on the East Coast system.
House sources confirmed that East Coast shield proponents intend to move forward with their previously announced plan.
“The [subcommittee] mark didn’t directly touch on the East Coast site,” said Thomas Crosson, a spokesman for Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio. “Partly, this is because Mr. Turner wants to maintain ownership over the issue, so he will offer it at the full committee.
“Partly, this is a process issue,” Crosson said. “The money we’re providing is in the tables, and those are part of the chairman’s mark, and thus not dealt with until full committee.”
One analyst called the Republicans’ East Coast tactic the latest example of a change for the House committee.
“What you see in the NDAA bill marked up today is an example of a new tradition in House Armed Services: The majority introduces a benign bill in subcommittee,” said Stephen Young, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Then, in full committee, they add many far-reaching provisions via amendments, particularly on nuclear weapons and missile defense, because they have the votes.
“This is a change from past practice. One could argue it is an improvement, because in the past, at times the majority would simply insert disputed — or, even more rarely, unexpected — language into the mark and have the minority seek to amend it in the committee or the floor.”
The net effect, Young said, is “a more partisan committee.”
MEADS Kill?
But Republicans weren’t the only ones holding fire last week, a further indication that a feisty full committee markup is ahead.
Last week, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., during a HASC Strategic Forces subcommittee markup of its portion of the NDAA, put supporters of a controversial missile defense program on notice.
Sanchez said when the full committee takes up the measure in early June, she will offer an amendment that essentially would kill the troubled Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).
Sanchez told subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., that she is “really alarmed” Pentagon officials continually “ignore” the wishes of lawmakers from both political parties who want to kill the three-nation program.
The joint venture by the US, Germany and Italy has experienced technical issues so severe that the Pentagon has no intention to buy even one model of the missile interceptor system. But Pentagon brass say they would like to own the technology for future use, adding that termination costs would be greater than simply finishing existing program plans.
Sanchez said May 22 that in an age of deficit reduction and federal spending cuts, a program like MEADS is unaffordable.
“We have spent $2 billion since I’ve been [in Congress] on MEADS trying to get it together,” Sanchez said, adding that Pentagon officials say it would cost $381 million to finish the program.
She charged the Pentagon with acting “against the will of the committee,” adding the matter should be viewed by other lawmakers as “a key issue in a time of dollars and cents.”
Sanchez withdrew an amendment to the subcommittee’s portion of the NDAA aimed at MEADS. But she told Rogers she “most likely” will introduce it anew June 5, when the full HASC will mark up the complete NDAA.
Rogers called himself a supporter of finishing the MEADS program, and sharply said Sanchez’s amendment “would waste this committee’s time.”
For her part, Sanchez advised her HASC colleagues to ponder this about MEADS’ costs before the June 5 session: “Is it time to say, ‘This is enough?’ ”
While Young sees a more partisan HASC, committee spokesman Claude Chafin last week defended the panel’s legislation-building process.
“It is not uncommon [that] issues that are controversial, cross subcommittee jurisdictions or require funding shifts are deferred to full committee,” Chafin wrote in an email.
