HASC’s Smith Says No To SASC Inhofe’s ‘Skinny’ NDAA

WASHINGTON: Rep. Adam Smith told Breaking Defense:

“Some have suggested that we will be forced to abandon our negotiations this year and instead pass a ‘skinny bill.’ A bill that does not restrict wall funding would be challenging to bring to the House floor. It is the equivalent to failure – not just for the men and women in uniform who are counting on us to pass the NDAA, but also to the national defense of our country.”

In fact, according to a Democratic congressional source, Smith was in touch only yesterday with the White House and believes a bill satisfactory to both the GOP and Democrats can be hammered out.

“I am confident we can reconcile our differences,” Smith said.

This all began when Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe announced today that he intends to “introduce a ‘skinny’ defense bill to ensure that Congress is able to extend necessary authorities, take care of our troops and their families, authorize military construction projects, and conduct oversight over military acquisition programs. A skinny bill is not a substitute for a full bill, but it might be a necessary next step if we don’t reach an agreement soon.”

Although Inhofe’s spokeswoman said that the specifics of such a “skinny” bill are not final, other congressional sources say those “necessary” authorizations would include things like paying the troops, and allowing the F-35 program to go forward.

The biggest sticking point? “As our conferees continue to work through the differences between the House and Senate versions of the FY20 NDAA, there is one major sticking point: How to address the President’s use of Department of Defense funds for a border wall,” Smith confirmed.

The Trump Administration’s budget request would pull $6.1 bill from the Pentagon’s budget, mostly in military construction funds. While the Republican Senate is supportive, House Democrats have been insistent that no DoD money should be put toward the wall, and that the NDAA should include language preventing the future reprograming of milcon funds for it.

However, with the exception of the deeply polarized issue of funding for the wall, the differences that remain between the two sides of Capitol Hill are not any more contentious than in any other year, according to congressional sources.

“It’s not all that atypical,” said one staffer. Indeed, Congress has passed an NDAA for 58 years running.

Other divisive issues have been House cuts to DoD’s $103 million request for the Air Force’s Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program as well as other nuclear weapon system modernization efforts. The White House has further threatened a veto if the House bill’s $500 million cut, representing 50 percent of the budget, to the Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance effort remains in the final NDAA.

The current Continuing Resolution that enables DoD programs to trundle along at fiscal 2019 funding levels will expires Nov. 21, but there is not any obstacle to another stop-gap being agreed. In years past, NDAA’s have been banged out right up to the end of December.

And while a CR prevents any new funding from being spent, budget expert Todd Harrison from the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Breaking D last month that savvy DoD program managers prepare by ensuring that new starts are scheduled for late in the fiscal year.

“Authorizing our country’s national defense enterprise is difficult work but one of our most serious responsibilities and should not be taken lightly,” Smith said. “Rather than give up, we will continue to push forward and work with our colleagues across the aisle and in both chambers, as well as the White House.”