There’s Good and Bad in Senate’s Version of Defense Authorization Bill

Justin Johnson / May 27, 2015

As early as next week, the full Senate could take up legislation to establish the defense budget for the 2016 fiscal year.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has finished its work, approving a 900-page bill on May 14 and releasing its text last week.

The National Defense Authorization Act likely will be amended on the Senate floor as Congress works to meet the challenges of the significant national security threats the United States faces and the dangerously weak security policy of the Obama administration.

But an evaluation of the current legislation includes some significant highlights and some places where Congress could do better.

The good:

• Cuts wasteful spending. The bill cuts $10 billion in wasteful or unnecessary spending. One particularly important cut, called for in The Heritage Foundation’s Budget Book, is a 7.5 percent reduction to headquarters and administrative overhead. Since 2001, the Department of Defense’s civilian workforce has grown by 14 percent, and the active military has been reduced by 5 percent.
• Invests in modernizing our military. Much of the $10 billion in savings is redirected toward modernizing our military by, among other things, buying ships and planes and upgrading existing platforms. These investments are a step in the right direction for meeting the Defense Department’s needs as identified by the 2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength.
• Counters Russian aggression. One of America’s top national security priorities must be standing with our allies against Russian aggression. This bill takes a few steps in the right direction, such as requiring the department to consider stationing additional U.S. ground troops in Eastern Europe. But more must be done to show America’s commitment to her allies.
• Strengthens our nuclear deterrent. The bill increases funding for our nuclear weapons, to both improve and repair the infrastructure and invest in more flexible options for the future.

The bad:

• The funding level is too low and relies on a budgeting gimmick. The total funding for the defense budget is at the president’s level of $561 billion. This level is too low, and should be at least $584 billion. Even worse, to meet the president’s funding level, the Senate uses the same gimmick as the House of Representatives, by adding $38 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funding. Instead of relying on this gimmick, Congress simply should increase the base defense budget.
• Does not increase Army force structure. The legislation does make investments in Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps capabilities, but it fails to reverse the Army’s downsizing. Instead, Congress should help build the Army back toward the level identified by the 2015 Index of Military Strength, which recommends a force of 50 brigade combat teams. In the face of Russian aggression, the growing threat of ISIS, Iran’s nuclear desires and various other threats, it is unwise to continue to reduce the size of the Army.
• Fails to address the Obama energy mandate. The 2010 National Defense Authorization Act mandated that 25 percent of the Department of Defense’s energy must come from renewable sources by 2025. This is a political mandate imposed on our warfighters with no consideration of its impact on capability. Politically motivated provisions such as this should be eliminated, but the Senate version so far does not address this issue.
• Does not sufficiently support Taiwan. Support of Taiwan has been a pillar of U.S. policy and a key to stability in the western Pacific. The bill contains only a limited provision on Taiwan, but it should have supported sales of fighter aircraft to Taiwan and required that Taiwan be invited to the Rim of the Pacific, or RIMPAC, military exercise in 2016. The House version of the bill is regrettably silent on the fighter aircraft, but it does contain a requirement that Taiwan be invited to the exercises.
• Does not address dangerous treaties. The Senate legislation is silent on both the Arms Trade Treaty and the Ottawa Convention, both of which could pose national security risks if ratified.
• Opens the door to Guantanamo Bay detainees coming to the United States. Unlike the House version, the Senate bill explicitly allows for Guantanamo Bay detainees to be transferred to the United States for trial and incarceration. The bill does include some restrictions on these transfers, but the Obama administration’s track record on detainees should lead Congress to impose stronger restrictions on detainee transfers.

National security is neither cheap nor easy. But, as our Constitution says, it is vital to “provide for the common defense.” Congress must prioritize national security and produce legislation that makes our nation safer and stronger. For more information about what Congress should be doing in the FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, read “10 Objectives for the FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act.”