WASHINGTON — The House on Friday voted to add billions to a list of Defense Department weapon programs from cuts, and signed off on a $495.9 billion base Pentagon budget and an $89.2 billion war account.
The legislation proposes keeping alive the Air Force's A-10 attack plane fleet and endorses extra funding for additional F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-35B Lightning II fighter jets for the Navy and Marine Corps.
The final vote, 269-151, was closer than might have been expected a week ago. That's because House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith, D-Wash., and House Minority Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California came out against the measure because it included nearly $40 billion in additional funding for the Pentagon via a war account.
Smith, Pelosi and President Barack Obama, who has issued a veto threat of the bill, are opposed because GOP leaders decided to inflate the war account but refuse to also increase domestic spending.
Forty-one Democrats joined 228 Republicans voting to pass the bill. Smith and Pelosi got 143 Democratic no votes, with eight GOP members joining them.
Complete coverage of the 2016 budget
Smith on Thursday traded elbows with House Speaker Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who called the Democratic opposition — including whipping "no" votes — "shameful."
This shouldn't be a tough vote," Boehner said. "Democrats are now saying they support our troops before they opposed them."
Smith, however, got the last word.
"Speaker Boehner voted against the NDAA in 2009 and 2010 with well over 100 of his fellow Republicans joining him both times," Smith said in a statement. "If he thinks it is so shameful to vote against the NDAA, then somebody should ask the speaker how he lives with his own shame.
"It is hypocritical and the height of shameless partisan pandering for him to now claim that a vote against the NDAA is a vote against the troops. It is not," Smith added. "Regardless of whether we support the NDAA or not, we all support the brave men and women of our military who defend this country. Speaker Boehner is only implying otherwise in order to score cheap partisan points. Shame on him."
Despite his opposition, Smith said on the floor just before the final passage vote "there are a lot of good things in this bill." He pointed to Pentagon acquisition-reform language crafted largely by HASC Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas.
There also was drama over a provision on immigration added during a House Armed Services Committee markup of the bill. Members voted Thursday evening to strip the controversial measure, essentially clearing the way for final passage.
Members handed the Defense Department and industry a list of victories on weapon program funding and its blessing to buy more of some big-ticket items than the services had included in their respective budget requests — despite spending caps.
Responding to the Navy's and Marine Corps' shared list of "unfunded priorities" submitted earlier this year to lawmakers, the House bill includes language that would clear the services to purchase more fighter aircraft than requested.
"As the demand increases, it is vital that Congress address the shortfall in strike aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps — including the replacement of Harrier aircraft lost in Afghanistan," the committee fact sheet read.
The legislation, which must still be negotiated with Senate Armed Services Committee leaders, would allow the Navy to buy a dozen more F/A-18 Super Hornets, while also clearing the Marine Corps to purchase six F-35Bs above its request of nine.
The chamber signed off on an additional $1.15 billion for the extra 12 Boeing-made F/A-18 Super Hornets and an additional $1 billion for the six additional Lockheed Martin-manufactured F-35Bs.
The floor amendment and debate process featured no changes to the bill's F-35 language. Members joined Thornberry in several actions that placed it in full support of the often-embattled F-35 program, which has been plagued by developmental and testing problems.
"The chairman also supports the budget request for 57 total F-35 aircraft, but recommends targeted adjustments based on contract savings and program oversight concerns," the HASC fact sheet read.
The relatively quick floor process featured no debate about the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan but featured ample back-and-forth about the Republican-crafted overseas contingency operations (OCO) account plan.
For the second consecutive year, the chamber rejected an Air Force plan to retire its aging A-10 attack planes.
The Air Force argues the decades-old A-10s are too expensive to keep flying. Many lawmakers reject those arguments, saying the A-10s — which bring jobs to their states and districts — save US lives on the battlefield and must be kept operational.
"Rigorous oversight, endorsements from soldiers and Marines about the protection only the A-10 can provide, and repeated deployments in support of [Operation Inherent Resolve] have persuaded Chairman Thornberry and many members from both parties that the budget-driven decision to retire the A-10 is misguided," the HASC fact sheet read.
"Unlike past efforts to restore the platform, the chairman identifies specific funding to restore personnel, and preserve, modify, and upgrade the A-10 fleet," according to the panel.
On a table in the fact sheet showing "resources added" to the Obama administration's 2016 Pentagon spending request is a funding line of the A-10 program of $682.7 million.
The bill also would prohibit the retirement of any Thunderbolts in 2016.
The legislation proposes removing $460 million from the research and development of the Air Force's next-generation bomber — but that may not be bad news for the service.
A source told Defense News that the cut likely was made in coordination with the bomber program office.
The HASC fact sheet has this to say on the sizable reduction: "The new bomber program is a key element in DoD's planned investment in long-range strike. The proposal authorizes the full amount for the program that the Air Force can execute in FY16, given contract award delays." The bill would cut the bomber request by $460 million.
The measure also would make cuts to the Air Force's KC-46A aerial tanker program to a level it dubs "the level the Air Force can execute in FY16." Its proposed tanker funding reduction is $224 million.
There was ample action on amendments. Some highlights:
- The chamber killed an amendment to fund Ohio-class replacement submarines with funds from the regular shipbuilding account rather than the Sea-Based Deterrence Fund.
- Members approved a measure that would "prohibit reducing the alert posture of the ICBM force."
- Lawmakers sunk one that would have reduced the legal requirement for aircraft carriers to 10 from 11.
Email: jbennett@defensenews.com
Twitter: @bennettjohnt
