National Defense Authorization Act: A Bipartisian Consensus?
By Kira Webster
The United States government seems determined to allocate enough money to secure the whole planet.
At the same time, there is some push back in the legislative branch as to the White House’s war making powers.
The Senate has just passed a $750 billion bill for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a significant portion of defense legislation that gets passed every year to keep the Pentagon functioning, as well as funding America’s conflicts overseas. Initially, House Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, proposed $733 billion on defense. This budget was in line with what the Pentagon expected, but, the White House requested $750 billion for the NDAA, plus another $75 billion just for overseas military operations. The Armed Forces Committee agreed to the increase in March but Republicans are now pressuring Smith to boost funding once again. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said in a statement to The Hill, “In pursuing an arbitrarily lower budget, the proposal reduces or eliminates vital programs.”
According to Breaking Defense, Smith’s bill actually saves money by cutting plans for more submarine-launched low-yield nuclear warheads and spending less on fighter planes. Smith was worried that spending more than $733 billion would be fiscally irresponsible, and said that in the past, when the Pentagon has been given more money than expected, there’s more waste and inefficiency that comes into play.
The budget does not include any wall funding at this time, but the Senate did pass a $4.6 billion bill for emergency funding to the border specifically to be used for children in custody care. Originally introduced by the Senate, it passed with an overwhelming amount of support from both sides without a formal Senate floor vote. Some outrage was sparked from the House of Representatives after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D – Calif.) announcement to reluctantly take up the Senate bill, with House progressives arguing that Trump’s administration cannot be trusted to use the money towards humanitarian aid as opposed to immigration enforcement. They also argued that higher standards of care needed to be written in, as well as more protection. Despite this addition, and the $23 billion difference, both parties acknowledged the lack of animosity when it came to spending. Smith said that they “disagree on about 2% of the bill overall.”
Democratic Senators Tim Kaine (D- Va.) and Tom Udall (D- N.M.) also introduced an amendment the NDAA to block Trump from using any funding for military action against Iran without congressional approval. The Iran vote stems from growing tensions between the U.S. and Tehran and concerns over the administration’s rash decisions, as well as Democrats threatening to block the defense bill until they were able to vote on the proposal. The Senate has decided to wait to vote on the amendment until after Democratic senators running for president were able to return to Washington. It’s an unusual move, since the NDAA has already passed, but the amendment will be added retroactively should it pass. House Democrats are also trying to pass amendments that would protect transgender military service members, and both parties are drafting amendments that would create a space military branch. There are two different versions to be passed through the House and Senate, and both differ between the names and structures.
While bipartisan agreement should come as a relief, it may not be the case in this area of politics. Christopher Preble, Vice President of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, said that the consensus is actually a problem. “It’s absurd that we think we can only be secure if we spend $750 or $733 billion . . . We’ve defined our strategy very broad so that the only way we can be secure is if the whole planet is secure . . . Securing the planet is a costly endeavor. . . So long as this consensus exists, not only will the U.S. defense budgets continue to grow, but arguments in Congress will start to center around how quickly budgets should expand.” Preble’s concern stands warranted. It goes without saying how important a defense budget is; however, if money can’t flow into other critical areas of the country (education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc.), there isn’t much left for us to defend.
Kira Webster is a college intern with the Peace Economy Project. Do you like this story? If so, then click here to donate: https://peaceeconomyproject.org/wordpress/sample-page/contribute/
