With the question of defense funding settled in the two-year budget agreement announced this week, lawmakers are pursuing two paths to pass this year’s defense policy bill, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said Wednesday.
The first path would be to override the president’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and then pass a second bill to adjust the NDAA’s funding level down $5 billion to match the budget deal.
{mosads}The second path would be to write a new bill that would be the same as the current NDAA, except with the budget deal’s funding level.
“I don’t know for sure which [way] we’ll go,” said Thornberry, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
The House is set to vote Wednesday on the budget compromise between Republicans and the White House. It’s expected to pass.
The deal raises budget caps for defense and nondefense spending by a total of $112 billion in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.
It also spreads $32 billion over two years into a war fund known as the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund.
President Obama vetoed the NDAA because it would have added $38 billion to the war fund.
With the budget still using the war fund, Thornberry said it was “wrong and unhelpful” for the president to veto the bill.
“It does occur to me the president made a big deal out of using OCO for base requirements. Well the number has changed, but there’s still OCO for base requirements in the deal,” Thornberry said. “If you look at it, everything is basically the same, which is why it was wrong and unhelpful to veto our bill.”
Thornberry said he did not know where the $5 billion will be cut from but that it will be from “muscle.”
“There’s not fat that you can just chip and say, ‘OK, this doesn’t matter,’ ” he said. “It’ll matter. It’ll be significant.”
The veto override vote in the House will go forward Nov. 5 as planned. Thornberry said he thinks the House is in the “ballpark” of having enough votes to override the veto.
The final version of the bill passed the House by 270-156. That would not be enough to override a veto. But Thornberry said most of the 10 Republicans who voted against the bill have said they would switch their vote. He’s also talked to some Democrats who will vote to override the veto, he said.
“There are some people who want to use the override route followed by a second bill to adjust the tables,” he said. “I think an override is very possible.”
When vetoing the bill, Obama also voiced opposition to the provisions related to Guantanamo Bay. The bill would keep in place the ban on transferring detainees to the United States, effectively preventing the closure of the detention facility.
Thornberry reiterated that the language on transferring detainees to the United States is the same as every other year the president signed the bill, so he shouldn’t continue opposing the bill because of Guantanamo.
“I can’t tell you, obviously, what the president is going to do, but he has signed that exact language for the past five years,” Thornberry said. “In addition, we have a provision that requires the administration give us a plan on moving ahead on Guantanamo.”