OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: US carrier heads toward Yemen

by Kristina Wong and Martin Matishak - 04/20/15 5:43 PM ET

THE TOPLINE: The Pentagon is sending a U.S. aircraft carrier to waters around Yemen following Iran’s deployment of seven to nine ships to the region, some possibly carrying weapons to resupply Houthi rebels.

The U.S. on Sunday sent the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Normandy, a guided-missile cruiser, to the Gulf of Aden, said Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren on Monday.

The Pentagon said the U.S. ships are not going to the region to intercept the Iranian ships, which were sent last week towards Yemen.

{mosads}”Certainly it’s going there because of Yemeni instability, but it’s not going there to intercept any ships,” said Warren.

The Roosevelt was in the Persian Gulf, but was sent through the Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf of Aden to conduct “maritime security operations,” according to Warren.

The deployment comes after The Hill reported on Friday that Iran was sending an armada of ships believed to have arms for Houthi rebels in Yemen. The convoy sparked fears that the conflict in Yemen could escalate and worsen sectarian tensions in the Middle East.

The Shia rebels forced the Saudi Arabian-backed president of Yemen to flee the capital earlier this year. A Saudi-led coalition responded by launching airstrikes to push back the rebels.

“We’re keeping a very close eye on maritime activities in that region,” Warren said Monday in reference to the Iranian convoy.

The Roosevelt and the Normandy join seven other Navy combat ships in the area.

The U.S. has deployed the destroyers USS Forrest Sherman and USS Winston Churchill, two minesweepers — the USS Sentry and USS Dextrous — and three amphibious ships — the USS Iwo Jima, USS New York and USS Fort McHenry — according to the Navy.

“In recent days, the U.S. Navy has increased its presence in this area as a result of the current instability in Yemen,” said a Navy statement on Monday.

MILITARY HEALTHCARE REFORM DELAYED: House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) ruled out changes to the military’s healthcare system in the 2016 defense policy bill being crafted this week.

“I’ve always said healthcare’s the most complicated issue that any of us deal with, and so you really want to understand the consequences of what you do with healthcare,” he recently told The Hill.

A congressionally appointed commission proposed 15 recommendations earlier this year to reform the military pay and benefits system, which Pentagon leaders say is too expensive and unsustainable.

The commission recommended allowing troops to continue receiving care at military treatment facilities, but moving family members, reservists and some retirees onto commercial insurance plans, with allowances to offset the costs.

Thornberry said that recommendation requires “some further study.”

There are also indications the committee, which is set to begin marking up its draft of the bill this week and vote on it next week, will not adopt another controversial recommendation to reorganize the military retirement benefits system.

The commission recommended moving from a system paying retirement benefits to those who serve at least 20 years to one modeled after a 401(k) plan that would benefit more troops. It would also allow those serving 20 years or longer to receive lump-sum retirement payments instead of monthly payments.

A House aide said Thornberry is opposed to “piecemeal reforms” because the current military benefits system is so interlinked, and making changes to one area could have unintended consequences elsewhere.

“The commissioners said ‘You can’t take this piecemeal, there’s a cost-balance and [so] we encourage you to do it or not do any of it.’ He took that seriously,” the aide said.

However, Thornberry said the prospect of some of the commission’s recommendations making it into the bill is “pretty good.”

The committee begins marking up the bill this week and is set to vote on it April 29. The Obama administration is due to submit its views and recommendations on April 30.

“We can obviously make adjustments as seem to make sense, taking into account their concerns,” Thornberry said.

MCCAIN RIPS PAUL ON FOREIGN POLICY: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) hit back at Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Monday for criticizing GOP defense hawks.

“He just doesn’t understand. He has displayed this kind of naïveté since he came to the Senate,” McCain said during an interview on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends.”

In remarks Saturday at New Hampshire’s Republican Leadership Summit, Paul suggested GOP hawks were no different from President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on foreign policy.

“The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over,” Paul said.

“There’s a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more,” he added.

McCain chided Paul for previously advocating cuts to Pentagon spending and foreign aid.

“He’s sort of changing now as he’s seen [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] succeed,” McCain said.

“He’s more aligned with Barack Obama’s national security policy than certainly any Republican than I know.”

LAWMAKERS PUSH FOR ISIS VOTE: Two senior House members are renewing efforts to approve a new authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tom Cole (R-Okla.) are circulating a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) pressing him to allow debate and a vote on a war powers resolution.

“This dereliction of our constitutional duty causes great injury to the Congress, and threatens our role as a check on the president’s power to make war,” wrote Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Cole, who is one of Boehner’s allies.

“Each additional day that passes without Congress taking up an AUMF for our operations against ISIL undermines our authority and role in matters of war and peace,” the pair wrote, using the terror group’s other common acronym.

“If we refuse to debate a resolution on the weightiest question any nation faces — whether to take military action — we cede to the Executive Branch a power that the framers intentionally delegated to Congress,” they added.

Schiff and Cole asked Boehner to “instruct the appropriate committees to hold a mark-up and to set aside floor time at the earliest possible juncture for the House to debate and vote” on an AUMF.

“This shirking of our duty will have lasting effects, serving to expand the scope of executive power at the expense of the Congress,” they wrote.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

— GOP lawmaker: ‘Troops will die’ if A-10 retired

— US begins combat training in Ukraine

— Iranian ship convoy moves toward Yemen, alarming US officials

— Senate Defense hawks pressure Boehner on Pentagon spending

— NSA unveils pro-recycling mascot for kids named ‘Dunk’

Please send tips and comments to Kristina Wong, kwong@digital-staging.thehill.com, and Martin Matishak, mmatishak@digital-staging.thehill.com.