At 2:14 AM on Thursday, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 (NDAA), a massive $638 billion bill designed to fund all military spending and chart military policy for the for the coming fiscal year. An avalanche of amendments greatly changed the original make-up Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) presented earlier this week, eventually passing the committee with a vote of 59-2. Here are some of the provisions in the bill that you should know about before it reaches the House floor:

What’s Good

1. Addresses The Military’s Sexual Assault Crisis

In the light of the multitude of scandals and damning reports of sexual assault within the ranks of the military, the HASC added several provisions to the NDAA that reforms the current military justice system. Under the new language, military commanders will be stripped of their ability to dismiss the findings of courts-martial’s juries, something that the military’s leadership has opposed. Commanders will also be unable to reduce sentences imposed on those found guilty of sexual crimes, as one general did in the case that first launched the renewed interest in the issue in February.

In addition, new minimum sentencing guidelines for sexual assault in the military were included, while also adding rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct to the protected communications of service members with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General, essentially bringing protections for those who report military sexual assault in line with those for government whistleblowers.
Read more

Republicans in Congress came out swinging against what they label as the Obama administration’s cuts to military spending in its new budget, specifically citing the threat North Korea’s missiles pose as a reason to preserve missile defense spending. A close read of the Pentagon’s weapon procurement plans, however, show an increase in spending to the missile defense programs most closely related to countering North Korea.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) made headlines on Thursday when he inadvertently revealed a still secret Defense Intelligence Agency asessment of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. In one segment of the DIA’s assessment, which was mistakenly labeled as unclassified in the copy provided to Congress, the Pentagon spy agency determined North Korea “has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles; however, the reliability will be low.”

Lamborn defended the disclosure after the meeting, as he was worried that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to fund missile defense:

“My whole goal in bringing this to light was to make sure we don’t cut missile defense spending,” the congressman said. “At the worst possible time, the President’s budget does exactly that.”

Republicans like Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) also seized on the North Korean crisis to attack the Obama administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget on Friday — despite the fact that baseline spending is actually up by $1 billion. And while missile defense spending is cut $550 million in the President’s proposal, those cuts are primarily due to cancelling the Medium Extended Air Defense System, which the Pentagon has said it doesn’t want. In fact, Lamborn’s specific worry so far as it relates to North Korea is concerned is demonstrably false.

Read more

News that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — also known as North Korea — has tested its third nuclear weapon has given Republicans a new angle to trot out old attacks on the Obama administration’s security priorities.

The attacks come from a multitude of directions, but all share the common thread of being firmly opposed to some part of the Obama administration agenda:

“North Korea just responded to POTUS principle of ‘national security by kumbaya.’”

The Weekly Standard and former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) chose to focus on the U.S. response to the test, highlighting their disdain for international cooperation and what they unfairly deem Obama’s weakness in the face of international challenges:

North Korea just responded to POTUS principle of “national security by kumbaya.”

— Allen West (@AllenWest) February 12, 2013

Such right-wing attacks on Obama fail to include what they propose as a proper policy towards North Korea. Scoffing at the U.N. Security Council is easy, as proved by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), but cooperation from China — a key member of the Council — will be necessary for any solution on the Korean peninsula. The North Korean government has likewise proved unresponsive to the combination of carrots and sticks by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations alike.

“U.S. security cannot…afford even more cuts to U.S. defense capabilities”

Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Buck McKeon used the North Korean test as an opportunity to reissue his fears about the pending cuts to the military budget, saying in a statement, “U.S. security cannot, in the face of the president’s sequester and $500 billion in reductions to the DoD budget so far, afford even more cuts to U.S. defense capabilities, such as our nuclear deterrent.”

Nuclear deterrent is based around the idea that other countries know that any attack on the United States would be met with a nuclear counter-strike. Sequestration’s cuts to the military budget — while clearly better if targeted rather across the board — would still leave the U.S. with the largest military budget in the world, as well as the largest nuclear stockpile.

“Will POTUS propose US nuclear weapon cuts the day after North Korea conducts another nuke test?”

President Obama is expected to use tonight’s State of the Union address to restart discussion of reducing the U.S. nuclear stockpile in his second term. With that in mind, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip and a long-time opponent of nuclear disarmament, took to Twitter:

Will POTUS propose US nuclear weapon cuts the day after North Korea conducts another nuke test? fb.me/XYXZTDOX

— JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) February 12, 2013

The United States in 2010 possessed approximately 5,113 nuclear warheads, with only Russia close to matching that number. In contrast, North Korea currently possesses enough plutonium for between two to four more bombs at the most and is under sanction preventing import of new nuclear material. While today’s test shows some improvement over previous tests’ yields, it is unlikely that Korean nuclear technology has been miniaturized enough to fit atop a ballistic missile. Any cuts to the nuclear weapons in the U.S. would do little to upset so large an imbalance.

In his effort to preserve lower tax rates for the wealthy, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) is now trying to buy the votes of hawkish members of his party by moving to block any cuts to military spending in the next fiscal year.

The debate over the coming “fiscal cliff” has always included the threat of a a trillion dollars worth of automatic cuts known as “sequestration,” spread evenly between military and non-military spending over the next ten years. That balance is now threatened by Boehner’s ‘Plan B’ legislation, prepared in a bid to circumvent his talks with President Barack Obama on how to avoid the looming set of tax rate increases and spending cuts due to take effect on Jan. 1, 2013:

Posted late Dec. 19 by the House Rules Committee, Boehner’s “Plan B” addition would require $19 billion in new discretionary spending cuts. It also would allow the president and the White House Office of Management and Budget to conduct a sequestration round if fiscal 2013 discretionary spending levels exceed specific limits, known as caps.

But the Boehner measure would prohibit the president from tapping the defense budget in 2013 to get under spending caps.

“Any sequestration order issued by the president … to carry out reductions to direct spending for the defense function (050) for fiscal year 2013 … shall have no force or effect,” states the legislation.

Since the ‘Supercommittee’ failed to agree to deficit reduction terms in Nov. 2011, protecting military spending has been a top priority of members of the Republican Party. House Armed Services Committee Chair Howard ‘Buck’ McKeon (R-CA) has been at the forefront of the effort, clamoring for months that any further cuts in military spending “will force us to pull back further from the world.” Meanwhile, as Congressional Republicans continue claiming to favor a reduction in government spending, the House and Senate are prepared to pass a military spending bill over $1.7 billion dollars above President Obama’s request.

Defense industry-backed Republicans are so desperate to stave off the automatic military spending cuts that they’re trying to scare Americans about job losses and an ensuing nose-diving economy should the military spending cuts hold.

Except there’s one problem. Republicans aren’t supposed to believe that government spending creates jobs. But in this last act of desperation, however, it seems that Republicans pushing to preserve America’s bloated military budget have come to a pretty significant epiphany. Next week, three right-wing think tanks will co-host Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Reps. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and Randy Forbers (R-VA) to “discuss the dangers of deeper defense cuts.” All four lawmakers are warning about job loss because of sequestration, yet they’ve all previously argued that government spending doesn’t create jobs:

SEN. KELLY AYOTTE

Now: “So we’re not just talking about the jobs issue, which is, of course, of concern to anyone who serves in Congress. We’re talking about lost lives if we don’t give our men and women the equipment that they need.” [6/24/12]

Then: “It’s not the government that’s going to create jobs in this country, it’s our small businesses, it’s the private sector.” [9/22/10]

SEN. JON KYL

Now: “The whole point here [staving off the sequester] is to try to get some economic growth, job creation, to get out of this recession.” [5/24/12]

Then: “Faced with the reality of historic unemployment rates and record federal debt, I had hoped that President Obama, by now, would understand that even more government spending doesn’t create jobs.” [9/09/11]

REP. BUCK MCKEON

Now: “Sequestration’s impact on the economy would be sudden and severe, … result[ing] in the loss of about 1 million jobs in 2013 and 2014 and a half a percent cut to America’s already meager economic growth.” [6/24/12]

Then: “We don’t look to the government usually to create jobs. What we like to see them do is get out of our hair and let us create the jobs.” [5/21/12]

REP. RANDY FORBES

Now: “For reasons of both national security and local jobs, citizens of Hampton Roads ought to carefully consider the sober assessments of our military commanders and leaders regarding the impacts of adding another $600 billion in security cuts to the $489 billion Congress has already enacted.” [10/08/11]

Then: “Congressman Forbes believes there is a simple truth when it comes to job creation in America: real solutions create real growth that generates real jobs. In order to make this happen, government needs to get out of the way.” [Forbes' website]

And outside of the hypocrisy, the GOP’s jobs argument is spurious. Republicans are holding up a new industry-backed study claiming the military spending cuts will mean a loss of nearly one million jobs. But experts have pointed out the report’s many flaws, mainly that government spending in non-defense sectors of the economy creates more jobs.

The study is good for “political purposes, not very good analysis of the labor market,” said defense budget expert Gordon Adams. CATO expert Chris Preble said the report shows that the industry is just “trying to save their profits.”

There’s also no evidence that the military spending sequester will be “devastating” as some have argued and polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor cutting DOD’s budget. But Republicans will most likely ignore these facts and fight to preserve the Pentagon’s needlessly bloated budget, all while abandoning a central tenet of their party’s ideology.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been vigorously campaigning against the military spending sequester, $600 billion in cuts triggered after Congress failed to agree on a debt reduction plan. The New York Times reported that Graham — on a tour against the sequester in his home state — is even willing to defy a pledge against tax hikes organized by anti-tax advocate and conservative power-broker Grover Norquist. The Times reported:

Mr. Graham said the sentiment for raising revenues by closing tax loopholes or imposing higher fees on items like federal oil leases is expanding in his party.

Asked about the “no new taxes” pledge almost all Republicans have signed, he shrugged: “I’ve crossed the Rubicon on that.”

House Republicans have issued dire warning about sequester’s military cuts and flip flopped on last August’s debt deal, even seeking to shift the cuts to domestic programs that benefit the poor.

But recently, the position Graham espoused on his South Carolina tour gained traction among other Republicans keen on preserving high defense spending. Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), the House Armed Services chair who forcefully opposes any military cuts, said this winter he would support tax hikes to avoid sequestration.

Democrats have been pushing the tack for a while. In March, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) pointed out that a “vote to extend the Bush tax cuts in their entirety would, in essence, be the vote to lock in sequestration” by cutting down on revenue to offset government debt. The Times report today pointed out that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is unlikely to allow sequestration to be averted without a debt reduction package that includes increased government revenue. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) was more blunt speaking to the Times, noting that the Republicans that supported last August’s Budget Control Act — 28 in the Senate and 174 in the House — were given the choice of automatically-triggered military spending cuts or tax increases. Van Hollen said:

The consistent pattern here is they have chosen to defend special interest tax breaks over defense spending. They made that choice.

Grover Norquist, for his part, was already miffed this weekend because of Republicans dropping out of his pledge, seeking to contrast their fickle adherence to his diktats with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s vocal support. He hasn’t reacted yet to Graham’s defection from the anti-tax pledge, but one imagines he won’t take it sitting down.

Earlier this month, House lawmakers passed a $643 billion defense budget draft, $4 billion more than the president’s defense budget request and $8 billion more than the cap set on defense spending Congress last year. The bill’s passage brought criticisms from House Democrats and Pentagon officials — including Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey — and stood in striking contrast to recent polling data showing that 65 percent of Americans would support cuts to military spending. But generous campaign contributions from the defense industry, and related industries that benefit from other Defense Department contracts, may explain the willingness of House Republicans to ignore the preferences of the American public and the military’s leadership.

An investigation for Time.com by defense budgeting expert Winslow Wheeler into “Pentagon pork” found that “the money being added for ‘Restoration & Modernization of Facilities’ was being added without any meaningful guidance, none whatsoever.” Funding for “Restoration & Modernization of Facilities,” which Wheeler characterizes as a having “the distinct odor of being a slush fund,” totals $594.7 million.

But the House Armed Services Committee members who passed the oversized defense budget draft may have other interests in mind. Four of the top-ten industry campaign donors to House Armed Services Committee members, as categorized by OpenSecrets.org, would appear to benefit from this “slush fund.” “Defense Aerospace,” “Real Estate,” “Misc Defense,” and “Building Trade Unions,” already contributed a total of $4.89 million to House Armed Services Committee members in the 2012 election cycle. The majority of that went to Republicans.

And House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and his leadership PAC are the top congressional recipients of defense industry campaign dollars. See the chart below to see how defense dollars stack up against his other campaign contributors:

The apparent contradiction of House Armed Services Committee members passing an oversized defense budget which exceeds that requested by the military and defies the U.S. public’s preference for a reduction in defense spending makes more sense when viewed in the context of defense industry, and industries which benefit directly and indirectly from defense related appropriations, contributions to committee member’s campaign committees and leadership PACs. Indeed, the contributions offer a monetary incentive for committee members to advocate for additional budget items — such as an East Coast missile defense system which Gen. Demspsey said was unnecessary — and create “Pentagon pork.”