House Democrats' support of FY-17 defense policy bill remains tenuous

Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee tentatively intend to support the fiscal year 2017 defense policy bill as it heads to the floor this week, but could change their minds depending on what comes out of the amendment process, according to a congressional aide.

House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) and other Democrats have a number of problems with the bill they helped pass out of committee 60-2, including the language that shifts $18 billion from overseas contingency operations funding to the base budget, the aide said during a May 16 press briefing.

"It's a Ponzi scheme which will have to be paid next year with a supplemental," the aide said. "And that is incredibly problematic especially considering the new administration, and it's very risky given the return of the [Budget Control Act of 2011] and the sequester in the years that follow."

Smith is also concerned about language that could make it more difficult to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo Bay, the aide said, noting that the bill does a number of good things as well.

Smith has been "supportive of the bill because he sees the need to push the bill forward," the aide said, noting that if the committee did not pass the bill then there is a bigger problem. "He is right now still supportive of the bill, but we will not know where he finally stands until we get off the floor because the floor could make this bill much more difficult for him."

"There are so many problematic amendments that hang out there. So he is taking a wait and see approach," the aide continued.

The aide said the plan is for the House to pass the FY-17 bill by 7 p.m. Wednesday night.

However, the aide said the fact that the Senate Armed Services Committee opposes the $18 billion OCO-to-base shift creates a conference issue that the Democrats could use to their advantage to alter the more problematic portions of the bill during the conference process.

"This is a multistage process and sometimes we stay with this process to try to get it to good and then ultimately if it's not good in the end we can vote against it," the aide said, noting that getting the bill to a place where the members can support it could sometimes mean pushing it forward to the next round.

However, the aide noted that if the amendment process or conference process kicks out a bill that "reeks," then Democrats could vote against it, or vote for it but help hold up a potential presidential veto.

"As I often say, what goes in the front of the mule is not what comes out the back," the aide said. "And in this particular case sometimes it's very different. And that may be the reason why members vote for or against it at any point in the process."