Rep. Mac Thornberry visiting troops in Afghanistan.

CAPITOL HILL: The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee thinks President Trump’s 2018 spending plan is dead on arrival and has already gone to the Budget Committee to get a much bigger defense budget. Mac Thornberry also doesn’t want defense increases offset by steep cuts to the Coast Guard or State Department, as Trump proposed.

Thornberry and his Senate counterpart, John McCain, had swiftly denounced the defense increase as too small to meet the military’s needs. Speaking to reporters late yesterday, Thornberry noted the flipside, that the offsetting cuts to non-defense programs are too big to pass the Senate.

“The administration put out a proposal that was, I guess, totally offset within the domestic discretionary budget,” Thornberry said, including cuts to the Coast Guard and State Department that make him uncomfortable. “I don’t think those sorts of cuts will happen.”

Coast Guard National Security Cutter USCGC Waesche.

“This is a conversation,” Thornberry said, in which there’ll be lots of back and forth about the numbers. “My personal view is, you could make a case we ought to spend more on some domestic discretionary programs. But that should in no way limit our ability to have airplanes that fly, ships that sail, and forces that are ready.”

What about Trump’s proposed $1.3 billion cut to the Coast Guard, which would among other things cancel one “ship that sails,” a National Security Cutter already under contract?

“I don’t know how much this is a real proposal,” Thornberry said. “Obviously, the Coast Guard plays a significant role in protecting the country, so I don’t think we ought to be foolhardy about reducing it, just as I said last week the State Department plays an important role (and) we shouldn’t be foolhardy in reducing that.”

However, Thornberry was cool to suggestions that the Coast Guard’s new icebreaker be funded out of the Navy shipbuilding budget. “We have to be careful,” he said. “I realize the security of the Arctic is an important national security issue, so having icebreakers available there’s some good arguments to be made there. We just shouldn’t underestimate the challenge the shipbuilding budget will have” just meeting the Navy’s own needs. The service’s official estimate is that the current fleet of 275 vessels should grow to 355, an 80-ship increase that will likely take decades.

USS Rhode Island (SSBN 740), one of the aging Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines.

Nuclear Deterrence

In particular, Thornberry said, the budget must protect the Pentagon’s top-priority program, the Columbia-class nuclear missile submarine. With the current Ohio class aging out of service, he said, “there’s no slack. You can’t be nickel-and-diming it.”

Thornberry also touched on the air and land legs of the nuclear triad, agreeing with the proposition that the US could accelerate the Long-Range Stand-Off cruise missile for Air Force bombers or even create a ground-launched Army variant in response to Russia’s violation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. “Personally, I’d be willing to support any of those measures,” Thornberry said.

Pershing II ballistic missiles.

“You’re not going to get rid of a Russian capability by not having a capability of your own — there were too many negatives in that, but y’all know what I’m saying,” Thornberry continued. “They’re not going to stand down out of the goodness of their heart. (Back in 1987), the landmark INF treaty was possible only because we went through the political difficulties of deploying GLCMs (Ground Launched Cruise Missiles) and Pershing IIs (ballistic missiles).

Closer to home, Thornberry and Strategic Forces subcommittee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers lamented the Air Force’s inability to replace aging UH-1N helicopters guarding its ICBM fields.

“There is no good news,” said Rogers, speaking to reporters alongside Thornberry.” The Air Force is still not moving forward. (It’s) talking about sending out another request for proposals. It’s such as a disappointment. These are nuclear weapons that have to be guarded.”

“And think how long we’ve been messing with this,” Thornberry added.

“The Air Force is just certain they’re going to be sued, and they don’t want to be sued, so they’re not going to do anything,” Rogers said.

Rep. Mike Rogers

Congress might address some of these nuclear issues in the forthcoming supplemental spending bill for 2017, which the White House will reportedly submit next week. Thornberry’s bet is the entire supplemental will count as emergency war spending — Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds — and thus bypass the Budget Control Act caps on the base budget.

Given the pressure to pass the supplemental quickly, however, most of Congress’s chances to make changes will come in the regular bills for 2018. The House Budget committee has begun that laborious annual process. Last week, Thornberry and “virtually every Republican on the committee” signed a Views & Estimates letter to Budget chair Diane Black that called Trump’s $54 billion increase inadequate. (Thornberry toured Black around decrepit Army facilities just this week). The resulting $603 billion budget would be just 3.2 percent above Obama’s plans, and “that level of funding will not accomplish the Administration’s goals,” the letter says. “Instead, we fear it would unintentionally lock in a slow fix to readiness, consistent with the Obama Administration’s previous position, from which we would not be able to dig out.”

The rest of the letter is a litany of global threats and US shortfalls. While it doesn’t recommend a specific figure, Thornberry and McCain have repeatedly proposed a $640 billion annual budget.