The top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday would not confirm whether he would vote for the annual defense bill if his push to increase the defense budget by $17 billion is not accepted.

Rep. Mac Thornberry William (Mac) McClellan ThornberryTrump payroll-tax deferral for federal workers sparks backlash Overnight Defense: Woodward book causes new firestorm | Book says Trump lashed out at generals, told Woodward about secret weapons system | US withdrawing thousands of troops from Iraq Top Armed Services Republican 'dismayed' at Trump comments on military leaders MORE (R-Texas) unveiled an amendment early Tuesday that would increase the top-line figure in the House version of the bill to $750 billion but said he and his Republican colleagues have yet to “evaluate the good the bad and the ugly” in the bill.

“I think without question all Republican members on the committee want to vote yes on this bill,” Thornberry told reporters at a breakfast roundtable in Washington. “The question of whether we do is going to depend on that basic thing, does this continue to move us forward or does this take us backwards?”

ADVERTISEMENT

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as it currently stands would authorize a defense budget of $733 billion for fiscal 2020, which covers the Defense Department and the Department of Energy’s nuclear programs.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, proposed a $750 billion budget, which Republicans argue is the minimum needed to ensure U.S. military readiness, citing defense officials' testimony on the need for 3 to 5 percent year-over-year budget growth.

Thornberry argued that his amendment for the 3 percent increase “enables us to do very specific concrete things that are important to national security,” including restoring personnel accounts, money for disaster funding, and restoring funding requests for hypersonic technology.

“The chairman’s mark cut the request for the personnel accounts by about $1.2 billion, and so what I am doing with this amendment is to restore the funds to the level requested,” he said. “I stayed away from the most controversial stuff. There’s no wall money and other lightning rods because I wanted it to be core military capability.”

The amendment is “directed to core military needs," Thornberry added.

But the amendment does include the controversial funding proposal to allocate $3.6 billion to backfill military construction funding President Trump Donald John TrumpSteele Dossier sub-source was subject of FBI counterintelligence probe Pelosi slams Trump executive order on pre-existing conditions: It 'isn't worth the paper it's signed on' Trump 'no longer angry' at Romney because of Supreme Court stance MORE plans to take to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Democrats did not include that amount in the NDAA because they consider it the administration’s backdoor way for Congress to approve wall funding.

Committee Chairman Adam Smith David (Adam) Adam Smith40 groups call on House panel to investigate Pentagon's use of coronavirus funds When 'Buy American' and common sense collide Overnight Defense: Marine Corps brushes off criticism of Marines' appearance in GOP convention video | US troops injured in collision with Russian vehicle in Syria | Dems ask for probe of Vindman retaliation allegations MORE (D-Wash.) on Monday defended the $733 billion amount in the bill, saying that’s what the Pentagon was planning for until shortly before the administration submitted its budget request.

Thornberry, however, said that Smith’s assertion is “certainly not my understanding,” and that the lower amount was merely in press reports.

He said the issue of the administration budget request was discussed in December in an Oval Office meeting with himself, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe James (Jim) Mountain InhofeChamber of Commerce endorses McSally for reelection Overnight Defense: Top admiral says 'no condition' where US should conduct nuclear test 'at this time' | Intelligence chief says Congress will get some in-person election security briefings Top admiral: 'No condition' where US should conduct nuclear test 'at this time' MORE (R-Okla.), Vice President Pence, former White House chief of staff John Kelly John Francis KellyMORE, then-Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney Mick MulvaneyOn The Money: House panel pulls Powell into partisan battles | New York considers hiking taxes on the rich | Treasury: Trump's payroll tax deferral won't hurt Social Security Blockchain trade group names Mick Mulvaney to board Mick Mulvaney to start hedge fund MORE, national security adviser John Bolton John BoltonJudge appears skeptical of Bolton's defense of publishing book without White House approval Maximum pressure is keeping US troops in Iraq and Syria Woodward book trails Bolton, Mary Trump in first-week sales MORE and former Defense Secretary James Mattis James Norman MattisBiden courts veterans amid fallout from Trump military controversies Trump says he wanted to take out Syria's Assad but Mattis opposed it Gary Cohn: 'I haven't made up my mind' on vote for president in November MORE.

The Washington Post reported at the time that the Dec. 4 meeting was held in an effort to sway Trump to back off on a $700 billion defense budget as part of an order for all federal government departments to cut their planned budgets by 5 percent. The Pentagon had reportedly previously planned a $733 billion budget before such cuts.

“I think a number of us made the case ... that you’ve got to have 3 to 5 percent real growth just to not fall further behind with the Russians and the Chinese and to build our readiness,” Thornberry said of the meeting.

“At the end of the day the president’s decision was, ‘OK, we’ll do 3 percent real growth.’ He likes round numbers so that’s how [$750 billion] got there, it’s within a fraction of being 3 percent real growth. That was the decision, that’s what everybody moved out on, that was the administration request, that is the amount the Senate is marking to.”

The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday will markup the NDAA. Thornberry said he’ll wait to see what amendments are adopted before he decides to vote on the bill.

“We’ve got amendments to come and go, it may get better it may get worse, we’ll see,” he said.