THE TOPLINE: All signs on Tuesday indicated that a budget deal that would lift spending caps on both defense and non-defense spending is likely to pass Congress with bipartisan support.
As many as 100 House Republicans would vote for the deal, a combination of defense hawks and leadership allies, two House Freedom Caucus members told The Hill.
The House could vote on the budget deal as early as Wednesday.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would support the deal.
"It does come close to matching the amount allocated for defense in the congressional budget, and it locks in a minimum defense budget for next year as well," he said.
"Under the circumstances, I believe that this agreement deserves support because it provides predictable funding for our nation's security at a time of great uncertainty."
The deal would extend the debt ceiling to March 2017 and bust budget limits set by a 2011 agreement that imposed a decade of reduced spending known as sequestration on the government.
It would raise those caps by a total of $112 billion in fiscal 2016 and 2017, according to a person briefed on the agreement.
Those funds would be divided equally between defense and non-defense spending, charting a compromise between Republican defense hawks pushing for more Pentagon spending and Democrats who wanted more spending on domestic programs as well.
The deal would also restructure benefits for Social Security Disability Insurance, a move that Republicans have pitched as the program's first major change in decades.
Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, who led 101 House Republicans in calling for a bottom-line figure for defense, also hailed the deal.
"A two-year deal will provide the Department of Defense with the certainty it needs to plan for and execute its missions around the world," he said.
"If approved, the two-year total for national defense included in this deal would provide more for national defense than was previously included in the President's request for FY2016 and FY2017."
Still, many Republicans are likely to vote against the budget deal, which House Speaker John Boehner
John Andrew BoehnerCoronavirus poses risks for Trump in 2020 Lobbying world Pelosi-Trump relationship takes turn for the terrible MORE (R-Ohio) negotiated with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellOvernight Defense: Trump says military may consider disciplining Vindman | Dems pick up another Republican for Iran war measure | Watchdog says over 2,000 people killed rebuilding Afghanistan Republicans scramble to avoid Medicare land mine Overnight Health Care: House panel advances legislation on surprise medical bills | Planned Parenthood, ACLU sue over Trump abortion coverage rule | CDC identifies 13th US patient with coronavirus MORE (R-Ky.), Democratic leaders and the White House.
But House Democrats are beginning to line up behind the proposal, despite initial skepticism about changes to Social Security and Medicare. The proposal is also getting buy-in from Senate Democrats.
The White House also urged members to approve the deal, which it said passes President Obama's "key tests" of lifting spending caps, known as sequestration, while shielding Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries from "harmful cuts."
SENATE SKEWERS SYRIA STRATEGY: Senators on Tuesday blasted President Obama's Syria strategy as incoherent, questioning efforts to force Bashar Assad to step down and grilling Defense Secretary Ash Carter on efforts to counter extremists.
Carter told a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee about changes to the administration's strategy against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The U.S. and allies are currently launching airstrikes and arming about a dozen Syrian Arab groups to counter ISIS.
Carter said the U.S.-led military coalition hopes to strengthen the new Syrian Arab Coalition, intensify the air campaign, and target more ISIS leaders and the group's oil operations.
"If done in concert as we intend, all those actions on the ground and from the air should help shrink ISIL's territory into a smaller and smaller area and create new opportunities for targeting ISIL -- ultimately denying this evil movement any safe haven in its supposed heartland," Carter said, using another acronym for ISIS.
"This is a half-assed strategy at best," couuntered Sen. Lindsey Graham
Lindsey Olin GrahamHarris demands Barr testify over Roger Stone sentence recommendation Democrats call for Graham to launch Senate probe into Roger Stone sentence recommendation Democratic senator requests State records on Trump activities in Ukraine MORE (R-S.C.), a Republican presidential candidate and a leading defense hawk in the Senate.
Committee members questioned how the U.S.-led coalition intended to support Syrian rebels going after ISIS when the Assad regime -- assisted by Hezbollah, Russia and Iran -- is targeting them in a bid to shore up his grip on power in the country's four-year civil war.
Carter said the U.S. was only obligated to protect the small number of rebels who had taken part in a now-defunct Pentagon plan to train and equip a rebel force against ISIS, leaving many senators incredulous.
Sen. John McCain
John Sidney McCainThe Hill's Campaign Report: Democrats brace for New Hampshire results Feehery: It's Trump's race to lose McSally launches 2020 campaign MORE (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committed, called that policy "immoral."
"You are making a distinction without a difference, Mr. Secretary," he said, exasperated. "These are American-supported and coalition-supported men who are going in and being slaughtered."
A growing number of Democrats on the committee also appeared to be frustrated with the president's strategy, with several expressing support for establishing no-fly or safe zones in Syria for refugees and rebels.
"We seem lost. We seem lost, and at confusion about what to do next, unable to put any real marker down or have any plan for success," said Sen. Joe Donnelly
Joseph (Joe) Simon DonnellyGinsburg health scare raises prospect of election year Supreme Court battle Watchdog accuses pro-Kavanaugh group of sending illegal robotexts in 2018 Lobbying world MORE (D-Ind.).
"There's refugees all over the world now, and we have the opportunity to set up safe zones, and what I hear is we're worried about the Russians, we're worried about the Syrians, we're worried about all of these things," he continued.
"I mean, at what point do we put a plan together, execute the plan, tell them what we're going to do, and say stay out of the way?"
DOD AWARDS NORTHROP $55M CONTRACT: The Air Force's new $55 billion-plus fleet of Long Range Strike Bombers will be built by Northrop Grumman, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.
"We believe our decision represents the best value for our nation," said Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James.
The contract covers the first 21 jets out of the 100 sought by the Air Force to replace its aging bomber fleet, including the 30-year-old B-2s.
The project is projected to be the Pentagon's biggest in a decade and comes at a time when its acquisition process is coming under increasing scrutiny by lawmakers.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the bomber would be the "back bone" of the force's fleet in the 21st century.
"No nation has used airpower to accomplish global reach to compress time and space like the United States," Carter said. "This allows America's military to be dominant in the second aerospace century."
The announcement closes out a four-year process, in which Northrop engaged in a fierce battle with a joint Boeing-Lockheed Martin team for the contract.
Pentagon officials at Tuesday's press conference declined to get into details about why Northrop was chosen over the Boeing-Lockheed team.
Many capabilities expected in the new bomber have been kept classified, but the broad strokes expected to be included are stealth, the ability to carry conventional and nuclear weapons, and the ability to possibly operate both with or without a pilot.
The contract stipulates the procurement cost is to be no more than $550 million each in 2010 dollars.
The Air Force Cost Analysis Agency also did an independent assessment of cost estimates, which found the cost should be $511 million in 2010 dollars. That translates to $564 million in 2016 dollars.
The planes are expected to enter the service in the mid-2020s.
REPUBLICANS BRIEF ON GITMO VISIT: Three Republican senators reiterated their stance on Tuesday against closing the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base following a visit last week that they said showed the "professionalism" at the "top-rate" facility.
"I'm very proud of the work done by our men and women in uniform who serve there," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte
Kelly Ann AyotteGOP fears Trump backlash in suburbs Trump makes rare trip to Clinton state, hoping to win back New Hampshire Key endorsements: A who's who in early states MORE (R-N.H.). "Their professionalism and the way that they conduct themselves made all of us proud. This is a top-rate detention facility that is being conducted in a humane, legal and under-the-law-of-war detention."
Ayotte, who is facing a tough reelection campaign against New Hampshire's Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, traveled to Guantanamo on Friday with Sens. Tim Scott
Timothy (Tim) Eugene ScottSunday shows preview: Top tier 2020 Democrats make their case before New Hampshire primary Democrat gives standing ovation to Trump comments on opportunity zones Senate moves to impeachment endgame MORE (R-S.C.) and Shelley Moore Capito
Shelley Wellons Moore CapitoTrump hammers Manchin over impeachment vote Senate drama surrounding Trump trial starts to fizzle Democrat Richard Ojeda announces Senate bid after dropping out of presidential race MORE (R-W.Va.).
Their visit comes shortly after a Pentagon team wrapped up a trip to Colorado to inspect two facilities there for potentially transferring Guantanamo detainees.
Scott, who was vocal when the Pentagon did a similar inspection at the Naval Consolidated Brig in his home state, said the Colorado sites under consideration also put Americans at risk.
"The fact is that we built a rural class, one-of-a-kind facility in a remote location hundreds of miles away surrounded mostly by water and deserts and mountains for a reason -- to keep them isolated," he said. "There is no location domestically that can provide the same type of isolation."
ICYMI:
-- Pentagon watchdog to research Afghan sexual abuse claims
-- McCain demands Clinton apologize for VA remarks
Please send tips and comments to Kristina Wong, kwong@thehill.com, and Rebecca Kheel, rkheel@thehill.com
Follow us on Twitter: @thehill, @kristina_wong, @Rebecca_H_K
