Defense policy bill

House passes sweeping defense policy bill

But most House Democrats voted against the bill — enough to sustain a potential presidential veto.

By Connor O’Brien and Jeremy Herb

The House passed a sweeping $610 billion defense policy bill Wednesday, setting up an election-year standoff with the White House and the Senate over how best to fund the military in the final months of the Obama administration.

The National Defense Authorization Act was approved, 277 to 147, with most House Democrats, including the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, voting against the bill — enough to sustain a potential presidential veto.

The measure moves more than $23 billion in war funding to fill what Republicans say is a shortfall in the Pentagon’s base budget, leaving only enough money to keep military efforts in Afghanistan and the campaign against the Islamic State funded through April.

The aim, Republicans say, is to force the next president to request supplemental funding early next year, which they argue is similar to how the wars were funded at the end of the George W. Bush administration.

"Is it perfect? Of course not," House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) argued on the House floor. "But I have yet to hear a better alternative that meets these [military] needs and can pass the House."

Democrats, though, accused Republicans of a funding scheme to boost defense spending that gambles with money meant for troops overseas, and the White House has threatened to veto the bill for short-funding the war account, the Overseas Contingency Operations fund.

And in a new twist, the Senate Armed Services Committee also rebuked the House defense funding plan, potentially setting up a major showdown during the House-Senate conference negotiations.

Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) opted to keep his defense authorization bill at the same funding level sought by President Barack Obama, though he says he'll attempt to add funding to the measure when it goes to the Senate floor.

The Senate plans to consider its version of the bill on the floor next week, which will then clear the way for the conference negotiations to reconcile the differences with the House. A compromise bill is not expected for months.

The funding fight was hardly the only issue that sparked many Democrats to revolt against the bill, which typically passes with large bipartisan majorities.

House Republican leaders avoided debates on several politically sensitive issues, including one amendment to cut a provision from the bill that critics say would strip away LGBT protections for government contractors provided under an Obama presidential executive order. The amendment, offered by a bipartisan group led by Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), was rejected by the House Rules Committee before it reached the floor.

That decision was what prompted the top Armed Services Democrat to vote against the overall measure, saying it was the "last straw" after the bill did not fund war operations through the full fiscal year.

“I’m going to oppose the bill, which I did not want to do,” Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state said. "Here, we are forced to vote for a defense bill that contains discriminatory language that we do not support.”

House GOP leaders also averted a direct vote on women and the draft by adding an amendment “considered as adopted” to the rule for debate, which stripped a provision added during committee markup requiring women to register for the draft.

Democrats complained Republicans were skirting a tough vote through procedural shenanigans. But the notion of requiring women to register with the Selective Service System is still kicking around Capitol Hill, as it’s also in the Senate’s defense policy bill, setting up another major divide between the two chambers.

Other contentious proposals did receive votes.

The House rejected, 138 to 285, a proposal from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force 90 days after the bill becomes law. Lawmakers in both parties have criticized the 15-year-old war resolution as too broad and outdated for the current campaign against the Islamic State.

Still, the measure failed to satisfy advocates for a new war resolution who complained Congress was avoiding its constitutional duty. While several amendments were offered to force debate on a new AUMF, none was given debate or a vote.

“I guess this Congress is just too damn chicken to do its job when it comes to war,“ said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).

Democrats sought to allow detainees held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be imprisoned in the United States, but the amendment from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) was defeated, 163 to 259.

Republicans also defeated two amendments that would have cut the Pentagon’s base budget by 1 percent and shifted $9.4 billion for war funding procurement into operations and maintenance accounts.

The $610 billion policy bill is funded at the same level as the Pentagon’s budget request, but it authorizes an $18 billion boost in base funding above the Pentagon’s request by shorting the Overseas Contingency Operations budget.

The extra money would be used to add military hardware from the military services’ so-called “wish lists,” including an additional 11 F-35 fighters and 14 F/A-18 Super Hornets, dozens more Army helicopters — and an additional destroyer, Littoral Combat Ship and amphibious ship.

The bill also includes funding for an additional 20,000 active duty troops in the Army, delaying the Pentagon’s planned drawdown, as well as a 2.1 percent pay raise for service members, higher than proposed by the administration.

Rejected were several Pentagon-proposed reforms, including authorizing a new round of base closures, increases in Tricare health care fees and laying up Navy cruisers.