As the House Armed Services Committee reviews the annual defence policy bill on Wednesday, conservatives are attempting to rein in programmes they view as distractions from the military’s purpose, including the Pentagon’s diversity and abortion policies.
To pass the annual National Defence Authorization Act on the House floor next month, the new Republican majority, led by Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), must tread a fine line between embracing conservative principles and keeping the support of Democrats.
More than 800 modifications have been submitted to the plan, which would increase funding for the military by $886 billion.
Our shared mission is to show our appreciation for the brave men and women who defend our country. If we keep that end in mind as we mark up this law, I have high hopes that we will have strong bipartisan support,” Rogers added.
During the lengthy markup, Republicans are anticipated to propose a number of changes that would limit Pentagon efforts to increase diversity and inclusion, counter extremism inside the military, and reduce global warming.
Some of the more contentious arguments may be punted to the full House rather than the Armed Services Committee, but already the top Democrat on the committee, Adam Smith, is warning that some of the Republican plans go too far for his side.
“I am concerned that there are amendments filed to the bill that cross these redlines and could jeopardise final passage of the bill,” Smith said.
“I urge members to carefully consider the decades of comity that have characterised this committee and to weigh the so-called political gains that a few in their ranks are pursuing at the expense of America’s greatest source of national strength: our service members and their families, innovation and technology, allies and partners, defence industrial base, and military readiness,” he added.
It’s part of a busy week of defence budget and policy markups. The Senate Armed Services Committee will begin full-panel, private deliberations on its NDAA Wednesday afternoon. House Appropriations will mark up its fiscal 2024 defence bill on Thursday. The bill reduces the Pentagon’s flagship campaign for multiyear procurement of missiles, as well as cuts of $715 million from proposals to migrate climate change funding and $100 million from diversity programmes.
The House Armed Services markup, which began on Wednesday morning, is traditionally an all-night affair involving energy drinks and strained emotions as members fight until they have exhausted amendments on hardware, nuclear weapons, and other hot-button subjects.
If the Republicans are successful in including several of their contentious initiatives, the Democrats will have to decide how many of those provisions they can stomach before they defeat the package completely.
Similar to when Democrats possessed a razor-thin majority in the previous Congress, it’s highly unlikely that the Republicans now have a majority strong enough to pass the bill on their own. That provides Democrats bargaining power over what is included in the must-pass package and, more importantly, what is left out.
Emerging cultural tensions
To prevent what they regard as the politicisation of the military and the exodus of conservative troops, Republicans will propose changes to terminate Pentagon diversity programmes. The Pentagon’s anti-extremism task force would be disbanded and funding for the DOD’s deputy inspector general for diversity and inclusion and extremism would be cut under an amendment proposed by member Mark Alford (R-Mo).
“These amendments are critical to eliminating the wokeness in our military and the unnecessary extremism working group,” Alford added. Spending time and money on programmes that hurt military recruiting and retention is a waste of everyone’s time and money.
Both Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Chair of the House Military Personnel Committee Jim Banks (R-Ind.) have been mentioned as potential sponsors of legislation prohibiting military sites from hosting drag shows. Both spoke out forcefully against a Navy recruitment programme that featured a “digital ambassador” in drag.
Without much discussion, the panel agreed on Banks’ amendment to put the programme on hold and have Congress get a full report and notification before resuming it.
Either in committee or on the House floor, Republicans are certain to attack a Pentagon policy that pays for the costs incurred by service members who travel to obtain abortions. Democrats may draw the line at removing language that would reverse the new policy, despite Republican claims that it violates laws prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for the procedure in most situations.
One Republican on the House Armed Services Committee indicated on Tuesday that they did not anticipate a vote on the abortion policy at the markup on Wednesday, but rather anticipated it to be addressed on the floor.
Conservative outcry has halted military promotions as Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) opposes confirmations to try to force the Pentagon to repeal the policy. This debate will play out prominently in the Senate. On Wednesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee plans to avoid debating the NDAA by instead marking up a bill from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) to repeal the abortion restriction in private.
U.S. military aid to Ukraine is a touchy subject on Capitol Hill and a good opportunity for Republican amendments to increase supervision, but it is not a culture war issue per se. According to an interview he gave, Gaetz plans to take an active role in the debate.
“I intend to offer amendments to condition Ukraine aid on certifications that the end-use monitoring of military equipment is occurring in accordance with U.S. law,” he said. That might mitigate some of the more worrying aspects of our assistance to Ukraine, but it “hasn’t always.”
Heartburn from hardware
For the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile that President Joe Biden has been trying to kill, Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chair and Republican from Colorado Doug Lamborn has introduced an amendment that would shift funding for the missile and its associated warheads from the research to the procurement phase. The bill approves funds for the missile that Biden didn’t request, so Democrats were likely to push back and try to remove it.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), the subcommittee’s ranking member, pushed back on Wednesday, saying that legislators should learn more about “the total cost of the programme before we direct a programme of record against the recommendation of the” Pentagon.
Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Chair Rob Wittman (R-Va.) said in an interview that the panel cut $1.6 billion from the Air Force and Navy’s sixth-generation fighter programmes in order to gain better “alignment” with next-generation propulsion and tanker efforts by putting money in the right place, at the right time. It would be difficult for a politician to restore money for the industry favourite, but they may try.
Since the Air Force’s sixth-generation fighter could one day use the Adaptive Engine Technology Program’s enhanced engine, the panel approves funding for both the existing F-35 engine and a brand new one. Legislators who believe the funds would be better allocated towards an F-35 engine upgrade may file a challenge.
The bill puts a hold on a third of the Army secretary’s travel budget until the service provides alternatives to the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, which is intended to replace some of the Army’s AH-64 Apache and OH-58 Kiowa helicopters.
Wittman claims that Army officials didn’t look into the matter as thoroughly as they did when replacing the UH-60 Black Hawk. He stressed the importance of the service arguing for the aircraft’s necessity and avoiding duplication with the Marine Corps.
An amendment to rethink the provision might be proposed by a member who backs Bell or Sikorsky, two companies competing to manufacture the new helicopter.
