The annual defense policy bill is headed for the president’s desk, nearly three months late but just in time for Congress to get home for the holidays to end its year.
House conservatives raised objections over the massive package’s exclusion of “anti-woke” provisions that the chamber approved in July, including the repeal of the Pentagon’s abortion travel policy, and challenged its inclusion of a four-month extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s (FISA’s) Section 702, forcing a preliminary vote to adjourn rather than vote on a “flawed” bill.
The entire process, the culmination of thousands of hours in hearings since February, spanned 90 minutes, with Congress quickly authorizing nearly $1 trillion in spending.
“We all know it’s Christmas because here we go with the ornaments,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) said. “We got a Christmas tree headed out and we got to put some ornaments on it. That’s what’s happening right now.”
The $886.3 billion NDAA earmarks $841.5 billion for the Department of Defense—nearly $32 billion, or 3 percent, more than the FY23 NDAA—$32.26 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration, and $12.1 billion in defense-related allocations for other federal agencies.
Included is a 5.2 percent pay raise for service members, a trilateral nuclear-powered submarine pact with Britain and Australia (AUKUS), initiatives to counter Russia in Europe, foil China in the Pacific, and aid Israel in the Middle East, and investments in Space Force and technologies including artificial intelligence and hypersonics.
Both chambers adopted their respective defense budgets by July. A conference committee, made up of members of both the House and Senate, negotiated to reconcile differences for two months before submitting a 3,093-page draft NDAA and 718-page conference report to the Senate on Dec. 6.
The NDAA is one of 12 annual appropriations bills that constitute the nation’s yearly budget. Only four have been adopted, with the federal government now largely operating under continuing resolutions that sustain fiscal 2023 levels.
In his motion to adjourn rather than vote on an NDAA that includes the FISA Section 702 extension, Mr. Roy argued the extension should be debated separately and that the conference report is precluded from adding anything to a draft budget not submitted by the chambers. Neither proposed NDAA addressed FISA.
Under FISA, he said, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court can issue a surveillance warrant for up to a year after any authorization expires, meaning what appears to be a four-month extension is actually a 16-month extension.
FISA is “used to spy on Americans,” Mr. Roy said. “That wasn’t in the bill [adopted by either chamber]. But at the last minute, it was air-dropped into this bill and on this House.”
Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) said he couldn’t vote for a defense budget that includes “a clean extension of FISA Section 702, which allowed the FBI to spy on U.S. citizens more than 278,000 times without a warrant” and has been “weaponized against the American people” by “the FBI under President Biden.”
‘National Security Threat’
Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Jim Himes (R-Conn.), and Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) were among representatives who said the FISA extension is a minor concession in advancing the annual defense budget.“Section 702 needs to be reformed. There’s no question about that. Nobody I know, however, says that it should completely go away,” Mr. Smith said, noting that the authorization expires on Dec. 31.
If not extended in this bill—the last one to be considered before the year ends—FISA Section 7 “completely goes away on Jan. 1, which is a huge national security threat to this country,” Mr. Smith said.
He said, though, that not everyone agrees with that. “We should debate that policy. What this bill does is it gives us time to do the reforms that need to be done without jeopardizing national security.”
And ultimately, House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) said the NDAA is regarded as “must-pass” because the matters it deals with are far more important than the transitory political distractions of the moment.
Therefore, he said, not everyone gets what they want.
“It takes compromise to adopt bills in a divided government. This is a compromise,” Mr. Rogers said.
Under the adopted $886.3 billion defense budget, the Navy would receive $255.8 billion, an increase of $11 billion, or 4.5 percent, from fiscal 2023, for a 291 battle-force ship fleet, 347,000 active-duty sailors and officers, and 57,200 reservists.
The bill authorizes keel-laying for a Columbia-class ballistic submarine, two Virginia-class attack submarines, two Flight III Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, two new Constellation-class guided-missile frigates, and a John Lewis-class fleet oiler.
The U.S. Marine Corps will receive $53.2 billion for 172,300 active-duty Marines and 33,600 Marine Corps reservists personnel.
The Air Force’s $215.1 billion budget is $9.3 billion, or 4.5 percent, more than its fiscal 2023 plan. Its projected 512,100-member force structure includes Air Force active-duty, Guard and Reserve airmen, and Space Force active-duty airmen.
The Air Force’s $35.4 billion procurement request is a $1.2 billion increase over fiscal 2023 and adds $1 billion to grow the F-35A fighter fleet by 48 aircraft, and adds $518 million to procure 15 KC-46 tankers and $317 million for 24 F-15 E/Xs.
Among key Army programs outlined in its $185 billion NDAA is more than $70 billion for tactical missile defenses “across all realms” and significant boosts in anti-missile defense.
