For those steeped in the cement-dense rules of the legislative process who enjoy parliamentary intrigue, power plays, and shifting alliances all entangled in the nation’s must-pass defense budget, the United States House of Representatives is putting together a Republican-produced summer thriller.
For everyone else, brace for a series of hotly contested floor clashes on dozens—perhaps, hundreds—of controversial “culture war” amendments attached to the proposed $886.3 billion Fiscal Year 2024 defense budget in House debates likely to rage until the August recess.
The House Rules Committee early July 12 in a 9-4 partisan vote agreed to send 290 proposed amendments to the defense budget, referred to as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), to the House for adoption.
House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters on July 12 that those amendments will be put on the floor for debate beginning the evening of July 13.
The 290 proposed NDAA changes are likely only the first tranche that will be cleared by the House Rules Committee, which was presented with 1,502 prospective amendments when it convened a July 11 hearing that began at noon, recessed for six hours, and concluded after midnight before all proposals were reviewed.
House Rules Committee Chair Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told reporters his panel would wrap up its NDAA amendment hearings this week, but could not say if it would convene later July 12.
“We didn’t get this done, so I think we’re going to keep working on it until we do get it done,” he said.
NDAA Express Derailed
Both House and Senate armed forces committees nearly unanimously adopted the proposed NDAA, filed as House Bill 2670; the House panel 58-1 on June 21-22 and the Senate committee 24-1 on June 23.While both defense spending plans top out at the $886.3 billion requested in March by the Biden administration, there are some differences between the proposed House and Senate defense budgets.
For instance, the proposed Senate NDAA—the Senate Armed Services Committee released the full text of its plan on July 12 for floor debate next week—does not include the nearly two dozen proposed amendments in the House NDAA targeting critical race theory (CRT); diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI); environmental, social, and governance (ESG) financial scoring; transgender and gay enlistment; on-base drag shows; and, among other “woke” policies snared in the GOP Freedom Caucus’s wide net, greenhouse gas regulations.
The House committee adopted 11 amendments that addressed CRT, DEI, and ESG, including a measure that would furnish active-duty parents of children in Department of Defense (DOD) schools a “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” among the 50 it approved; more than 1,000 amendments had been reviewed by the panel.
In addition, the House panel passed seven amendments that seek to redress the “damages” done to those forced to leave the military for refusing vaccinations; further strengthen service members’ right to refuse; and prohibit the DOD from funding “gain-of-function” research into viruses and bacteria.
The NDAAs’ next procedural step before floor presentation is the chamber Rules panel, where language is tidied, and amendments—which can now be filed by all lawmakers, not just committee members—are vetted.
What’s On Tap
The first slate of 290 NDAA amendments to be heard on the House floor are not among those that drew the most contentious debate before the House Rules Committee. They include boosting appropriations for Guam, declassifying some UFO documents, veterans’ care, base infrastructure, and defense allocations for stopping the flow of fentanyl across the U.S.-Mexico border.Adopted but not advanced to the floor with the first bushel of amendments are proposals to repeal the Pentagon’s abortion policy; further eradicate CRT, DEI, ESG, and other “woke” policies; end marijuana testing for recruits; leave NATO; end military/financial assistance for Ukraine; and stop the Biden administration from sending cluster bombs to Ukraine.
“The ‘woke’ programs that have … infiltrated our military have got to go,” Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) told reporters. “We’re going to gut a lot of these programs. We’re banning teaching critical race theory. We are banning the drag queen shows on military bases. We’re also establishing a ‘Parent’s Bill of Rights’ so that parents can review materials taught in DOD schools, and we’re providing a path back for those who left the military because they would not take the mandated COVID vaccine.”
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who sponsored the DOD ‘Parents Bill of Rights’ amendment said the proposed House NDAA “goes after the woke failed far-left policies that fa- left Democrats have wrongfully forced onto the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform.”
“Many of the provisions that I championed and led—whether strengthening our missile defense or passing a bipartisan service-member ‘Parents Bill of Rights’ for DOD schools—are included in this bill,” she said. “I’m proud to always deliver this result for the hardworking families especially to military families in my district.”
Some fear that focus on the divisive hot-button social issues could derail the adoption of the annual defense budget before the fiscal year begins Oct. 1. The NDAA is one of the few appropriations bills that get routinely and often near-unanimously adopted every year.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) told reporters she feared House conservatives were larding the defense budget with too many controversial add-ons to garner all the GOP votes they will need to pass their agenda—which is certain to be dashed by the Democrat-led Senate anyway.
“It’s sort of ironic because you’ve got folks that don’t want ‘Christmas tree bills’ yet are advocating for ‘Christmas tree bills’,” she said, referring to a bill pinioned with attached amendments.
Three Key Amendment Groups
— Abortion
Conservatives got amendments seeking to terminate a post-Roe DOD policy that covers expenses for service members and their dependents for traveling for out-of-state abortions if banned or restricted in their state through the House Rules Committee after not attempting to do so before the House Armed Services CommitteeAmong the abortion-related amendments is a proposal by Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) with 60-plus cosponsors to prohibit the DOD “from paying or reimbursing expenses relating to abortion services.”
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who filed “six buckets of amendments,” authored one proposal that would prohibit service members from refusing to be stationed in a state with laws they disagree with.
“I know it’s a sensitive [issue] and I know people have very different views on abortion,” he said but noted there is growing frequency of reporting about service members saying “that they’re not going to go to a particular site that has military mission because they don’t like that state’s abortion policy.”
These preferences are even influencing the decision to delay U.S. Space Force command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama, Mr. Gaetz said.
“Regardless of how people feel about abortion, and I think reasonable people can disagree on this subject, I don’t think that we should say that specific missions in red states should not be filled with billets and people based on abortion policy,” he said.
“We should divorce those questions, but, unfortunately, they’re being merged now. I just don’t think abortion should be a factor in basing decisions.”
— Cluster Munitions Resolution
A measure co-filed by Reps. James McGovern (D-Mass.) and Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) would halt the Biden administration from transferring cluster bombs to Ukraine.The proposal has a growing cadre of bipartisan supporters, including Mr. Gaetz, who praised the amendment before the Rules Committee and supported Mr. McGovern’s call for a “free-standing piece of legislation on this” to be debated on the House and Senate floors.
“These things [cluster munitions] go down and you’re going to have children with lost limbs and parents that they don’t have anymore because of this decision, and the fact that a country is willing to use it within their own boundaries does not absolve us of the responsibility of sending them there,” he said.
“There are real reasons why these weapons are banned in over 100 countries,” Mr. McGovern agreed. “I want to be as supportive as I can to help Ukrainians repel the Russians, but sadly—and badly—if we go through with this, the U.S. will have joined Russia and Syria as rogue nations that are going to using these banned weapons.”
House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and ranking member, or lead Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) have both told him the amendment is worthy of a floor discussion, Mr. McGovern said.
— Ukraine
There could be, literally, several dozen amendments regarding U.S. support for Ukraine in its war with Russia ultimately passed onto the House floor.Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) herself filed six that she laid out before the Rules Committee in rapid fashion.
“President Biden’s decision to send billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and aid to Ukraine has engaged the United States in a proxy war with Russia that we cannot afford and jeopardizes all peace efforts and set up funding an endless war overseas,” she said. “The United States should seek a peaceful end to the conflict which will save lives.”
She waved a screenshot of the DOD’s mission statement.
“It reads, ‘We are your defense … Our mission is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation’s security,’” she said. “Those are two things, that is the mission for the Department of Defense—deter war and ensure our nation’s security.
“Funding a war in Ukraine,” she continued, “does neither one of those and this is why there should be no funding for a war in Ukraine. That does not meet the mission of the Department of Defense.”
Ms. Greene’s proposed amendments seek to eliminate the $300 million NDAA allocation for Ukraine, prohibit sending Ukraine assistance of any type until “the president certifies to Congress that a diplomatic solution has been achieved to the war,” and repeals funding for a proposed head injury ‘center of excellence’ in Ukraine.
“Although I sympathize greatly with those who have experienced traumatic brain injuries and amputations, we have American veterans who have experienced traumatic brain injuries as well as amputations. We should not be devoting time and resources and putting the people of Ukraine over American citizens and over American veterans. We should be only helping our American citizens first.”
Ms. Greene also filed amendments to prohibit the United States from providing F-16 fighter jets and long-range missiles to Ukraine. “Providing long-range missiles to Ukraine will further implicate the U.S. in a war with Russia. U.S. weapons being fired into Russian territory is an unprecedented disaster that will insert the United States into World War Three and be catastrophic for our country,” she said.
Congress can consider funding for Ukraine in a supplemental bill, Ms. Greene said, but it should not be paying for Ukraine’s defense as if it was “the 51st state” in the nation’s defense budget.
Mr. Gaetz submitted two amendments that would give the $300 million NDAA allocation for Ukraine “the dignity of its own vote” as a separate issue from the nation’s defense budget, which “should not have to carry the Ukraine funding as an anchor.”
Noting even DOD inspector generals cannot ascertain if Ukraine funding under the NDAA and other programs complies with federal laws, he said his other Ukraine-related amendment requires “certification by the Secretary of Defense that we are following our own laws when it comes to end-use monitoring of this equipment. We know we haven’t done it right the whole time. I think we should at least have to certify we’re following the law as we’re sending weapons of war into a killing zone.”
Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-Texas) amendment would establish a Special Inspector General for Ukraine Assistance Office to oversee U.S. assistance for Ukraine with quarterly reports submitted to Congress.
Rep. Warren Davidson’s (R-Ohio) proposed NDAA add-on demands the DOD and Biden administration present Congress with a clear mission statement about what the United States is trying to achieve in Ukraine—and when it will know it has achieved it.
“I have a hard time understanding how anyone’s voted for a dime [for Ukraine]. I voted ‘no’ for all of them. I don’t know how you could allocate any resources without knowing what the mission is,” he said.
Mr. Davidson said the mission will define the resources needed. “The resource for a regime change in Russia, including war crimes, tribunals for Vladimir Putin, is entirely different than the level of resources to make sure that the war doesn’t spread to a NATO member country,” he said.
“And even when you say ‘No Russians in Ukraine,’ that mission is different whether you include Crimea or not Crimea, and we’re just funding it blindly,” he continued. “I don’t understand how we’ve sent them $1, let alone another $300 million or $300 billion.”
