The House Armed Services Committee voted near unanimously just after midnight on Thursday to advance its $886 billion version of the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.
The final vote followed more than 12 hours of debate on issues ranging from raising the level of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) funds to pressing the Air Force on the Space Command headquarters decision as well as approving a provision to establish a program of record for the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile program (SLCM-N).
“Providing for our nation’s defense is the top priority for the House Armed Services Committee and I am incredibly proud of the bipartisan work we’ve accomplished in the FY ‘24 NDAA. This year’s NDAA includes provisions that counter China’s aggression, boost oversight of the Department of Defense, and support our servicemembers and their families. Additionally, this year’s bill saves taxpayers billions of dollars while still making critical investments in innovative technologies and our defense industrial base,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the HASC chair, said in a statement following the committee’s approval.
Debate during the marathon markup session mostly centered on GOP-led amendments focused on actions related to service members discharged for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine and reversing Pentagon initiatives related to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and Critical Race Theory, with most measures being approved along party lines.
Ultimately, the committee voted 58-1 in favor of advancing the annual defense policy bill for full consideration in the House, with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) casting the sole ‘No’ vote.
“The House Armed Services Committee just voted 58-1 to approve an $886 billion Pentagon budget that offers no solution to rampant price gouging from contractors. We owe it to the American people to be more responsible with their tax dollars. That’s why I stood alone in voting no,” Khanna said in a social media post following the markup.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the HASC ranking member, noted the bipartisan support that went into crafting the FY ‘24 NDAA, while previewing the precarious outlook ahead for the appropriations process required to support the provisions included in the defense policy bill (Defense Daily, June 21).
Among the larger provisions adopted during HASC’s markup was a proposal from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, to create a Navy program of record for the SLCM-N program, which has not received the backing of the Biden administration.
“The nuclear threat environment is changing rapidly. China’s arsenal is expanding dramatically and Russia’s arsenal also continues to grow. We must adjust our nuclear posture and the best military advice we’ve received is to pursue the SLCM-N program,” Lamborn said of his amendment.
The provision would move the program from research and development and toward procurement, after the White House once again didn’t include funding for the program in its FY ‘24 budget request.
Sen. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee, offered an unsuccessful counter amendment that would allow the defense secretary to waive moving forward on the program if senior Navy leaders concluded putting SLCM-N would negatively impact attack submarines’ missions, and cited the potential $31 billion cost for the program.
“The Navy can do a lot of other things with $31 billion. You can build 15 DDG destroyers with $31 billion, 10 Virginia-class submarines with $31 billion. And before we go down this path, we have to make sure that, again, this is affordable and that it also, from a strategic and operational matter, will actually work,” Courtney said. “Putting nuclear warheads on attack submarines means that ports around the world that they presently can move in and out of, whether it’s Japan, the Philippines or even Australia, that today ban U.S. vessels carrying nuclear warheads. Now, suddenly, attack submarines whose mission is based on versatility and the ability to move anywhere in the globe…you put nuclear warheads on these vessels [and] you are changing the mission.”
HASC also voted along party lines against adopting an amendment from Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) that would have increased the authorized USAI funding, which is used to procure weapons for Ukraine security assistance packages, from $300 million to $800 million.
Golden said he offered the proposal to increase USAI, which would have pulled the funds from operations and maintenance accounts, to seek additional funding without relying on a potential supplemental funding measure in the future.
“I’m concerned about the prospects for that since two weeks ago Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy (R-Calif.) stated publicly that a supplemental spending package for Ukraine is ‘not going anywhere.’”
Rogers, and several other Republicans, voiced their opposition to cutting O&M accounts in order to secure the $500 million for USAI.
“I’m a supporter of the U.S. aid to Ukraine but I won’t do so at the expense of our U.S. readiness. The Golden amendment robs just about every O&M account in existence to pay for this $500 million amendment. Gutting operations and maintenance accounts will dramatically impact our ability to deploy quickly. Ironically, gutting these accounts will actually make it harder for the U.S. aid to Ukraine and support for European allies,” Rogers said.
Rogers also pushed back on a proposal from Lamborn to remove a provision in the NDAA that blocks funding for additional construction at Space Command’s temporary headquarters in Colorado and limit travel funds for the Air Force secretary until a final decision is made on the location for the command’s permanent headquarters.
“All the language in the chairman’s mark says is make a decision and if you don’t make a decision we’re going to stop you from spending any more money on temporary headquarters, and by the way we’re taking half of your travel budget. It does not say what decision to make,” Rogers said, calling Lamborn’s proposal a “pointless, ridiculous amendment…All I want them to do is make a decision. I’m not telling them how. Make a decision. And this guy, [Lamborn], is wanting to delay it.”
Lamborn, whose district hosts the temporary Space Command headquarters, ultimately withdrew his amendment.