The Senate on Thursday voted 86-11 to pass its $886 billion fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with negotiations now looming with the House to settle on a compromise final version of the legislation.
The upper chamber spent the last week considering many non-controversial amendments to the defense policy legislation, which stood in contrast to the House’s contentious debate over GOP-offered amendments that led nearly all Democrats to oppose the legislation.
“[The NDAA] authorizes record-level investments in the people, platforms, and programs that our forces need to safeguard the nation and advance U.S. interests worldwide. The bill also accelerates the development of cutting-edge technologies like hypersonics and artificial intelligence to provide our forces with key advantages on the battlefield,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), said in a statement following the bill’s passage. “Our bipartisan approach netted a major win for America’s military men and women and their families. I appreciate Majority Leader [Chuck] Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader [Mitch] McConnell (R-Ky.) for working to facilitate a thorough debate that allowed all senators to engage and contribute to this bill.”
SASC first advanced the bill out of committee on June 23, which included adopting an amendment during markup that “urges the president to send emergency supplemental funding requests to address those concerns, to include continued support for Ukraine, additional munitions production, and additional naval vessels and combat vehicles” (Defense Daily, June 23).
The 11 senators that voted against the bill on Thursday include Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
“Tonight, the Senate voted to pad the Pentagon with a cushy, near trillion-dollar spending package to the tune of $886 billion—a ridiculous dollar figure that the military does not need. The American people have repeatedly heard from Republicans that we need to cut government spending – for education, for health care, for food assistance – and now they are enthusiastically throwing every nickel and dime they can find between the couch cushions to their defense contractor friends. It’s shameful,” Markey said in a statement.
The House and Senate are likely to move into conference negotiations to settle differences between the two bills when lawmakers return after the August recess.
“Although I would have preferred a topline defense spending number that better reflects the most dangerous threat environment that the United States has faced since World War II, I appreciate the hard work that the Senate has put into this year’s NDAA,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the SASC ranking member, said in a statement. “I am hopeful that working alongside the House, we will send a bill to the president’s desk that puts our national defense on a path toward improving our deterrent capabilities. I am especially grateful for the partnership of Chairman Reed on my first NDAA as ranking member.”
The House narrowly passed its own $886 billion version of the NDAA on June 14 with a 219-210 vote, which followed days of debate over Republican proposals that included adopting measures along party lines to reverse Pentagon policies on abortion and block diversity programs (Defense Daily, July 14).
Democrat leaders on the House Armed Services Committee, including Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ahead of the House’s NDAA vote announced they would oppose the typically bipartisan legislation that they said was now “an ode to bigotry and ignorance.”
“What is happening in the Senate is a stark contrast from the partisan race to the bottom we saw in the House, where House Republicans are pushing partisan legislation that has zero chance of passing,” Schumer said during floor remarks on Thursday.
The Senate began considering the NDAA last week, which included adopting several initial amendments such as a “Buy America” proposal from Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) requiring that by 2033 certain components on new ships the Navy purchases be built entirely with domestically-produced materials (Defense Daily, July 21).
On Tuesday, the Senate voted 91-6 in favor of amendment from Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bob Casey (D-Penn.) to increase transparency into investments by American entities in sensitive technologies from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea and on Thursday the upper chamber near unanimously approved a measure from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that he said will take “steps necessary to expand U.S. nuclear fuel production” to reduce reliance on Russian uranium.
“Finally the United States is going to start taking care of its own and producing the enriched uranium that we need rather than depending on Russia. It is long past due and we finally, with this amendment, will get started in the right direction,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) said of Barrosso’s amendment.
The Senate on Thursday voted down a proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would cut the NDAA topline 10 percent, while exempting reductions to accounts related to military personnel, the Defense Health Program and assistance to Ukraine.
“Year after year, with very little debate, we pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the military-industrial complex,” Sanders said of his amendment, which garnered 11 votes in favor. “While defense contractors make huge profits, while the Pentagon remains unaudited with massive waste and fraud, we now spend more than the next 10 nations combined. Enough is enough, it’s time to change our national priorities and cutting military spending by 10 percent is a good way to begin.”
The White House on Thursday issued its statement of administration policy on the Senate’s NDAA, offering support for the legislation but detailing several areas of opposition that the administration also objected to with the House’s bill (Defense Daily, July 10).
The Biden administration reiterated its opposition to continued funding for the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile program (SLCM-N) program, which it said “has marginal utility and would impede investment in other priorities,” as well as pushing against plans to limit funds for retiring B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs.
The White House also said it “strongly opposes” the bill’s provision to reestablish the Pentagon’s chief management officer (CMO) position.
“That elimination followed an independent outside review of the CMO, directed by the Congress, which concluded that the CMO had been ineffective in implementing its statutory duties and encouraged its disestablishment,” the White House wrote.