The House overwhelmingly approved the fiscal 2017 defense policy bill on Friday, sending it to the Senate for consideration next week.
The National Defense Authorization Act passed by a 375-34 vote. In the hour of debate preceding the vote, most lawmakers on both sides of the aisle spoke in favor of the bill, which funds the Defense Department at a topline of $618.7 billion, about $3.2 billion more than the president requested for fiscal 2017.
“This is an excellent product,” said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.
The White House has issued a veto threat on both the House and Senate-passed versions of the bill, but has not yet said if it will sign the compromise bill released by the conference committee this week. One issue for the administration may be the fact that the bill boosts defense spending by $3.2 billion without a comparable increase in non-defense spending, something that has previously been an issue for Democrats.
The bill contains several reforms to the military’s organizational structure, including a shake-up in the Pentagon’s acquisition office and a cap on the size of the president’s National Security Council. Rep. Christopher Gibson, R-N.Y., said it “may be the most significant piece of legislation to come out of armed services since Goldwater-Nichols” 30 years ago.
Some lawmakers did have issues with sections of the bill. Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., said that a piece of the bill meant to handle the issue of California National Guardsmen being erroneously paid bonuses, which they were then asked to pay back, would need to be “clarified further” to ensure fair treatment for the guardsmen.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., urged fellow members not to support the bill, because it amounts to giving the Pentagon a “blank check” without any debate in Congress on a new Islamic State specific war authorization. Lee’s proposals to force debate on a new authorization for the use of military force failed to make it into the House bill when it was debated on the floor earlier this year.
Missing from the bill is the Russell Amendment, a plan offered by Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., that Republicans say would protect the religious liberty of those who do business with the federal government that was previously infringed on by the president’s executive orders. Democrats, however, say it amounts to taxpayer-funded discrimination based on race, religion and sexuality.
Smith said reversing the progress made by Obama’s executive orders “would be an abomination.”
But just because it is not in the bill does not mean the issue is dead. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said he is confident that President-elect Trump will review the issue early next year and claw back the executive orders to protect business’ religious liberty and First Amendment rights.
