The U. S. Senate approved Thursday the $886 billion defense policy bill after a series of discussions on contentious amendments that touch on social issues. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed the chamber with a broad bipartisan support by 86 to 11 votes and it now awaits finalization of a conference with the House.
The bill provides for appropriation of funds for the military operations, weapons systems, and personnel for the FY 2024. It includes a 5. 2% pay raise for the service members, which is the highest since 1997 and proposed modernization of the weapon systems including artificial intelligence and hypersonic weapons.
But a large part of the discussion was focused on the actions of the Republicans who sought to reverse the decisions made by the Pentagon on the issue of abortion, the rights of the transgender, and diversity. Some contentious amendments were later removed from the bill to pave way for its passing but the debates revealed the existing partisan divisions on the role of the military in the larger cultural discourse.
Perhaps the most debated measure would have prohibited the Department of Defense from covering travel costs for military personnel who want to get an abortion in states where the procedure remains legal. This policy was adopted by the Defense Department after the Supreme Court had annulled the Roe v. Wade decision last year. Republicans said that it meant government subsidizing of abortions while Democrats stated that it was required to provide equal health care to military personnel.
Another contentious issue was on the politically charged issue of gender affirmative surgery for transgender military personnel and dependents. Republicans attempted to bar the funding of such treatments through the Department of Defense claiming that they are experimental and politically motivated. The democrats and the LGBTQ+ groups argued that the care is medical and that to deny it is to discriminate.
The Senate also voted down changes that would limit diversity and inclusion initiatives in the military, which conservatives have accused of promoting ‘wokeism’ at the expense of preparing for war. Democratic leaders said such programs are necessary to create a professional, high-quality military capable of representing a diverse America.
However, many of these issues became the topics of heated discussions while the essence of the bill is more of the traditional agenda for the defense. It comprises the funding for new ships, aircrafts, and missile defense systems besides measures to counter China and Russia threats. It also seeks to solve problems of recruitment within the military through increasing the benefits and incentives of members of the service.
The Senate’s approval of the NDAA opens the way for perhaps contentious conference talks with the Republican House of Representatives, which approved its own version of the bill earlier this month. The House bill contains some of the contentious provisions on social issues that were removed from the Senate version creating a conflict between the two.
Scholars in defense policies agree that the final bill will closely resemble the Senate version since it has to be passed by both houses with support from both sides of the political divide to reach Biden’s desk. However, it is possible to suggest that the further discussions of these and other related topics will remain rather active, as they echo the overall cultural and political conflicts in the given state.
The NDAA has been reauthorized by the Congress for 62 years in a row, which makes it one of the few stable sources of bipartisan cooperation in the polarized Washington. It has been passed year in year out, this is a testament to the fact that there is a political consensus on the need to have a strong defense for the nation despite the differences that may exist on the specific policy and or policy direction.
As the House and Senate continue to hammer out the differences in their respective versions of the bill, military officials are pressing lawmakers to reach a speedy resolution so that the uncertainty created by the lack of a clear direction can be eliminated. As global threats increase and the U. S experiencing multifaceted security threats, they say that passing a timely and bipartisan defense authorization is more important than ever.
