House passes $611 billion policy defense bill by wide margin
The Republican-led House on Friday overwhelmingly backed a $611 billion defense policy bill that rejects a number of President Barack Obama’s key proposals for managing the nation’s vast military enterprise. Lawmakers passed the legislative package, 375-34. The bill now goes to the Senate where a vote is expected early next week. The bill, crafted after weeks of talks between House and Senate negotiators, prohibits Obama from following through on his longstanding campaign pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill also bars the Pentagon from reducing the number of military bases even though senior U.S. defense officials said there is excess capacity, and it awards U.S. troops their largest pay raise in six years. Obama had recommended a smaller pay increase. The bill would prevent the Pentagon from forcing thousands of California National Guard troops to repay enlistment bonuses and benefits they received a decade after they signed up to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers would have to return a bonus only if a “preponderance of the evidence” shows they knew they weren’t eligible to receive the money. Even at $611 billion, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee lamented that more money is needed in the defense budget to restock the U.S. arsenal worn down by 15 years of conflict. Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas said he is hopeful President-elect Donald Trump, who pledged during the campaign to spend more on the military, will ask Congress early next year to boost fiscal year 2017 military spending even further. During his 2008 bid for president, Obama pledged to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, which he called a recruiting tool for extremist groups. But Republicans and a number of Democrats repeatedly thwarted his goal over the ensuing years, arguing the prison was badly needed for housing suspected terrorists. The ban on closing the prison also includes a prohibition on moving Guantanamo detainees to secure facilities in the U.S. Trump has not only pledged to keep Guantanamo open, he said during the campaign that he wants to “load it up with some bad dudes.” The defense legislation also authorizes a 2.1 percent pay raise for the troops – a half-percentage point higher than the Pentagon requested in its budget presentation. The Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said it’s the largest military pay increase since 2010. The White House Office of Management and Budget objected to the larger raise, telling lawmakers earlier this year that the lower amount would save $336 million this fiscal year and $2.2 billion through 2021. A bigger increase, the budget office said, would upset the careful balance between competitive pay and acquiring cutting-edge equipment and training. The bill blocks the Pentagon’s planned reductions in the number of active-duty troops by prohibiting the Army from falling below 476,000 active-duty soldiers – 16,000 more than Obama’s defense budget had proposed. The bill also adds 7,000 service members to the Air Force and Marine Corps. House and Senate negotiators dropped a House plan to shift $18 billion from the emergency wartime spending account to pay for additional weapons and combat gear the Pentagon didn’t include in its budget request. They elected instead to boost the wartime account, which isn’t constrained by mandatory budget limits, by $3.2 billion to help halt a decline in the military’s ability to respond to global threats. The decision may have been motivated by Trump’s assurances that he would increase defense spending dramatically, allowing the armed forces to add tens of thousands more troops and acquire new weapons. The defense bill contains $5.8 billion in additional war-related funding Obama requested last month primarily for operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. That includes $2.5 billion to maintain elevated U.S. troop levels of 8,400 in Afghanistan as announced over the summer. About $383 million would pay for air strikes against Islamic State militants. Lawmakers avoided wading more deeply into social policy issues by stripping two contentious provisions from the bill. One, opposed by Democrats, would have allowed federal contractors to discriminate against workers on the basis of sexual or gender orientation. Another, opposed by Republicans, would have required for the first time in U.S. history that young women sign up for a potential military draft. The Obama administration on Thursday declared its support for requiring women to register for the military draft, a symbolic but significant shift that reflects the U.S. military’s evolution from a male-dominated force to one seeking to incorporate women at all levels. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Gay rights looms as hurdle to passing defense policy bill
Congressional Republicans and Democrats will have to bridge a vast cultural divide over an issue that has nothing to do with bullets and bombs to complete a must-pass defense policy bill. A key sticking point in the negotiations during the upcoming lame-duck session is a House-passed provision that Senate Democrats say would undercut protections against workplace discrimination based on sexual or gender orientation. They’ve called the measure dangerous and are demanding it be removed from the $602 billion measure. Many House Republicans, however, view the provision as a bulwark for religious liberty and just as adamantly want it kept in the final package. Donald Trump‘s victory in the presidential election has strengthened their hand should the contentious debate begin anew next year. “It’s going to be a tough one for them to figure out,” said Justin Johnson, a senior defense policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Drop the amendment and risk a backlash from rank-and-file Republicans, he said. Keep it in and Democrats could mobilize to block the defense bill, which authorizes spending for military programs that range from jet fighters to a pay raise for the troops. A filibuster carries risks for Democrats. They could be hammered by the GOP for stymieing legislation important to U.S. service members and their families. And even if the provision is dropped to avoid a veto by President Barack Obama, Republicans – who control both houses of Congress – could wait until Trump is in the White House and attach the provision to a different bill. “I think the election gives congressional Republicans a lot more leverage on this issue,” Johnson said. “They don’t have to be too worried about a veto threat because the situation only improves next year.” Although much of Trump’s agenda on social issues remains opaque, he assured conservatives during the campaign that he would place a high priority on religious liberty. The tenure of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, the vice president-elect, was punctuated by his steadfast support for conservative social issues that at times drew unwanted attention to the state, most notably when a religious objections law he signed provoked a national backlash from critics who said it could sanction discrimination against gay people. David Stacy, government affairs director at the Human Rights Campaign, acknowledged that the long-term prospects for barring the amendment from passing are challenging. But he said he’s bullish about the short term. Congress has little incentive to drag out a lame-duck session and that means passing a defense bill unburdened by a provision that has no bearing on the Pentagon’s core missions, according to Stacy. “The blame could fall either way,” said Stacy, suggesting Republicans could be seen as obstructionists for insisting the amendment be preserved at the expense of speedy passage of the defense bill. The provision is brief and requires any U.S. government office to provide protections and exemptions “to any religious corporation, religious association, religious educational institution, or religious society that is a recipient of or offeror” for a federal contract. Forty Senate Democrats plus two independents wrote in a letter last month that the provision would amount to government-sponsored discrimination by permitting religiously affiliated federal contractors to refuse to interview a job candidate whose faith differs from theirs and to fire employees who marry their same-sex partners or use birth control. The provision would “vastly expand religious exemptions” under the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to allow contractors “to harm hardworking Americans who deserve to be protected from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, religious identity, or reproductive and other health care decisions,” they said in the letter. Republicans argued the measure merely builds on existing law by ensuring that faith-based organizations that perform work for the U.S. government aren’t forced to act against their beliefs. The measure is known as the Russell amendment, named after its sponsor, Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla. Paradoxically, opponents of the Russell amendment may find support from Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who plays a central role in determining the contents of the defense policy bill. The Arizona legislature passed a religious freedom bill in 2014 designed to give more legal protections to people who might be accused of discrimination for actions they took in accordance with religious beliefs. A frequently cited example is a business that denies service to gay or lesbian customers. With the state facing a national backlash from business leaders, including the National Football League, McCain urged then-Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the legislation. She did. “We’re hoping he sees this the same way,” said Maggie Garrett, legislative director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
