The House on May 15 passed a $612 billion defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2016 in a 269-151 vote largely divided along party lines. Forty one Democrats voted in favor of the bill, and 143 voted against.

Issues related to illegal immigrants, the crisis in Ukraine, the Islamic State, endangered species and the Guantanamo Bay detention center took center stage over the three days of debate, with weapon system procurement and acquisition pushed to the sidelines. Only one amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act resulted in a boost to a program of record — one offered by Rep. Marc Veasey (R-Texas) to add $75 million for V-22 Ospreys digital upgrades, offset by a reduction to Navy spare and repair parts. The measure was approved. CAPITOL

Democrats initially supported the NDAA, with only one Democrat in the House Armed Services Committee voting against it during subcommittee markups. That changed after President Barack Obama threatened to veto the House bill — which moved $38 billion from the base budget to the Overseas Contingency Operations account in order to sidestep mandatory budget caps — and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter urged a Senate panel to develop an alternate plan.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), HASC’s ranking member, fiercely opposed the NDAA during debates on the floor, characterizing it as a way for Republicans to get around the spending limits on defense but keep them imposed in areas such as public infrastructure, housing and schools.  

“If we accept this, then these cuts are locked into place,” he said on Wednesday.

Smith supports the NDAA spending levels, which reflect the numbers in the president’s budget request. However, if Obama vetoes the bill later this year, the Defense Department could end up running on another continuing resolution or at sequestration levels, he said.

“What we are working on here isn’t going to happen. And that isn’t political, that is substantive,” he warned.

HASC Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) accused Democrats of trying to use the defense authorization bill, which has historically been met with bipartisan support, as a vehicle to make other changes to the budget.  

“If there’s a better way to deal with our budget issues and the appropriation bills, there’s lots of time this year to do that,” he said today.

The House Rules Committee on Wednesday designated 135 of 349 offered amendments “in order,” including one by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) that would have lowered the congressionally mandated number of aircraft carriers from 11 to 10. The House defeated that measure in a whopping  60–363 vote.

Polis argued that the 11 carrier requirement is arbitrary and limits the Navy’s flexibility to make sensible spending choices. Aircraft carriers are expensive, and those ships might not always be the right tool for the job, especially as anti-ship capabilities becomes more prevalent, he said.

The Navy needs at least 11 carriers to meet its requirements, and if anything the service needs more, not fewer, said Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), the ranking member of HASC’s seapower and projection forces subcommittee.

“Cutting our fleet from 10 to 11 will cripple our nation’s ability to respond to these challenges and will reverse last year’s decision by Congress to refuel the [USS] George Washington ahead of schedule,” he said.

The House approved language to further delay implementation of the Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative until the National Commission on the Future of the Army reports its findings to Congress. The move bars Army leaders from altering Army National Guard end strength until June 30, 2016. It also prohibits the transfer of more than 48 AH-64 Apache helicopters from the Guard to the active component until that date. The commission’s report is due in February.

The House rejected another amendment offered by Polis and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) that would prevent the Navy from using the Sea-Based Deterrent Fund to pay for the Ohio-class submarine replacement. That fund was established to relieve pressure on the service’s other shipbuilding accounts, which are already strained from procuring new littoral combat ships (LCS), destroyers and carriers. The amendment was defeated in a 43–375 vote.

“This fund will only lead to increased costs … and decreased transparency,” Blumenauer said. Shipbuilders will face increased uncertainty because no one has said where the money comes from.

The House also voted to limit all funding to implement the New START treaty until Russia is no longer occupying Ukraine, including Crimea.

Several amendments that would have impacted major weapons systems never made it to the House floor. The Rules Committee threw out one that would allow the Air Force to retire a portion of its A-10 fleet and another that would defer procurement dollars for the littoral combat ship program until the Navy Secretary certified that the modified vessel — which will be designated as frigates — meet the recommendations of the Small Surface Combatant Task Force.