The White House on Tuesday said it “strongly supports” the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the next defense policy bill, while noting its opposition to the legislation’s support for adding a second Virginia-class attack submarine and the inclusion of several GOP policy provisions.
As the House is expected to begin considering the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Wednesday, the Biden administration has outlined its concerns but did not include a threat to veto the bill over its remaining objections.
“In a time of rapidly evolving military capabilities and activities by our competitors – accelerated by emerging technologies and intensified by current and potential threats to strategic stability – America’s network of allies and partners continues to act as a force multiplier in support of U.S. national defense. Investments authorized in the NDAA in support of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and the European Deterrence Initiative will help address the changing global landscape and prepare the country for future challenges and threats, alongside emerging challenges in the Middle East and on the African continent,” the Biden administration wrote in its statement of support for the HASC NDAA.
HASC last month voted 57-1 to advance its $883.7 billion version of the NDAA, which authorizes nearly $895 billion for national defense when factoring in items outside the panel’s jurisdiction and adheres to the one percent spending cap from last year’s debt limit deal (Defense Daily, May 23).
At the top of its list of objections to HASC’s version of the NDAA, the White House notes it “strongly opposes” the panel’s move to support an additional $1 billion for procurement of a second Virginia-class submarine.
The Biden administration states the authorization for a second Virginia-class submarine, after the Navy had included funding for one platform in its FY ‘25 budget request, would result in a “significant unplanned bill” for the service in FY ‘26 and “would compete with funding for additional submarine industrial base investments and Columbia-class submarines.”
“This will force the Navy to make reductions in other priorities to accommodate the balance of funds for the second FY 2025 [Virginia-class submarine],” the White House said on Tuesday.
House appropriators’ $833.1 billion FY ‘25 defense spending bill, set to be marked up by the full Appropriations Committee on Thursday, aligns with the Navy’s request and does not fund procurement for a second Virginia-class submarine (Defense Daily, June 4).
The White House also cited its objection to GOP-proposed policy measures in the bill prohibiting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts at the Pentagon and blocking the use of funds for climate change-related initiatives at the department.
“The administration strongly opposes [the sections] which would limit the ability of DoD and federal agencies to support and promote positive cultures that empower, respect and value all employees and students. The prohibitions regarding DEI efforts would impede DoD’s and Federal agencies’ ability to recruit and retain the diverse perspectives, experiences, and skillsets that are foundational to the strength of the federal workforce,” the White House writes. “These provisions would prevent DoD from taking reasonable and manageable steps to address climate-related risks to its supply chains, counter to the interests of U.S. taxpayers.”
The House Rules Committee met on Wednesday to begin considering which of the more than 1,300 amendments submitted to the FY ‘25 NDAA would be offered during floor debate, with HASC Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) echoing the Biden administration and cautioning against the inclusion of GOP policy riders that could weaken bipartisan support for the bill.
“We had robust debate at the committee level on some amendments that Democrats wanted to offer, some amendments that Republicans wanted to offer and how do we get to a bill that can, in fact, be bipartisan. And we got there. I would hope the Rules Committee would do the same,” Smith said during the Rules Committee hearing. “And specifically the challenges are any effort to go after reproductive healthcare, any effort to go after the rights of the LGBTQ community, are going to be problems, as is any effort to block the efforts of DoD to have a truly inclusive military.”
“I am confident that by the time we get to the end of the process, as we always do, we will have, once again, a bipartisan product. Let’s just get there earlier this time [and] save ourselves the aggravation. It’s where we’re going to wind up anyway so why don’t we just go ahead and do it,” Smith added, referencing how many of the GOP policy riders adopted during the House’s floor debate for the FY ‘24 NDAA were ultimately removed from the final, conferenced version of the bill.
The Biden administration also “strongly opposes” the provision in the HASC NDAA mandating the establishment of a third homeland missile defense site to be built on the East Coast by 2030.
“There is no operational need for such a site to protect the homeland against potential ballistic missiles originating from Iran or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). DoD has prioritized improving the probability of successfully intercepting missile threats by completing development of the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI), which will begin fielding in 20 available silos in Alaska in 2028. The NGI will protect all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico against existing threats from the DPRK and potential future threats,” the White House said.
During HASC’s markup of the NDAA, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) proposed an amendment to strike language from the bill that would require DoD to construct the Midcourse Defense site to host Next Generation Interceptors at Fort Drum in New York, arguing that DoD had shared information in a recent classified briefing about “why the East Coast may no longer be the best location.”
Moulton’s amendment was defeated by a 28 to 30 vote along party lines.
Echoing recent comments from senior Army leaders, the Biden administration also objects to a provision directing the establishment of a separate Drone Corps within the service.
“A Drone Corps would create an unwarranted degree of specialization and limit flexibility to employ evolving capabilities. Further, the Secretary of the Army already has the authority to create branches, as needed, and creating a branch through legislation would detract from the Army’s flexibility in addressing current and future requirements.”
Gen. Randy George, Army chief of staff, has told lawmakers he doesn’t believe a Drone Corps “would be helpful,” while Army Under Secretary Gabe Camarillo has said it might be counterproductive to moving out on new UAS and counter-drone initiatives.