Approval of Annual Defense Bill Is a Victory for House Hardliners

Conservatives won votes on culture war issues, but their version will be dead on arrival in the Senate.

By
68
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy speaks to reporters during a news conference after the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act Friday. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The House of Representatives approved its mammoth annual defense policy bill Friday morning along narrow bipartisan lines, 219-210. Four Republicans voted against the $886 billion bill and four Democrats supported it.

Final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets Pentagon policy for the fiscal year and sets pay for U.S. military personnel, came after a marathon series of tough votes on polarizing amendments Thursday that lasted into Friday morning. Conservatives in the party won key victories Thursday, rescinding Pentagon policies of covering abortion travel and transgender medical procedures for service members, as well as eliminating the Pentagon’s diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and their staff.

Other amendments hardline Republicans fought for, such as rolling back aid to Ukraine, failed along bipartisan lines. (You can read more about the 80 amendments the House considered Thursday here.)

Democratic leadership was so confident most of their members wouldn’t support the bill they didn’t bother whipping against the final vote, according to Politico, and those who did defect were from battleground districts. 

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
68
By
Comments (68)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Golewj@Hotmail.Com

    Sounding like aholes: At a time when the very viability of the all-volunteer military is in question, Republicans have chosen to make the military the focal point of the culture war.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Stephanie

    How is it a "victory?"

    It's strictly a messaging bill intended to base campaign messages on: "my opponent voted against/for [name the culture war issue]" or 'my opponent voted against funding our nation's military" both of which are pretty much BS when you're talking about a bill that will never be enacted.

    Collapse
    1. Jackrabbit McQuivers

      welcome to the modern GOP. Optics matter more than policy outcomes. Think of the energy spent on ideating, drafting, and whipping support for a "messaging" bill... and then think of what problems in America might actually be addressed if that energy was spent differently.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Floyd Katz

    When I see states enacting 6 week abortion bans rather than put the matter on the ballot for citizens to decide, the disingenuousness of the argument “let the states decide,” is glaring. Polling in Iowa (Des Moines Register March 2023) showed 61% disagreed with the 6 week ban and 70% of women disagreed with the ban. Polling in Florida also showed 61% disagreed with a six week abortion ban (UNF March 2023). Yet, here we are. Talk about bait and switch. And now this. Military routinely pays for travel for medical care not available in the state a member is stationed. Military does not fund abortions. But, GOP hardliners are demanding female military pay for medical travel for abortions.

    I have a great deal of respect for the intellectual integrity of most commenters here. Can anyone explain what I see as GOP hypocrisy on this issue?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dusty

      I’m not sure what you’re calling “hypocrisy.” Sounds more just like “disagreement.” Specifically, disagreement over what is and is not “medical care.” Most pro-lifers/Republicans (with a whole range of nuance and exceptions) would disagree with your assertion that abortion is medical care, thus there’s no hypocrisy in them paying for medical travel for some procedures but not for abortion. They just disagree with you over what is and is not medical care.

      As for the political methods, if the Iowa voters don’t like what their representatives and governor are doing then they can vote them out. Kim Reynolds won election in 2018 by three points. In 2018/2019 she signed a heartbeat bill into law. When Roe was repealed in 2022 she fought to have that heartbeat bill that was held up in the courts implemented. She then won re-election that fall by 19 points.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        I heard--can't verify without digging--that all the armed services do is give the women PTO (paid time off) for medical procedures where they need to travel. This is not a burden on taxpayers.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Floyd Katz

        Thank you for your response.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      The GOP only has that policy because over the years they've been very diligently taking control of state legislatures, even though sometimes in the minority, then gerrymandering the state districts to reduce Democrat representation as much as possible.

      A number of red states' legislatures do not represent their residents political/policy preferences proportionately: thinking of TN, NC, OH, FL, although there are probably more.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Floyd Katz

        Thank you for your response.

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    Define "hardliners," please, for a reader outside the bubble.

    Collapse
  5. Jfan

    "Not all conservative amendments made it across the finish line. A bipartisan majority of lawmakers rejected an attempt to strip military aid to Ukraine from the NDAA."

    How is this a conservative amendment? Abandoning our allies to fascist aggression is a progressive project, and this amendment marks its sponsors as progressives.

    Collapse
    1. DavidWG

      Except that they're not. They're Conservatives. They're capital-C hardline Conservatives. History has its twists and turns, and we're seeing one of those unfold before our eyes. Conservatives used to oppose Russian aggression at all costs, but not any more. There were 70 votes to abandon Ukraine, all Conservatives. The Liz Cheney version of the Conservatism has been kicked out with Ms. Cheney herself, and is being replaced by "Trumpism," one tenant of which is fortress-like isolationism.

      Collapse
      1. Jfan

        "Hardline"? They're bullies, and like all bullies they're really wimps. To borrow a phrase, sometimes the angriest guy in the room is just the angriest guy in the room.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        I Am the Eggman

        Except that new thing isn't conservative in any meaningful sense, it's just know-nothing, me-first jackassery. The fact that it has usurped the label "conservative" doesn't make it conservative.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          2sequoia

          Well said.

          Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Johnamurdock

    The tone of this report (e.g. "dead on arrival") is a bit disappointing for The Dispatch. Yes, the Senate is unlikely to keep the abortion amendments but there will likely be a conference committee. The pro-life provision may not be dead yet.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Abridge683

      But I hope those amendments die early and terribly because it's utter garbage. It's just there so the GOP can say "woke" as much as possible.

      Collapse
  7. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  8. Avatar photo
    John A Johnson

    I thought Chip Roy was supposed to be a responsible voice?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      I Am the Eggman

      That's what Sarah seems to think, but I have yet to see any evidence of it. He's a USDA Prime jackass as far as I'm concerned.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        I think Sarah's very bright. However she seems to not be able to be objective about people she knows personally and likes.

        I guess that's true for most people, though.

        Collapse
  9. Kittyecws

    I really don’t think Senators should have the power to block anything, regardless of the issue.. I remember when Jesse Helms used to block perfectly qualified judicial appointments. I’m sure there are other instances as well. It gives one lone Senator way too much power. It is not in the Constitution, like many of the Senate “rules.”

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Jerrymasters7vwp

    “This is going to die in the Senate,” Rep. Nancy Mace, a South Carolina Republican, tells The Dispatch. She added that the vote makes Republicans “look like assholes.”

    I'd have preferred reading "a**holes."

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      BillAZ

      I actually think that may be the technical term for them.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Abridge683

      Why? Didn't you fill in the "**" instantly? Was some child protected? (I doubt it.) If it's what was said it should be reported.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      The Stray Goose

      Totally opposed. We’re adults. This isn’t a news site for children. If you’re quoting someone who uses foul language or slurs, spell it out. I’m tired of the silly self censorship.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      I Am the Eggman

      I prefer not pretending that people didn't say what they said. Quote them accurately and in every detail. Complain to Nancy Mace if you don't approve of her language.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jerrymasters7vwp

        Dear I am the Eggman,
        Thank you for you reply.

        Your preference reminds me of Whittaker Chambers' wise cautionary that "clarity is more maturing that illusion."

        I may be a bit over-delicate these days after a grandson and granddaughter returned home after their first years at college, during which studying they apparently learned (among other things, I hope) that it would now be OK to use coarse, vulgar language in public discourse.

        Observing the maturation of grandchildren has never been comfortable for me. I prefer to recall the illusion of their innocence.

        Your preference for accuracy in journalism is well founded.

        Collapse
        1. Rune485

          I tend to agree with you, despite the fact that I swear as well.

          I swear on my personal time. It’s poor conduct and unprofessional in this setting, as the House clowns always are.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Jerrymasters7vwp

            Dear Rune485,
            Thank you for your comment.

            Speaking of personal, as I age, "poor conduct and unprofessional" become increasingly the lens through which I observe our societal devolution, and fear that what would have previously signaled unfitness for public office---say, for example, freely admitting sexual assault as a major party's presidential candidate---is what our grandchildren see now as not immediately disqualifying.

            Ditto for journalists not bothering to indicate vulgarity need not appear remarkable (the asterisks). When timing is convenient, I recommend The Dispatch to young people based on substance and style. The casual "asshole" makes me anxious about TD's style manual.

            Collapse
Load More