{"id":46457,"date":"2017-09-19T02:10:33","date_gmt":"2017-09-19T02:10:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2017\/09\/19\/heres-what-fights-are-left-for-the-annual-defense-authorization-bill\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T10:48:24","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T10:48:24","slug":"heres-what-fights-are-left-for-the-annual-defense-authorization-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/congress\/2017\/09\/19\/heres-what-fights-are-left-for-the-annual-defense-authorization-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"Here’s what fights are left for the annual defense authorization bill"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 Now that the Senate has passed its draft of the annual defense authorization bill, Capitol Hill staffers can begin the complicated process of trying to reconcile it with the House\u2019s version in hopes of reaching compromise on a host of military policy issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But some of the most controversial topics are already off the table, due to Senate leadership\u2019s decision to sideline a collection of controversial amendments. If a policy issue isn\u2019t included in either chamber\u2019s authorization legislation, lawmakers generally cannot include it in intramural conference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the conference, the House and Senate will have to hammer out their differences before a final version of the bill can be sent to the White House for a signature from the president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The conference committee will have to work quickly if they hope to pass a final version of the legislation before the end of the calendar year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Typically, the reconciliation work on the two competing bills begins in late summer, but the Senate vote was delayed by more than a month because of the ongoing health care fight and the cancer diagnosis of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s a look at what items were left out of that upcoming conference committee work and what fights still lie ahead:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: C. Todd Lopez\rThis year, Soldiers and most civilians will see an increase in the amount of their pay withheld for Social Security. The withholding has increased from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent. But for Soldiers, the change in Social Security withholding may not have a noticeable effect on their take-home pay.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

** UNDER DISCUSSION \u2014 A pay raise for troops<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Troops will get a pay raise next year thanks to the final defense authorization bill. The only question that remains for lawmakers is how much.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Senate has backed a 2.1 percent pay boost for troops starting in January, while the House has approved a 2.4 percent one. The Senate\u2019s version syncs with the White House\u2019s planned raise for next year, while the House plan equals the expected rise in private sector wages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The differences between the plans is about $85 less a year for junior enlisted personnel, $130 for senior enlisted and junior officers, and $240 for mid-career officers. But it\u2019s also about $200 million in federal spending, money Pentagon officials have said would be better spent on other training and readiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite agreeing with the president\u2019s plan this year, the Senate authorization bill calls for tighter restrictions on White House plans to limit military pay boosts in the future. House members have not yet weighed in on that proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
ARLINGTON, VA – AUGUST 24: Jim Pickup of Washinton, DC. talks on his cell phone during a break at the BRAC Commission hearings August 24, 2005 in Arliington Virginia. The 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission is an independent entity that submits its findings and recommendations to the President of the United States on or before September 8, 2005. (Photo by Mark Wilson\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

** OFF THE TABLE \u2014 Base closings<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCain and others had hoped to include a new base closings proposal in the Senate\u2019s draft of the military budget bill, but fights over other amendments blocked his ability to offer the proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The result is another authorization bill without any provisions for a Base Realignment and Closure commission, despite repeated pleas from Pentagon officials to cut the military\u2019s footprint across the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Defense Department\u2019s own studies have hinted that the armed forces may have up to 20 percent more capacity than the force needs now, but Defense Secretary James Mattis has publicly questioned the validity of that work in recent months. Nevertheless, the White House insists a base closing round could save billions annually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the idea remains unpopular with many in Congress, especially after the 2005 round produced fewer savings than military experts predicted. Expect the issue to come up again in next year\u2019s budget debates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

** UNDER DISCUSSION \u2014 More troops<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast to former President Barack Obama\u2019s plans for a smaller military force, Republican leaders in the House, Senate and executive branch are intent on boosting military end strength in coming years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last year, lawmakers approved an increase of 16,000 soldiers over Obama\u2019s objections. In upcoming negotiations, they\u2019ll have to decide how much further they want to go.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

President Donald Trump has called for a boost of about 4,000 sailors for the Navy and another 4,100 airmen for the Air Force. The Senate\u2019s plan calls for those increases plus 5,000 more active-duty soldiers, 1,000 more Marines, and 1,000 more Army reservists and Guardsmen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But a plan outlined in the House draft of the authorization is even more ambitious. It calls for Trump\u2019s additions plus another 1,700 members to the Air Force Reserves and Air National Guard, 1,000 to the Naval Reserve, 10,000 active-duty soldiers, 4,000 Army guardsmen and 3,000 Army Reservists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conference committee members will have to balance those increases with costs. The House plan is expected to add as much as $1.1 billion in additional spending annually, further boosting the country\u2019s defense spending total.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
People hold up rainbow flags as they demonstrate during the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Rainbow Pride Parade in Bratislava, Slovakia, on June 28, 2014. (Samuel Kubani\/AFP\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

** OFF THE TABLE \u2014 Transgender troops<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like the base closing issue, several senators had hoped to broach the issue of new limits on transgender individuals serving in the ranks during debate on the chamber floor last week, but those plans were shelved by Senate leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Back in June, House members tried to do the opposite, unsuccessfully attempting to add language to their authorization bill that would prohibit the military from paying for transgender medical services. The issue became moot when Trump issued an executive order blocking those services later in the summer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The end result is neither draft of the budget legislation includes transgender policy language. A bipartisan group of senators has offered stand-alone legislation to force Trump to allow those individuals to serve, but it won\u2019t be included in conference negotiations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, McCain has promised close oversight on the issue in months to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
F-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightening IIs fly in formation over the Eglin Training Range after completing an integration training mission. (Master Sgt. Shane A. Cuomo\/Air Force)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

** UNDER DISCUSSION \u2014 More ships and aircraft<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump touted his proposed fiscal 2018 budget as the first step in a multi-year rebuild of the military, but lawmakers in both chambers see opportunities for even more new platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s plan calls for a ramp up of the embattled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, adding 70 new aircraft. The House plan calls for 87. The Senate\u2019s version authorizes purchase of 94 of them. The Senate plan also calls for more F\/A-18 Super Hornets for the Navy and more Army helicopters than either of the other two proposals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both House and Senate lawmakers backed plans to add five more Navy ships to the procurement plan for next year to the president\u2019s slate of eight planned builds, but with significant differences in where the money should be spent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That leaves the authorization conference committee with a common goal of more equipment purchases but a long list of details to work out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
FILE – In this Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2014 file photo, fighters from the Free Syrian Army, left, and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), center, join forces to fight Islamic State group militants in Kobani, Syria. Kurdish fighters backed by intense U.S.-led airstrikes pushed the Islamic State group almost entirely out of the Syrian town of Kobani on Monday, Jan. 26, 2015, marking a major loss for extremists whose hopes for easy victory dissolved into a bloody, costly siege that seems close to ending in defeat. (AP Photo\/Jake Simkin, File)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

** OFF THE TABLE \u2014 A new military force authorization<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kent., had hoped to attach to the budget bill a rule mandating lawmakers repeal the existing use-of-force authorizations passed early in President George W. Bush\u2019s tenure and replace them with updated guidelines for the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. But that bid failed last week when 61 senators voted to table the idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authorization of military force issue has been a frequent topic of debate in Congress since 2014, when Obama first ordered airstrikes against Islamic State group fighters in Iraq.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But those discussions have produced little action. House lawmakers briefly attached a similar provision to a separate appropriations measure earlier this summer before leadership stripped it out. Paul\u2019s amendment was the first real debate on the issue before the full Senate in the last six years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the issue is resolved in the near future, it won\u2019t be in the defense budget bill. The House included no language on the issue in their draft, leaving it out of the final negotiations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket carrying a National Reconnaissance Office payload launches here Oct. 8, 2015. The rocket launched at 5:49 a.m. PDT from Space Launch Complex-3 by Team Vandenberg.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

** UNDER DISCUSSION \u2014 Space Corps<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

House officials included in their authorization draft a proposal for U.S. Space Command, a new sub-unified command within Strategic Command. The command would operate as an independent service from the Air Force, a stark departure from the current set-up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Military officials have been cool to the idea, and Senate officials included language to block the move. They also added language in the bill requiring the commander of Air Force Space Command serve a term of at least 6 years for continuity and stability assurances, further entrenching the existing structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

House lawmakers argued the move would \u201cdelayer complicated bureaucracy in the Pentagon\u201d and better prepare the country for future threats from space. But convincing conference negotiators to go along with the massive overhaul appears to be a difficult proposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, and Under Secretary of Defense Mike McCord appear before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations Department of Defense fiscal year 2017 budget hearing, on Capitol Hill, April 27, 2016. DoD photo by Army Staff Sgt. Sean K. Harp\/Released<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

**OFF THE TABLE \u2014 A spending cap fix<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The total price tag on both the House and Senate budget proposals is close to $700 billion, once overseas contingency funds are factored in. That\u2019s about $30 billion more than Trump\u2019s own proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But more importantly, all three violate mandatory spending caps in place for fiscal 2018. Unless Congress can reach a broader deal to adjust those caps, lawmakers will be constrained to a military base budget ceiling of $549 billion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conference committee negotiations won\u2019t be debating a solution to that problem in their work, but they will be watching outside talks on the issue closely to adjust their authorization bill to appropriate measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That will likely mean the final conference draft won\u2019t be finished until December, when Congress\u2019 next budget deadline looms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n