Speaking at Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C., the site where the original members of the alliance signed the North Atlantic Treaty, Biden framed it as “a historic donation of air defense equipment for Ukraine.”

“The United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Romania and Italy will provide Ukraine with equipment for five additional strategic air defense systems in the coming months,” he said. “The United States and our partners intend to provide Ukraine with dozens of additional tactical air defense systems.”

The United States, Germany and Romania will donate additional Patriot batteries while the Netherlands donates Patriot components. Additionally, Italy will donate a SAMP-T system.

The five countries noted in a statement that they are working on a “further announcement this year of additional strategic air defense systems for Ukraine.”

The U.S. and various allies also “intend to provide Ukraine with dozens of tactical air defense systems, including NASAMS, HAWKs, IRIS T-SLM, IRIS T-SLS and Gepard systems,” according to the joint statement.

Biden’s announcement comes weeks after the U.S. moved Ukraine up to the front of the queue for Patriot and NASAM interceptors.

“Ukraine will receive hundreds of additional interceptors over the next year, helping protect Ukrainian cities against Russian missiles and Ukrainian troops facing their attacks on the frontlines,” he said.

The White House has said that Ukraine will receive many of these interceptors by the end of the summer. Over the next 15 months, Kyiv will take precedence over several other countries seeking to buy U.S. air defense systems. The administration has not divulged which countries will face delays in acquiring interceptors as a result of the decision, except to note that the decision will not impact Taiwan or Israel.

Biden’s announcement comes one day after a Russian missile attack on Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital, killing at least 31 people. The barrage targeted five Ukrainian cities with 40 missiles, wounding more than 150 people, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is in Washington this week for the summit.

Other NATO member countries are expected to announce additional security packages for Ukraine at the summit this week.

“Together we’ve built a global coalition to stand with Ukraine,” said Biden. “Together we’ve provided significant economic and humanitarian assistance. And together we’ve supplied Ukraine with the weapons it needs to defend itself: tanks, armored vehicles, air defense systems, long-range missiles and millions of munitions.”

“The United States and nearly two dozen allied partners have signed a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine,” he said.

The House’s FY25 defense spending bill would procure 76 new F-35s, eight more than the 68 requested by the Defense Department. This puts the spending bill at odds with the House’s FY25 National Defense Authorization Act, passed 217-199 earlier this month, which would cut F-35 procurement down to 58 aircraft.

“At a projected total lifecycle cost of over $2 trillion dollars, the F-35 is the largest program in DoD history despite routinely not meeting cost, schedule, and performance metrics,” Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a Wednesday statement with Rep. Donald Norcross of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the tactical air and land forces panel.

“This is unacceptable program execution and Congress should not reward this behavior by buying additional aircraft above the President’s budget request,” the statement read.

Smith and Norcross highlighted that the Defense Department stopped accepting F-35 deliveries from manufacturer Lockheed Martin last year “until the enterprise could successfully deliver, test, and field the next version of the Operational Flight Program” — a benchmark it has not yet met nearly a year later.

The two Democrats and Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., introduced a bipartisan amendment that would have cut F-35 procurement in the spending bill and bring it in sync with the 58 F-35s authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act.

But the House Rules Committee, which oversees amendment votes, opted not to put Smith’s proposed F-35 reduction on the floor for a vote. The new House Appropriations Committee chairman, Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., previously chaired the Rules Committee.

Smith’s proposed reduction of 18 fighter jets from the spending bill would have amounted to a roughly $2 billion procurement cut for the Air Force and Navy.

The Smith amendment would have shifted funds in the form of $526 million to the Air Force to help address F-35 performance issues with development, production and testing.

“It is the duty of Congress to support the long-term viability of the F-35 program and ensure the vast sums of taxpayer money footing the bill are spent where they can ensure program success,” said Smith and Norcross. “A simple short-term reduction in acquisition rates would enable us to mitigate the known systemic problems, correct course and get the F-35 program and workers up and running at full speed.”

Lockheed Martin has faced intense bipartisan scrutiny from the Armed Services Committee for repeated F-35 delays, most recently with the Technology Refresh 3 upgrades. The TR-3 hardware and software upgrades would provide F-35s with better displays, computer memory and processing power.

Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., attempted to amend the NDAA with a provision that would have authorized the defense secretary to seize intellectual property from Lockheed Martin and open it up to competition, taking aim at the F-35′s software problems.

Moulton sought a vote on the amendment when the Armed Services Committee marked up the legislation in May but had to withdraw it after a Congressional Budget Office cost determination. But multiple committee members, including several Republicans, said they would support Moulton’s efforts to seize intellectual property from Lockheed Martin in the years ahead should F-35 issues persist.

Smith urged caution on Moulton’s efforts, despite his shared frustrations with Lockheed’s execution of the F-35 program.

“In law, we would possibly have to compensate them for that, which would be really, really, really expensive,” Smith said.

Despite efforts from Smith and his fellow Armed Services Committee members to cut F-35 procurement next year, appropriators will have the final word on how many of the aircraft to buy in the defense spending bill.

Further compounding the uncertainty, the Senate version of the FY25 NDAA would procure 68 F-35s — the same number requested by the Pentagon. It remains unclear how many F-35s Senate appropriators seek to procure, as they have yet to release their FY25 defense spending bill.

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee unveiled their draft of the massive defense authorization bill Friday morning, just as House lawmakers narrowly adopted their version of the measure, mostly along party lines in a 217-199 vote.

After the full Senate amends its committee’s draft over the next few weeks, the two chambers will begin negotiations over a compromise bill to send to the president’s desk later this year.

The legislation, which has passed Congress annually for more than 60 years, includes a host of pay authorizations, program changes and policy updates that impact almost every corner of the Defense Department. As such, the bill is closely watched by Pentagon planners and military advocates all year long, and it commands significant attention from lawmakers both on and off the military oversight committees.

Here’s a look at the major differences in the House and Senate bills, and the debates ahead.

Total defense spending

While the authorization bill doesn’t provide direct funding for military operations (the annual appropriations bill does that), the overall spending levels prescribed in the measure typically set the tone for debate over how much money the Defense Department will get next year.

In the House, that total is about $884 billion, in line with a debt ceiling agreement between the White House and Congress last summer to cap spending increases for fiscal 2025 at 1%.

The Senate authorization bill comes in at $923 billion, a 5% boost in overall defense spending, including $12.5 billion in emergency funding for military disaster recovery construction in Guam following Typhoon Mawar last year.

The roughly $25 billion extra in non-Guam funding provided in the Senate bill would allow the Defense Department to pursue several additional shipbuilding, procurement and military construction priorities.

“If you look at this bill overall, you would definitely see that the pivot to the Indo-Pacific is also a pivot to sea power, and more and more focus is going to be on the sea power investments,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who chairs the committee’s sea power panel, told reporters after the markup.

For instance, the extra spending in the bill partially helps fund a second Virginia-class attack submarine against the Navy’s wishes; the service requested a single attack submarine for FY25 due to production delays in the industrial base. The Senate bill authorizes $1.1 billion in partial funding for the second submarine, slightly more than the House version.

The Senate bill also allows for an extra $4 billion in munitions procurement across the services, including to expand capacity for production lines for items like the Precision Strike Missile as well as the Standard Missile-2 and -6 weapons.

Another $3.1 billion would go toward military construction projects for the unfunded priorities lists submitted by various services and combatant commands.

Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the top Republican on the committee, successfully offered the amendment to increase defense spending beyond the FY25 debt ceiling caps, arguing that the U.S. needs to spend more on the military to compete with China and Russia. However, the increase was less than the extra $55 billion he initially sought for FY25.

The committee’s chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., voted against his panel’s authorization plan because of the high spending total. But a majority of Republicans and Democrats on the committee backed the increase in a 22-3 vote. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., also voted against it.

Negotiating a final defense spending total will likely involve input from the White House and chamber fights over nondefense program funding, potentially complicating and lengthening the compromise process.

Junior enlisted pay raises

House lawmakers made quality of life for younger service members a major focus of their authorization bill, highlighted by a 15% average pay raise for troops E-4 and below. Supporters say the move will raise basic pay for all troops above $30,000, an adjustment meant to ensure military families aren’t facing financial strain while serving.

But the White House has strongly opposed the targeted pay boost, which could cost about $3 billion next year and more than $24 billion over the next five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Administration officials back a 4.5% pay raise across the board for all troops (both the House and Senate also support that) but advised waiting on extra money for enlisted troops until next year, after a Pentagon study on military compensation is complete.

Despite including more overall defense funding in their bill, Senate lawmakers only offered an extra 1% boost for troops E-3 and below on top of the across-the-board pay raise.

That would give most junior enlisted troops a few hundred dollars extra next year, as opposed to the several thousand dollars in salary increases in the House plan. However, Senate officials also added an extra $1 billion to potentially boost junior enlisted pay even further. The committee still needs to work out the details of those pay table changes.

Sorting out which plan survives congressional negotiations could have a major impact on young military families’ finances.

And that’s not the only pocketbook issue to be discussed by negotiators. House lawmakers also backed increases to service members’ housing stipends that were omitted by Senate bill authors. And the House draft includes an expansion of the military Basic Needs Allowance, money designed to provide additional support to families struggling to cover food and household costs.

Social issues

Most of the social issues expected to cause controversy in bill negotiations this summer come from the House draft of the authorization bill.

In floor work this week, Republican lawmakers added riders ending the Pentagon’s abortion access policy for troops stationed in states where the procedure is outlawed. They also included provisions to freeze hiring for diversity jobs in the military, limit care for transgender troops, and bar discussion of “radical gender ideology” or ”critical race theory” in training sessions.

Those moves drew the ire of Democratic lawmakers in the House, many of whom backed the bill when it came out of committee but opposed it because of what they called tangential social issue fights.

Republicans did not need Democratic support to advance the bill out of the House, but will need to reach a compromise on those issues in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Similar provisions included in last year’s House drafts were ultimately stripped out by negotiators.

The Senate draft again includes a push to require women to register for the Selective Service System, currently only mandated for men aged 18 through 25. House members have opposed that idea in recent years.

The committee voted 34-25 along party lines to send the $833 billion bill to the House floor with Democrats objecting to the provision that would shut down the pier, which will cost anywhere between $230 and $320 million according to Pentagon estimates.

The amendment from Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., bans the Defense Department from building or maintaining a pier or Joint-Logistics-Over-the-Shore capabilities “in the vicinity of Gaza.”

“The pier has been plagued by prolonged delays, hijacked humanitarian aid, additional costs and debilitating damages,” Clyde said ahead of the vote. “President [Joe] Biden’s Gaza pier has been a total failure. It’s not provided anywhere near the expected amount of aid to the Palestinians as promised by this administration.”

The Appropriations Committee adopted Clyde’s amendment by voice vote over objections from Democrats, who also opposed the final bill due to a series of socially conservative policy riders and a lack of Ukraine aid.

Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the committee, noted that the Defense Department does not intend to continue its Gaza pier operation through FY25, which begins in October.

“A month ago, the head of the United Nations World Food Program announced that northern Gaza has entered a full-blown famine,” said McCollum. “This operation is only for a limited period of time and it ends in August when the weather and the seas will make it untenable to continue.”

Democrats on the Appropriations Committee also criticized a provision in the defense spending bill that bans funding for United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Another provision in the bill would prevent the president from withholding weapons deliveries to Israel and force the Pentagon to deliver the single shipment of roughly 3,500 air-to-ground munitions that Biden withheld in April.

Lawmakers on Wednesday also added two other amendments defunding the Gaza pier to the FY25 defense policy bill, separate legislation that the full House is expected to vote on Friday. The House adopted the provisions from Republican Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Warren Davidson of Ohio as part of a bipartisan package of amendments that both parties agreed to by voice vote.

The House on Wednesday added another amendment to the defense policy bill by voice vote that would bar the Defense Department from using funds to rebuild Gaza, though there’s no money allocated to do so in the defense spending bill. Lawmakers adopted the amendment from from Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., by voice vote over Democratic objections.

The House narrowly passed another Mast amendment 204-199 that would bar the Pentagon from evacuating Palestinian refugees to the United States, though the Defense Department has no plans to undertake such an operation.

Biden announced the pier to deliver aid to Gaza during his State of the Union address in March because of Israel’s ongoing restrictions on food, water, fuel and medicine deliveries through the land crossings. The pier sits on the coast at the end of the Israeli military’s Netzarim Corridor, which now divides the Gaza Strip in two.

Twenty aid agencies warned in May that deliveries from the pier have been inadequate to compensate for the low level of assistance through land crossings. And the UN World Food Program recently paused distribution of aid from the pier, citing safety concerns for its staff after rocket attacks on its warehouses.

Additionally, three U.S. troops sustained noncombat injuries in May while setting up the pier. Shortly thereafter, adverse weather conditions tore the pier apart and forced the military to repair it.

The $833 billion defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2025 would bar the Pentagon from using funds “to withhold, halt, reverse or cancel the delivery of defense articles or defense services” for Israel, and force the president to transfer withheld weapons to the Israeli military within 15 days.

The bill also drops an annual $300 million in Ukraine security aid that defense appropriators have provided since 2014; revives an effort to move Mexico from U.S. Northern Command to U.S. Southern Command; and bans the Pentagon from implementing President Joe Biden’s executive orders on climate change.

“Why, after this Congress has repeatedly demonstrated broad bipartisan support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian tyranny, are we considering a bill that fails to fund the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative?” Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday. “In addition to fighting Russian aggression, USAI helps Ukraine integrate with NATO and Western forces, directly supporting our broader national security and defense objectives.”

The Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative allows the Pentagon to place contracts for longer-term military aid for Kyiv. The FY24 defense policy bill Congress passed in December authorized $300 million for the initiative through FY25, but that money will not be available next year if appropriators decline to fund it in the spending bill.

Still, $300 million is a small trickle compared to the $13.7 billion in the initiative’s funding Congress passed in April as part of a massive foreign aid bill, which included a total $60 billion in economic and security assistance for Ukraine.

Assistance for Ukraine has divided the GOP caucus, with members admonishing Democrats for waving Ukrainian flags on the floor after the House passed 311-112 the $60 billion assistance package for Kyiv in April.

The defense spending bill marked up Wednesday also funds several more F-35 fighter jets than the Pentagon requested. It does not provide funding for a second Virginia-class attack submarine. The procurement decisions override parts of the FY25 defense authorization bill the House Armed Services Committee advanced 57-1 in May.

While the authorization bill sought to cut F-35 procurement amid growing frustration with manufacturer Lockheed Martin, defense appropriators sought to buy eight more of the fighter jets than the Pentagon requested. Defense appropriators also ignored the Armed Services Committee’s authorization for $1 billion in incremental funding to procure a second attack submarine in FY25.

“A Virginia-class submarine is a big-ticket item, so obviously it’s a much bigger deal than $300 million in Ukraine assistance,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama who supports Ukraine aid, told Defense News on Tuesday.

Israel and Gaza

Democrats also denounced the bill’s new language banning the president from withholding weapons transfers to Israel, as well as the return of several other “harmful policy riders” Republicans unsuccessfully sought to include in the FY24 spending bill, which Congress passed 286-134 in March.

“Instead of building on the bipartisan conclusion to the fiscal year 2024 appropriations process, the fiscal year 2025 defense appropriations bill includes the same outrageous policy riders that were rejected by Congress only two months ago,” Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the defense spending panel, said in a statement Tuesday.

McCollum criticized the provision forcing the president to transfer weapons to Israel in a Democratic summary accompanying the bill. “No other country has carte blanche on the use of their military assistance from the United States,” her office wrote.

The House in May passed a separate bill in a 224-187 vote with more stringent language intended to undo Biden’s hold on a single shipment of roughly 3,500 air-to-ground munitions for Israel. The last president to publicly withhold weapons shipments to Israel was Ronald Reagan in 1982 after seeing pictures of civilians killed in Lebanon.

Biden said he withheld the shipment in April, which includes 500- and 2,000-pound bombs, out of concern Israel would use them in Rafah, where more than half of the Gaza Strip’s population have fled since the Israeli campaign against the militant group Hamas started in October. Nonetheless, he has approved several other arms transfers for Israel.

Despite warnings from the White House, Israel proceeded with its Rafah offensive, displacing roughly 1 million Palestinians and further curtailing humanitarian aid deliveries.

In addition to the bill’s annual $500 million in aid for Israeli missile defenses, the FY25 legislation provides $80 million above the president’s budget request for anti-tunneling cooperation with the U.S. and another $55 million above the budget request for counter-drone development, including “directed energy and laser technology cooperation.”

The State Department spending bill for FY25, which the foreign aid panel advanced Tuesday, also includes Israel’s annual $3.3 billion in foreign military financing. And the foreign aid bill Congress passed in April includes another $14 billion in Israel military aid.

Both the FY25 Pentagon and State Department spending bills ban funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which delivers humanitarian assistance in the Gaza Strip, drawing further ire from McCollum.

“According to a March report from the World Food Program, nearly half the population — over 1 million people — have completely exhausted their food supplies,” she said Wednesday. “Palestinian civilians, many of them children, are struggling with catastrophic hunger and starvation.”

Other policy riders Democrats oppose include moving jurisdiction of U.S. military operations with Mexico to Southern Command — a bid that failed last year. Calvert and Republicans argue that moving Mexico to Southern Command would better enable counter-fentanyl trafficking operations against Mexican drug cartels.

Additionally, the bill would ban the Pentagon from using funds to implement Biden’s climate executive orders, including one that would prevent the Defense Department — the world’s largest institutional fossil fuel emitter — from disclosing carbon emissions.

The plan, unveiled Wednesday by Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., would ultimately raise U.S. defense spending from 3% to 5% of gross domestic product in the years ahead, a massive surge likely to come in well above $1 trillion per year.

Much of the proposed long-term spending in Wicker’s plan would go toward revitalizing the struggling defense-industrial base, which the senator argues is necessary to successfully counter an “axis of aggressors” comprised of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

He hopes additional industrial base funding will enable the U.S. to drastically bolster the size of its Navy and Air Force fleets as well as munitions production and the nuclear arsenal.

“This will enable the United States to fix our failing defense infrastructure, field a new generation of equipment and maintain American technological leadership,” Wicker wrote in the proposal. “This [3%] of GDP spent on defense is nearing historic lows not seen since the peace dividend of the 1990s.”

The document lays out many of Wicker’s short- and long-term priorities as the Senate Armed Services Committee prepares to mark up its FY25 defense policy bill next month. The House Armed Services Committee advanced its defense policy legislation last week, an $883.7 billion bill in line with the FY25 defense spending caps lawmakers agreed to last year.

Some of the additional $55 billion Wicker seeks to add above the FY25 spending caps mirrors the unfunded priorities lists each military service and combatant command submitted to Congress earlier this year.

For instance, Wicker wants an additional $2 billion to “disperse and harden [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] infrastructure,” another $2.25 billion for “Guam disaster recovery and resilient rebuild,” and $500 million for a Guam defense system.

Additionally, Wicker is seeking $500 million to create “regional contingency stockpiles” to help Indo-Pacific Command overcome logistical challenges in the event of a conflict in the area.

“Prepositioned stocks generally must be expanded in the western Pacific,” the document notes. “In particular, the Army Prepositioned Stocks program has been perennially underfunded — by almost $1 billion this year.”

Wicker’s proposal also calls on the Pentagon to create a weapons stockpile in Taiwan, which Congress authorized in the FY23 defense bill, mirroring the U.S. war reserve stockpile in Israel.

It also seeks to allocate $1.5 billion in replenishment funds to allow the Defense Department to send Taiwan weapons from U.S. stockpiles. The foreign aid bill Congress passed in April included $1.9 billion in FY24 funding for the department to do this, but the House defense policy bill did not include an additional $500 million in FY25 Taiwan aid that the Pentagon asked for as part of its proposed Indo-Pacific Security Initiative.

Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, lead the defense appropriations panel and have also said they want to increase FY25 defense spending above the debt ceiling deal’s FY25 spending caps.

But Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, said earlier this month that if defense spending rises, she will insist that nondefense spending also grow, which Republicans have historically opposed.

Total defense spending for FY24 came in at $953 billion following passage of the foreign aid bill, well above the $886 billion national security caps Congress laid out in the base budget for that fiscal year.

The 5% target

Over the longer term, Wicker’s proposal to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP places particular emphasis on growing the defense-industrial base.

“The defense industrial base itself is a weapon,” the proposal states. “The Department of Defense needs a much larger and more capable workforce for defense industrial base issues.”

“For surface ships, the Navy needs to embark immediately upon a comprehensive industrial base investment strategy, just as it has done for the submarine industrial base,” it continues. “As with the submarine industrial base, this investment strategy will require around $20 billion over a period of five years.”

These funds would go toward “extensive funding for workforce development, supply chain resiliency, long-lead item production, development and insertion of additive manufacturing techniques, supplier base diversification and shipyard modernization and expansion.”

Wicker also calls on the Navy to “begin work on a fifth nuclear shipyard, which will likely cost over $20 billion.”

The document faults the Navy for failing “to provide a consistent demand signal to industry” but argues that with the right funding it can meet and even exceed the 355-ship goal by 2035.

Similarly, it notes “the Air Force plans to retire almost 1,000 aircraft over the next five years, including nearly 400 fighters.”

“It has not replaced its aircraft fast enough to keep the fleet from shrinking precipitously, even as the mission demands remain steady or increase,” it reads.

Accordingly, Wicker’s proposal calls on the Air Force to purchase “at least 340″ aircraft above its current plan over the next five years while accelerating production of B-21 bombers and doubling its planned quantity from 100 to 200.

“The Air Force should aim to arrest its shrinking fighter force structure by reversing its plans to retire capable F-15E and F-22 fighters over the next five years and by purchasing at least 340 aircraft above its current plans over the next five years,” the proposal notes.

Additionally, the document cites “a well-known shortage of munitions that will require both additional funding and additional creativity to remedy.” It calls for an additional $7 billion to $10 billion annually for the munitions-industrial base over the next decade.

The document also details a series of industrial base recommendations to grow the U.S. nuclear arsenal. These include extended production of the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine; setting up NATO-style nuclear burden-sharing agreements with Australia, Japan and South Korea; and restoring nuclear capability on B-52 bombers.

Wicker has also co-sponsored a bill to expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The legislation’s other sponsor, Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., hopes to include it in the Senate’s FY25 defense policy bill.

The Armed Services Committee voted 57-1 to advance the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act to the House floor after considering more than 700 amendments during a roughly 12-hour markup. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., cast the single vote against the legislation.

The bill adheres to the spending caps from last year’s debt ceiling deal, allowing a 1% increase over the $874.2 billion FY24 defense policy bill.

“This bill is also the product of hundreds of hours of oversight done by all members and staff over the past few months,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said ahead of the committee vote. “It is a good bill that will help revitalize the defense industrial base and build the ready, capable, and lethal fighting force we need to deter China and our other adversaries.”

The legislation would incrementally fund a second attack submarine for FY25 against the Pentagon’s wishes, block certain aircraft retirements and maintain restrictions on downsizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The Navy, citing industrial base delays, only asked for one Virginia-class submarine for FY25 in a break from the two-per-year cadence. But the defense bill provides $1 billion toward funding for the second submarine and intends to provide additional funds for the vessel in future fiscal years.

Meanwhile, the bill would procure 58 F-35 fighter jets for FY25, 10 less than the Pentagon requested amid growing congressional frustration with manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Ma., floated – then withdrew – an amendment that would have authorized the defense secretary to seize intellectual property from Lockheed Martin and open it up to competition, taking aim at the F-35′s software problems.

Moulton was not able to hold a vote on the amendment after a Congressional Budget Office cost determination but that didn’t stop lawmakers from excoriating Lockheed Martin.

“We all know that the F-35 program is behind schedule,” said Moulton. “It’s way over budget grossly and it’s not delivering the programs ready to fight that we need.”

Several Republicans, including Reps. Morgan Lutrell of Texas as well as Carlos Gimenez and Cory Mills of Florida, also said they may support Moulton’s efforts in the years ahead.

But Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the committee, cautioned that “it’s no small thing for the government to confiscate intellectual property.”

“In law, we would possibly have to compensate them for that, which would be really, really, really expensive,” said Smith.

Additionally, the bill would block the Air Force’s effort to retire 32 Block 20 F-22 Raptors, also made by Lockheed Martin, through FY27. It would also pause the Air Force’s plans to retire 26 F-15E Strike Eagles, made by Boeing.

The bill also prevents efforts to retire the B83 nuclear gravity bomb, which is at least 80 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and requires the military to deploy at least 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles.

It also establishes a chief talent management officer at the Pentagon to improve recruitment, retention and workforce development for military personnel and civilian employees alike.

The committee also adopted an amendment that would automatically register all male U.S. residents ages 18 to 26 into the Selective Service amid a drop in mandatory registrations from eligible individuals in recent years. The committee adopted the amendment from Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., by voice vote.

The committee also voted down multiple amendments. For instance, it overwhelmingly voted 46-11 against an amendment from Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., that would have abolished the requirement for military services and combatant commands to submit annual unfunded priorities lists to Congress.

They also struck down 48-10 an amendment from Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., that would have banned the transfer of cluster munitions to Ukraine.

Quality of life

This year’s committee draft of the authorization bill had a specific focus on military quality of life issues, after panel lawmakers spent the last 15 months reviewing ways to address frequent complaints among troops and family members.

“No service member should have to live in squalid conditions. No military family should have to rely on food stamps to feed their children,” said Rogers. “And no one serving this country should have to wait weeks to see a doctor or a mental health specialist.

“This bill will go a long way toward fixing that.”

The measure contains a dramatic overhaul of the military’s pay tables, giving a pay bump of nearly 20% to junior enlisted troops next year. The move would bring almost every service member’s base pay to more than $30,000 a year, a move lawmakers hope will limit the financial strain on younger military families.

The authorization bill also includes increases to troops’ housing allowances (bringing them up to 100% of regional housing costs) and expands eligibility for the military’s Basic Allowance for Subsistence stipend.

And lawmakers also inserted language in the defense bill improving pay and benefits for Defense Department child care workers, to help with recruiting and retention of those posts.

Those reforms are included alongside a 4.5% pay raise for all troops next year, which would be the third consecutive year of increases of more than 4% for the military.

Not including that salary hike, the cost of the quality of life reforms total about $4.2 billion, a significant section of the constrained authorization bill total. But supporters said the moves are needed now to ensure that the services can keep pace on recruiting and retention issues.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to take up its version of the legislation in June.

Language included in the House Armed Services Committee’s draft of the annual defense authorization bill would mandate the automatic registration of all males between ages 18 and 26 living in America in the Selective Service System, the federal database used for a military draft in case of a national emergency.

The system hasn’t been used for that purpose for 52 years, but men who fail to register can face a host of legal consequences, including forfeiture of eligibility for federal programs and possible jail time.

But the number of individuals who have skipped registering has increased in recent years, in large part because registration options were removed from the federal student loan process two years ago. That had accounted for nearly a quarter of all registrations in prior years.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., sponsored the automatic registration language and called it both a money-saving and common-sense reform.

“By using available federal databases, the [Selective Service] agency will be able to register all of the individuals required and thus help ensure that any future military draft is fair and equitable,” she said during debate on the idea Wednesday night.

“This will also allow us to rededicate resources — basically that means money — towards reading readiness and towards mobilization … rather than towards education and advertising campaigns driven to register people.”

The Selective Service System costs roughly $30 million a year. Lawmakers have proposed a number of reforms to the database in recent years, including adding women and completely eliminating the agency altogether, but none have made it through Congress.

The latest proposal was approved unanimously by the committee but still must advance through the full House and Senate before it can become law. The authorization bill, which contains a myriad of military budget and policy priorities, is expected to be finalized by the two chambers sometime this fall.

The full Republican conference unanimously picked Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., to chair the committee. Although fellow defense appropriator Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., had also expressed interest in the position, Cole was the only candidate to formally run for the post.

Cole will step down as chairman of the House Rules Committee, which controls the floor agenda. Like Granger before him, he currently sits on the defense appropriations subcommittee and has historically favored large military budgets. He described the Biden administration’s fiscal 2025 defense budget proposal of $895 billion as insufficient during a hearing with Navy and Marine Corps leaders on Wednesday shortly after his appointment.

“I think this budget is too low,” Cole said. “I think that’s been consistently true with the administration. I also recognize we’re under the constraints of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and that’s going to make it difficult for us to do some things I think we need to do.”

Cole was referring to last year’s debt ceiling agreement that capped discretionary spending levels. Under that agreement, the Defense Department receives more discretionary funding than all other federal agencies combined.

“I look forward to hitting the ground running tomorrow and am committed to engaging with the entire conference to deliver the necessary appropriations bills in a timely matter,” Cole said in a statement on Tuesday after the House Republican Steering Committee, which controls panel assignments, nominated him as appropriations chairman.

Congress did not pass a full FY24 defense spending bill until March, nearly six months into the fiscal year that began in October.

Granger, who is not running for reelection in November, said she is stepping down as appropriations chairwoman early in part because “an election year often results in final appropriations bills not getting enacted well until the next fiscal year.”

Cole told the Nebraska Examiner that he expects Congress will have to fund the government with a stopgap spending bill through the upcoming presidential election instead of full FY25 appropriations legislation at the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1.

Whether Congress passes the FY25 spending bills before January depends on President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees, respectively.

“The winner will probably decide,” Cole told the Nebraska Examiner. “Do we want to finish business this calendar year, which is always the best thing to do, win or lose, or do you want to kick it into next year?

“I hope we don’t do that, but that’s the way I see it unfolding right now.”

As appropriations chairman, Cole will have to balance the demands of traditional Republican defense hawks and fiscal conservatives more closely aligned with Trump’s America First wing of the party. Cole also favors Ukraine aid and has consistently voted in favor of it, though Trump and a growing number of Republicans oppose additional assistance for Kyiv.

While House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said the House would act on Ukraine aid, he has so far ruled out putting the Senate’s $95 billion foreign aid bill — which also includes assistance for Israel and Taiwan — on the floor. The Senate passed that bill 70-29 in February.

Johnson has yet to reveal a formal plan for Ukraine aid. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., has threatened to force a vote removing Johnson as speaker, should he move forward with a Ukraine package.

Last year’s effort instigated by a small band of right-wing Republicans to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., plunged the House into weeks of chaos as the conference struggled to select a new leader.

Further complicating matters, House Republicans will be down to a one-vote majority after Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., leaves Congress later this month.

He spoke before a meeting with Israel’s Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, during which Austin said Jerusalem needs to consider other options to a ground invasion of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinian civilians are sheltering.

But a senior defense official, speaking with reporters afterward on the condition of anonymity, wouldn’t say what those “alternatives” are.

The invasion of Gaza began in the north, as Israel sought to destroy the terrorist group Hamas, which killed more than 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, last October. The Israel Defense Forces have since pushed into Gaza City but failed to kill the group’s most senior leaders. Israel’s government has since been preparing to invade Rafah, a major city in Gaza’s south, where Hamas battalions have migrated.

Almost half of Gaza’s population has fled to Rafah since the war began. Many civilians have already escaped conflict more than once, the official said. An invasion would force them to do so again, and risk further civilian casualties. The Gaza Health Ministry estimates more than 32,000 Palestinians have died during the war, roughly two-thirds of whom are women and children.

Rafah sits near the Egyptian border and is the largest entry point for humanitarian support into Gaza. An invasion would risk Jerusalem’s relationship with Cairo, the official said, while also choking the flow of aid when it needs to widen, the official said. President Joe Biden said this month that the U.S. would build a pier on Gaza’s coast to allow in more assistance. Six ships with personnel will arrive within the next few weeks and start construction, the official said.

“The amount of humanitarian aid [in Gaza] is far too low,” Austin said in a short press conference.

Tuesday’s meeting follows a public spat between the U.S. and Israel earlier this week. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recalled a group of senior advisors who also planned to soon visit Washington, after the U.S. abstained from a non-binding UN resolution urging a ceasefire. America had previously vetoed such resolutions, though a spokesman for the National Security Council insisted on Monday that there was no change in U.S. policy.

Netanyahu this week also recalled Israel’s negotiators from Doha, Qatar, who were trying to make a deal for the release of hostages still held by Hamas.

Gallant nonetheless traveled with a list of weapons his country wants from Washington. The administration still supports such aid, which the American defense official said has “flowed more rapidly than ever” since last October, and isn’t weighing any restrictions on how Israel will use it.

Shortly before Gallant’s visit, Israel submitted assurances to the U.S. that it would comply with human rights laws as required under an executive memorandum Biden signed in February after growing pressure from Democrats in Congress. The memorandum references U.S. laws that cut off security assistance to military units that violate human rights or to countries that block U.S. humanitarian aid.

Former administration officials and many Democratic lawmakers say multiple administrations have not held Israel to these standards, despite credible reports of human rights abuses and the Israeli restrictions on aid trucks into Gaza.

“It’s hard to see how the Biden administration could with a straight face conclude that the Netanyahu government has provided credible and reliable assurances that it will facilitate and not arbitrarily restrict humanitarian assistance to Gaza when at this very moment they’re doing that,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., told Defense News last week. “Obtaining written assurances is only part of the requirement of [the memorandum], the other part is that they be deemed credible and reliable assurances.”

Under Biden’s memorandum, the Pentagon and State Department must assess Israel’s compliance with its human rights assurances in May, with noncompliance possibly resulting in the suspension of military aid as stipulated by existing U.S. laws.

The U.S. is instead trying to change Israel’s behavior in private. Gallant and Austin have spoken over the phone around 40 times, most of which came after last October. They spoke privately in more detail about alternatives to a ground invasion of Rafah, said the official — who wouldn’t explain further other than saying Israel would need to protect civilians before any fighting and also use precision strikes.

“This was the first of what I think will be quite a number of conversations,” the official said.

Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the number of Israeli civilians killed in the Oct. 7 attacks.