Senate Passes Bipartisan $925 Billion Defense Policy Bill

The Senate approved legislation on Thursday that would authorize $925 billion for national defense, giving overwhelming bipartisan support to the annual defense policy bill.

The vote set up a potentially contentious series of negotiations with the House, which has loaded its version of the measure with a range of conservative social policy dictates that the Senate mostly avoided.

The 77-to-20 vote took place late on Day 9 of a federal government shutdown, advancing legislation that would authorize everything from new submarines and fighter jets to the annual pay increase for troops. The bipartisan bill also overhauls how the military buys weapons and supports the large network of private and public organizations that provides the U.S. government with materials, products and services for defense and military operations.

“Today, the Senate passed one of the most important legislative priorities to enable the modernization of our military and strengthen our national security,” Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement late Thursday. The legislation helps the U.S. military contend with a threat environment “that we have not faced since World War II,” he added.

The bill also reflects how members of both parties continue to agree on pouring vast sums into the military, even as President Trump and Republicans have moved to slash government spending in a drive they say is aimed at reining in deficits. Combined with a hefty allocation in Mr. Trump’s sprawling tax cut domestic policy bill that was passed this summer, the measure would bring the amount of military spending authorized for the coming year to more than $1 trillion.

The legislation would reshape rules for defense contractors, which industry experts say deter smaller companies from bidding on projects. It also would extend the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative through 2028 and would increase authorized funding to $500 million. And the bill would expand the fighter jet program to authorize dozens more advanced F-35A jets.

The bill also seeks to tackle modern military technology, by requiring studies on how to safely integrate artificial intelligence and other cybertools, along with a program focused on the “rapid development, testing, and scalable manufacturing” of drones. The Pentagon, watching as U.S. allies deploy drones in creative battlefield maneuvers, is eager to build up its own stash of the new technology.

That includes a 3.8 percent pay raise for military members.

The measure includes provisions to restrict diversity, equity and inclusion practices across military branches and a prohibition of affirmative action at military service academies, codifying executive orders from Mr. Trump. But aside from those, it largely omitted many of the more partisan social policy restrictions that House Republicans stuffed in their version, alienating Democrats who mostly opposed its passage.

In contrast, House Republicans included a number of amendments involving gender in the military. They included restricting insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, barring transgender women from participating in women’s athletic programs in U.S. service academies, and barring the Defense Department from collecting information about gender identity.

Over the objections of Democrats, Republicans also inserted an amendment that restricts the use of electric or hybrid vehicles within the department.

The variations in topline figures and partisan priorities could set up a difficult negotiation when the two chambers come together to agree on a final product.

In the Senate, the most contentious debate came as senators sparred over Mr. Trump’s use of the military to police American cities; he has deployed federalized National Guard into Democratic-run cities, including Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and Chicago.

The Senate rejected her measure and a series of others offered by Democrats that would have placed limits on how the president could use military troops in American cities. Republicans argued that the deployments were both legal and appropriate.

“Protecting the American people and their property is fundamental to the government. In fact, it’s a core principle and responsibility of the federal government, and I see no need or any good reason to remove the tools that the president has to do exactly that,” Senator Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota, said.

Though her measure was voted down along party lines, Ms. Duckworth, who had threatened to block a final vote on the defense measure, secured a commitment from Republican leaders to hold a hearing on the deployment of National Guard troops.

Ms. Duckworth also secured language in the bill to cover in vitro fertilization for service members and their families, the majority of whom would currently have to pay out of pocket for the procedure. The proposal faces pushback from conservatives and could still be pulled behind closed doors before the final bill heads to the president’s desk.

There was bipartisan agreement on at least one move to claw back authority from the executive branch: The bill would repeal Iraq and Persian Gulf war-era authorizations for the use of military force. For more than two decades they have been used by presidents in both parties to justify a range of military operations.

“The gulf war started 34 years ago, and the Iraq War began 22 years ago. These conflicts have long ended, and today Iraq is a partner, not an adversary,” Senator Todd Young, Republican of Indiana, said in a statement. “It’s time for our law to reflect that reality. Tonight’s Senate vote is a step in the right direction.”

Mr. Young, together with Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, have for many years sought to bring an end to the authorizations that the two say have perpetuated the idea of “forever wars.”

Still, the repeal faced long odds. At least three previous bipartisan attempts to repeal the decades-old resolutions have failed to be signed into law.