Defense policy amendments pour in ahead of floor action

WASHINGTON — With the Senate expected to consider its version of the annual defense policy bill as soon as next week, senators have already filed hundreds of amendments. The National Defense Authorization Act is one of the few bills Congress passes without fail each year and, as a result, it’s one of the only reliable vehicles for lawmakers to see their priorities into law.

Many of the amendments reflect increased anxiety over China’s military capabilities and regional ambitions and include provisions aimed at increasing the United States’ ability to counter China. Several others represent an effort to preempt a possible

Chinese invasion of Taiwan by strengthening U.S. involvement in defense of the island nation.

But the amendments also delve into issues far afield of national security, from chimpanzee relocation to vegetable-based protein.

Congress has passed a defense authorization law for 60 straight years.

In recent years, leaders of the Armed Services Committee have restricted the number of amendments that receive votes, trying to maintain control as they shepherd the bill through a floor vote. In most cases, the best chance to get an amendment successfully attached to the NDAA is inclusion in an en bloc package.

There are dueling amendments on how to conduct a review of America’s longest war. Illinois Democrat Tammy Duckworth’s proposal to establish an independent Afghanistan commission to look at the involvement of all U.S. government agencies has garnered support from 13 other senators, including Todd Young, R-ind. Along with four GOP co-sponsors, Rick Scott, R-fla., has introduced an amendment that would create a joint select committee on Afghanistan, composed of six members from each chamber of Congress.

While there’s nothing stopping Congress from adopting both proposals, the divergent approaches may signal partisan division. The issue could become a proxy for trying to assign blame for two decades of failures in Afghanistan.

And even after the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, relations with Kabul remain a thorny issue. Marco

Rubio of Florida, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, filed an amendment that would block the U.S. from recognizing the Taliban as the rightful government in Afghanistan and designate the group as a foreign terrorist organization.

That would complicate U.S. efforts to safely remove any Americans as well as thousands of Afghans remaining in Afghanistan who face retribution for having helped U.S. troops during the war and are seeking special immigrant visas.

There are also differing approaches to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, designed to enable the export of Russian natural gas to Germany by running under the Baltic Sea. Idaho’s Jim Risch, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, introduced an amendment that would sanction any entity involved in the planning or completion of the pipeline. GOP

Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio, Ted Cruz of

Texas, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Tom Cotton of Arkansas are cosponsors.

In a separate amendment, Portman, Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Richard J. Durbin, D-ill., want to require the State Department to update Congress on whether Russia is trying to use the energy security of U.S. allies in eastern Europe as a geopolitical weapon.

Mark Warner, D-VA., the Intelligence Committee chairman, has filed the fiscal 2022 intelligence authorization bill, which the panel approved in July, as an amendment to the NDAA.

The bill would aim to strengthen spy-agency protections against cybersecurity threats, speed the security clearance process and fully investigate the so-called Havana syndrome that has afflicted hundreds of U.S. personnel overseas, among its many provisions.

What’s more, it would revise laws helping whistleblowers who work for intelligence services — changes that were motivated largely by problems demonstrated during the first impeachment of Donald Trump.

The intelligence measure would enable the spyagency whistleblowers to more easily communicate concerns straight to Congress. It would make disclosure of the identity of an anonymous whistleblower a crime. It would empower anyone whose name was revealed against his or her will to fight back in court. And it would make clear that no administration official can kill a complaint by simply keeping it from reaching Capitol Hill.