A Virginia-class attack submarine General Dynamics Electric Boat
Both the House and Senate have increased Trump’s proposed funding for the F-35. Lockheed Martin photo
Both the House and Senate have increased Trump’s proposed funding for the F-35. Lockheed Martin photo

Washington – The U.S. House approved a defense bill Friday that would boost military spending in Connecticut, but the legislation — which did not attract a single Republican vote — faces a tough fight in negotiations with the Senate over a final bill.

Still, any final bill is expected to increase military spending in Connecticut substantially next year, as there is an agreement among a majority of House and Senate Democrats and Republicans on the need to shore up the nation’s defenses.

The House defense bill, approved Friday on a partisan vote of 220-197, would cut President Donald Trump’s request for the Pentagon from $750 billion to $733 billion  — which is still a substantial boost over this year’s military spending.

But perhaps more objectionable to the White House and congressional Republicans, the House-approved defense bill would  curb the president’s war-making authority.

That sets up a battle with the GOP-controlled Senate over a final National Defense Authorization bill.

The House NDAA contains an amendment that would prohibit funding U.S. military action against Iran unless Congress has declared war or enacted another specific statutory authorization. The legislation includes an exception for cases of self-defense.

The House defense bill also contains provisions that would end U.S. participation in Saudi Arabia’s military campaign in Yemen, and undo Trump’s ban on transgender troops.

The bill also differs from the Senate’s NDAA in that it would require military academies, including the Coast Guard Academy in New London, a “safe to report” policy which allows sexual assault victims to report their assaults without fear of being punished for minor misconduct  — including excessive drinking –they may have committed at the time.

Additionally, the bill would establish a four-year pilot program at the Coast Guard Academy and other military academies in which a special prosecutor would handle complaints of sexual assault and abuse. Currently those complaints are handled through the chain of command.

Connecticut’s Democratic House members on Friday hailed the approval of the legislation.

“The bill we passed today answers the call from our nation’s combatant commanders for additional undersea capacity by including authorization for a third Virginia-class submarine, a vindication of my bipartisan ‘Three Sub’ effort last year which was opposed by the Trump administration,” said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District.

No border wall, no base closing

As the chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee in charge of sea power, Courtney help draft the NDAA.

The bill authorizes funding for two Virginia-class submarines in 2020 that are built jointly by Electric Boat and Virginia’s Newport News Shipyards and allows the Navy to begin earmarking money to increase the two-a-year construction pace of Virginia-class submarines to three in the year 2023.

Both the House and Senate have opened the door to the construction of three Virginia class subs in 2023. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ronald Gutridge.

The bill also authorizes $1.6 billion to continue work in Connecticut and Virginia on the new, massive Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine and $73 million to build a new pier at the Naval Submarine Base New London.

Similar shipbuilding provisions were included in the Senate bill, which was approved in June, and are not expected to be a point of contention.

But there may be dispute between the chambers on how many F-35s the Pentagon can purchase next year. The jet’s engines are built by Pratt & Whitney.

The House defense bill provides $8.5 billion for the procurement of 90 F-35s and the Senate bill includes more than $10 billion for 94 Joint Strike Fighters. The president’s budget only called for 78 F-35s.

The Senate bill authorizes $807.9 million to fund 6 CH-53K “heavy lift” helicopters for the U.S. Marine Corps and $1.3 billion for 66 UH-60M Black Hawks, which are also built by Sikorsky in Connecticut.

The House bill also authorizes nearly $808 million for the heavy lift helicopters but raises the number of Black Hawks the Pentagon can buy next year to 73.

On Tuesday, Rep. Rosa DeLauro spoke about the House NDAA to a group interns at Teamsters Local 1150, all of them currently employed with Sikorsky Aircraft.

“Sikorsky builds the best helicopter in the world and there is a recognition of that by the Department of Defense and the armed services. So there’s unanimity about making a major investment here,” DeLauro said.

There are billions of dollars more for Connecticut defense projects, including Sikorsky search and rescue helicopters and the specially equipped helicopters used by the White House, as well the B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber program, whose engines will be produced by Pratt & Whitney.

The House NDAA also prohibits the use of any defense money to build Trump’s proposed wall between the United States and Mexico and blocks another round of military base closings.

A final NDAA is likely to bring more defense money to Connecticut than it has had in many years.

But, to get to that point, a partisan feud over the defense authorization bill must be resolved.

“It’s really a sad day,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said Friday. “We’ve all seen the internal problems within the Democrat conference. But just to appease the far-left socialist radical element, Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi is putting our troops at risk by drafting a bill that breaks with that 58-year tradition of moving a bipartisan NDAA bill that puts our troops first.”

Ana has written about politics and policy in Washington, D.C.. for Gannett, Thompson Reuters and UPI. She was a special correspondent for the Miami Herald, and a regular contributor to The New York TImes, Advertising Age and several other publications. She has also worked in broadcast journalism, for CNN and several local NPR stations. She is a graduate of the University of Maryland School of Journalism.

Join the Conversation


  1. CT’s members of Congress seem to have a love/hate relationship with the military. The ‘love’ part comes when they can tout more money for CT defense spending. Otherwise, not so much.

    As far as the ‘safe to report’ policy is concerned, excessive drinking is NOT “minor misconduct” at the Service Academies. ALL infractions are required to be reported and punished accordingly. Do you really want to train a future officer that it’s OK to make terrible decisions, that they won’t suffer consequences for those poor decisions? I know I don’t….and we have officers in our family. Sadly, officer training has ‘softened’ over the years as political correctness has even infiltrated the Academies, Military Schools and certainly the military, in general.

    A Cadet or Midshipman can be ‘fried’ for not reporting an infraction they know someone else committed, even if they weren’t involved. Excusing one serious violation to prosecute another is wrong. I’m not saying punishment isn’t relative but there still must be punishment. Otherwise, how do you know who you can trust once in The Fleet or on the ground in Theater? Discipline and complete trust are critical.

  2. Like every other empire in history we are going out the same way. We continue to feed the lobbying machine and fear merchants who tell us that security can only be found through aggression. In a slightly over a decade the US dollar will no longer be the world’s reserve currency and our ability to finance the insanity we refer to as foreign policy ends along with our ability to steal resources from other nations at will. We could be spending our money at home on social programs and rebuilding our nation but it’s much easier to scare an uneducated public and continue to expand the list of countries that despise us. Real smart.

    1. Please read our policies: https://ctmirror.org/comments-policies/. Particularly the parts about a) If you have an opinion, back it up with data, history, other sources, anecdotes, personal experience, a logic trail, anything, and b) no dismissive assertions and comments that could fit on a bumper sticker. And that is all we are going to say on this matter. Your choice as to whether you’d like to comply (in which case we welcome your comments) or not (in which case we suggest you find another platform on which to comment).

Leave a comment