Senate passes massive military budget bill, but says no to Manchin's "dirty deal"

Washington DC - The US Senate on Thursday voted to send a huge military budget bill to President Joe Biden's desk for signature.

The US Senate has voted to approve an $858-billion budget for the Pentagon in 2023.
The US Senate has voted to approve an $858-billion budget for the Pentagon in 2023.  © REUTERS

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed 83-11 in the Senate with strong bipartisan support.

The bill, which advanced out of the House on December 8, calls for $858 billion to be set aside for military purposes.

These funds include $817 billion for the Department of Defense, $30 billion for Department of Energy nuclear activities, $800 million in military aid for Ukraine, up to $10 billion over 10 years for Taiwan, and 4.6% pay raises for active military personnel.

Trump meets with backtracking MSNBC Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski
Donald Trump Trump meets with backtracking MSNBC Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski

This means the Defense Department will get $45 billion more than Biden had originally requested. While the annual military budget bill sets aside these funds for the following year, Congress must pass an appropriations bill for the resources to be allocated.

The NDAA also includes a provision that makes Covid-19 vaccines optional for active military personnel. Though the Biden administration has come out against the move, the president is still expected to sign the legislation when it reaches his desk.

Senators voted down an amendment, sponsored by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, to reinstate and provide backpay to military personnel who had been fired for refusing to get vaccines.

After the NDAA's passage, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted, "I voted tonight against the $858 billion Pentagon budget, which is 10% more than last year. At a time when we spend more than the next 11 nations combined on defense, we should invest in health care, jobs, housing and education – not more weapons of destruction."

Senate rejects Manchin's "dirty deal"

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin's proposed amendment to fast-track permitting for fossil fuel projects failed to get included in the National Defense Authorization Act.
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin's proposed amendment to fast-track permitting for fossil fuel projects failed to get included in the National Defense Authorization Act.  © Kevin Dietsch / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / Getty Images via AFP

There was some good climate news that came out of this week's Senate proceedings: lawmakers voted to reject West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin's proposal to add language that would fast-track permitting for fossil fuel construction projects.

Biden angered environmental groups on Thursday when he released a statement in support of Manchin's amendment. Many organizations and individuals had launched call storm campaigns urging elected officials to vote against the "dirty deal," as it is known among opponents.

Those efforts paid off when the amendment failed to get the 60 "yeses" required for passage in the upper chamber, marking its third defeat this year.

ACLU sues for records that may reveal Trump's mass deportation plans
Migration ACLU sues for records that may reveal Trump's mass deportation plans

The US House earlier this month decided to leave the permitting language out of its NDAA draft. In September, the "dirty deal" was excluded from a stopgap government funding measure.

"The people have triumphed over the polluters once again. Senator Manchin’s Dirty Deal was a direct assault on frontline communities and the environmental laws that protect our air, water, climate and public health," People vs. Fossil Fuels, a coalition of over 1,200 organizations, said in a statement after the vote.

"But we know this fight isn’t over: the fossil fuel industry and the politicians in their pocket will continue to try and rubber stamp more dangerous fossil fuel projects. Wherever they go, we’ll be there to stop them."

Cover photo: REUTERS

More on US politics: