Shaheen celebrates potential NH defense projects, but bill has a long way to go

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., celebrated that a proposed omnibus defense spending bill includes many New Hampshire-centric projects, but the legislation has already become mired in partisan fights over abortion and LGBTQ+ services in the closely-divided U.S. House of Representatives.

A senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Shaheen said she was pleased the bill heading to the Senate for a final vote later this month includes money for the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, would spend more to study the harmful effects of forever chemicals known as PFAS and would lead to the construction of additional strike fighters and refueling tankers that are built and/or stationed here.

“New Hampshire’s manufacturing sector plays an outsized role in supporting our national security, and this bill will promote continued investments that help Granite Staters and our economy thrive,” Shaheen said.

The bill includes $1.13 billion in incremental funding for the Virginia-class submarines which are repaired at Portsmouth and a five-year exemption to a lodging policy that Shaheen said threatened to take away housing certainty for many in the shipbuilding workforce.

It expands a PFAS national study that Shaheen secured five years ago, supplying an additional $5 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to continue its work.

The Pease International Tradeport is a model site for the study given the toxic levels of PFAS found in nearby groundwater.

An amendment would promote more domestic spending on the Army’s next generation of night vision devices that are made in New Hampshire as well as additional money to build more F-35 joint strike fighters.

New Hampshire has 58 first-tier suppliers of that project.

Shaheen secured $2.8 billion to build 15 KC-46A Pegasus refueling tankers, which are flown at the Pease Air National Guard Base.

Despite the bipartisan 22-3 vote of the Senate panel, however, the legislation has a long way to go before clearing Congress in a polarizing election-year session.

Last week, U.S. Reps. Chris Pappas and Annie Kuster, both D-N.H., voted against the House version that cleared on a partisan 217-199 vote with only six Democrats in support.

Most Democrats protested that the bill included these socially conservative riders attached to it:

• Abortion ban: This would reverse the Pentagon’s year-old policy of covering leave and travel for service members seeking abortions.

• LGBTQ+ restriction: The House bill includes two amendments to bar the Pentagon from covering gender-affirmation health care for transgender troops and their dependents.

• Anti-diversity provisions: This would eliminate any military diversity office and fire any staff in them, institute a permanent hiring freeze on diversity-related jobs, and cut the Pentagon job of chief diversity officer.

Another dispute between the House and Senate is over how much of a pay raise to grant lower-level enlisted military men and women.

The House-passed bill contained a 19.5% increase for these soldiers, which drew a veto threat from President Joe Biden because his administration has yet to complete a comprehensive analysis into military pay schedules.

All other soldiers would get a 4.5% increase in the House bill.

The Senate-proposed bill would apply a pay increase of 5.5% for lower-level soldiers and 4.5% across the board to the rest.