The House Rules Committee on Tuesday evening advanced a sweeping bipartisan defense policy bill following months of work by the House and Senate Armed Services committees, clearing a key procedural hurdle and sending it to the floor for consideration.
The panel advanced the measure, dubbed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), by a recorded vote of 9-3. The bill would increase pay for service members, provide some military aid to Ukraine, restrict U.S. investment in China and fully repeal sanctions on Syria, among other things.
During the Rules Committee hearing, some Democrats expressed concerns that certain provisions were excluded from the bill.
The NDAA, for instance, doesn’t include a provision to expand IVF coverage for active duty service members and military families. Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) had passed an IVF amendment through the House Armed Services Committee back in July to be included in the NDAA, and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) had passed a similar provision through the Senate Armed Services Committee that same month.
MS Now reported that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) had worked behind the scenes to slash that provision. Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) on Tuesday raised concerns about the omission of the provision.
“I just don’t see why we couldn’t have fought for that,” Fernández said.
But Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said during the hearing that “there’s this delicate little balance that most people don’t realize” when it comes to getting the bill passed.
“We got a lot of Democrats who are going to vote against this bill for a variety of different reasons. If we lose a swath of Republicans over the language on IVF, then we don’t have a bill that can pass,” he said.
House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) noted that once the committee completes its work on the bill, “the leadership takes it over and they make their call.”
The bill also doesn’t include a comprehensive bipartisan package pushed by members of the Senate Banking Committee aimed at making housing more affordable for Americans. And a House leadership aide previously told The Hill that efforts to include a ban on central bank digital currency (CBDC) fell apart amid negotiations over the bipartisan Housing package.
Republicans during the hearing expressed concerns about other aspects of the bill. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, questioned why the bill has a topline of about $8 billion more than the $892.6 billion that President Trump requested in May.
Norman is a big advocate for spending cuts.
“At the end of the day we have no control over this. We are ultimately not going to set the top dollar. What’s going to set the top dollar is going to be the Appropriations Committee and they are currently in negotiations,” Smith said.
Despite the concerns, the bill is widely expected to pass the House with bipartisan support.
It could, however, run into trouble during a final procedural vote on Wednesday. Republicans can only afford to lose three members on the rule vote, which is typically seen as a test of party loyalty.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for instance, has already said she will vote no on the bill.
“Funding foreign aid and foreign wars is America Last and is beyond excuse anymore,” she wrote on X. “I would love to fund our military but refuse to support foreign aid and foreign militaries and foreign wars.”
Other Republicans have also expressed disappointment with the bill.
“Dems removed several republican policies on DEI in the military and Dems are bragging about it and our Republican leadership expects us to vote for this??” Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) wrote on X.
It’s unclear whether the opposition is enough to sink the rule, and doing so would only delay, not kill, the legislation. Leaders could still bring it to the floor under a fast-track suspension of the rules process that requires two-thirds support to pass.
Smith in a Dec. 8 statement urged his Democratic colleagues to vote for the bill.
“While I have concerns about how the Speaker and White House handled the final negotiations of the bill, the majority of this legislation reflects months of bipartisan negotiations done in good faith between the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. While I do not support everything included in this bill, on balance I believe it deserves support,” he said.
