It was a major milestone in the effort to get the bill to the president’s desk by Christmas. | REUTERS NDAA passes House, goes to Senate

The House on Thursday approved a compromise version of this year’s defense authorization bill, kicking it to the Senate under a fast-track process that precludes senators from tacking on controversial amendments dealing with Iran sanctions and other divisive issues.

The Senate is expected to take up the bill on Tuesday or Wednesday, according to Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. It will need some Republican support to get the 60 votes required to advance.


Some Republicans have complained about the prohibition of amendments. But Inhofe and other backers emphasize this would be the Senate’s last chance to approve the bill this year — and maintain an unbroken annual passage record for the yearly measure of more than half a century.

( Also on POLITICO: Hoyer backs off Iran sanctions)

In the House on Thursday, Republicans and Democrats alike had a veiled message for their Senate counterparts: Pass the bill or risk being accused of letting down the military.

“To not pass this at this point is to jeopardize our national security and not support our troops,” said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

The House’s 350-69 vote was a major milestone in the last-ditch attempt by the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to get this year's National Defense Authorization Act to President Barack Obama’s desk before Christmas. The Senate’s last attempt to pass a defense bill stalled before Thanksgiving.

( Also on POLITICO: Senate rift threatens defense bill)

The chairmen of the two committees are urging reluctant senators to go along with the expedited plan. Otherwise, they warn, a number of must-pass authorities will expire at year’s end, including special pays and bonuses for troops.

“I encourage all of our colleagues to vote for this bill to sustain the efforts of those who are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to protect us,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said on Thursday.

The bill’s passage is important to McKeon’s legacy as well as the legacy of his Senate counterpart, Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich). Levin has said he does not plan to run for reelection next year, and McKeon has said he is considering retiring at the end of this term.

( On POLITICO Magazine: Who's in Washington purgatory?)

A failure to get the defense measure across the finish line would represent a major blow to both of the long-serving advocates for the Pentagon.

“I’d like to go out with a bill,” Levin told reporters on Thursday, referring to next year’s defense authorization measure. “If this is the only way to get a bill done, OK.”

“It’s not my preference, believe me,” added Levin. “I used to have much more hair, as you may remember.”

( Also on POLITICO: Year 2 of sequestration: Gloom looming)

Levin, McKeon, Inhofe and Smith spent the past few weeks hashing out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the defense policy legislation in anticipation of an end-of-the-year finish that wouldn’t allow time for a formal House-Senate conference committee. The House passed its version of the defense bill in June, but the Senate bill stalled in a partisan spat over restrictions on the number of amendments.

On Monday, the committee leaders unveiled their compromise bill, which would authorize about $527 billion in base defense spending for the current fiscal year — in line with the Pentagon’s request but well above the caps required under another round of sequestration or in the Budget Committee agreement making its way through Congress.

The elevated spending level allowed the Armed Services Committees to sidestep tough strategic choices about what to cut and what to keep under another round of sequestration — but also meant that the bill passed by the House on Thursday is out of sync with the fiscal realities facing the Pentagon.

Still, the bill advances several major policy fights.

It would retain a prohibition on transferring prisoners at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay to the United States. But it would ease restrictions on transferring Gitmo prisoners to other countries — a provision some Democrats are hailing as a small step toward achieving the White House’s goal of shuttering the facility.

The bill would also overhaul the way the military handles allegations of sexual assault, making it a crime to retaliate against those who report sex crimes in the ranks, among other new reforms.

But it leaves out a controversial amendment by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to remove decisions to prosecute allegations of sexual assault from the military chain of command. The measure met fierce opposition from Pentagon leaders, who are committed to their longstanding command structure.

Thursday’s House passage did not resolve Senate Republicans’ amendment frustration . Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn said he’s not sure whether the bill would muster the necessary 60 votes. “There’s going to be some resistance,” the Texas Republican told POLITICO, voicing frustration with the expedited process being used to move the bill that won’t allow amendments in the Senate.

“There’s no reason why this couldn’t be done in January except for another power play by the majority leader,” Cornyn said.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he’d support the bill only if he gets assurances there will be a vote later to impose stricter sanctions on Iran. “I will oppose it until we find a way forward on Iranian sanctions,” the South Carolina Republican told POLITICO.

Despite the complaints, Inhofe said he anticipated that about half of the Republicans in the Senate would vote for the bill.

“Tuesday or Wednesday we’ll have it in the Senate, and I think we have the votes,” he said.

This article tagged under: Pentagon

Sanctions

Iran

NDAA