The House Rules Committee ruled on June 11 in favor of advancing a House version of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for consideration before the full House of Representatives.
The committee issued its ruling after an hours-long hearing to consider the annual defense budget bill.
The House version of the NDAA comes in at more than $880 billion and currently includes continued funding for military aircraft, ships, vehicles, and weapons programs, a 4.5 percent pay raise for U.S. service members, and about 15 percent in additional pay raises for some junior enlisted service members, bringing their overall pay boost to nearly 20 percent under this year’s budget.
Lawmakers submitted more than 1,300 amendments to the bill, of which the committee ruled 350 were in order.
The committee’s decisions could set the stage for a partisan fight as the Republican-controlled House and Democrat-controlled Senate work to reconcile the differences in their separate versions of the bill.
Amendments
House Armed Services Committee ranking Democrat Adam Smith (D-Wash.) issued a statement last week urging House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to “reject attempts to add poison pills or partisan riders” and strive for broad bipartisan support when passing the NDAA.
Of the 350 amendments the committee ruled in order, about one-fifth were offered exclusively by Democrats, and the remainder were offered by either Republicans or bipartisan groups.
Another Republican amendment would prohibit the Pentagon from contracting with entities that have engaged in boycotts of Israel and would bar the department from selling products made by entities that boycott Israel at any of its commissary stores or military exchanges.
As the June 11 House Rules Committee hearing drew to a close, Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) expressed disappointment that the committee ruled against about 85 percent of the amendments offered by Democrats. He noted that many of these included “quality, relevant proposals that this majority simply doesn’t want to receive a fair hearing.”
While some Democrats argued that certain NDAA provisions and Republican amendments could undermine bipartisan support, several Republicans argued that their efforts direct the military to focus on lethality, rather than “woke” policies.
White House Challenge
On June 11, the White House issued a statement of administration policy signifying President Biden’s objections to several of the provisions within the bill.The Biden White House expressed disappointment that the current version of the House NDAA provides $700 million less than the president requested for the annual shipbuilding budget and calls for funding one less ship than the president had hoped for in the 2025 defense budget.
President Biden also objected to a provision within the House bill calling for the U.S. Army to establish a drone corps component, arguing the provision would create an “unwarranted degree of specialization and limit flexibility to employ evolving capabilities.”
The White House said the president appreciates efforts to increase pay for junior enlisted troops “but strongly opposes making a significant, permanent change to the basic pay schedule” before the military completes its compensation review.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) criticized President Biden for opposing targeted pay increases for junior enlisted troops.
President Biden also signaled his opposition to provisions within the House version of the NDAA that would limit DEI programs.
“The prohibitions regarding DEI efforts would impede DoD’s and Federal agencies’ ability to recruit and retain the diverse perspectives, experiences, and skillsets that are foundational to the strength of the Federal workforce,” the White House said. “Creating and supporting programs and policies that embrace DEI fosters workforce cultures that are inclusive of all individuals.”
The White House also faulted the House NDAA for not providing an increase in funding for the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program.
The president also opposed a provision to bar cannabis testing before military enlistment or commissioning.
“The Administration appreciates Congress’ desire to increase the available military accessions pool. However, the Administration opposes Section 532, which would prevent DoD from testing applicants for [delta] 9-THC and [delta] 8-THC contained in marijuana (cannabis),” the White House stated. “The use of marijuana by Servicemembers is a military readiness and safety concern.”
