House Bill Passed (Updated)

House lawmakers have approved the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill by a 325-98 vote.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) released a statement on the bill's passage:

For the 53rd consecutive year, Republicans and Democrats have come together to pass the legislation that provides vital authorities and resources for our men and women in uniform. This is solid legislation, built after many long months of intensive oversight work. But, it is not perfect legislation. We had to make too many cuts, too many hard tradeoffs, and too many reductions to bring this bill in with $30 billion less than we gave DoD last year. I fear these will leave our war fighters fewer tools to succeed. Nevertheless, this year we were able to hold off disaster. Unless something changes, the choices next year will be brutal.

Some have characterized the FY15 NDAA as a sop to parochial interests. That is a lazy dismissal of a long, arduous process that still leaves many holes in our defense and few good choices. Thanks to intense efforts by a bipartisan group of members and staff, we were able to successfully do as the law compels — make the tough decisions that put the troops first.

I welcome passage of this year's bill and I’m eager to start work with the Senate. It is my hope that we get this done before the November election, so that our new House and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairmen will have time to do the hard work and preparation for 2015 and the defense challenges ahead.

Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) also issued a statement, saying it was "the closet I've ever come to voting against the bill and I only voted in favor because we still have time to fix the bill. But we must fix the bill."

Smith continued:

This bill does not make any of the hard choices necessary to confront our fiscal challenges. Congress forced the Department of Defense to craft a budget within the confines of a limited amount of resources. The department made difficult choices. It did what we asked of it, and then Congress simply undid all of the department's cost-saving measures and slashed readiness accounts without offering alternatives.

From the Navy's request to lay up 14 ships to BRAC to the A-10 to the U-2 and the Guard and Reserve helicopter changes to personnel costs, Congress said "no" to the Department of Defense without offering alternatives. It is not our job to accept the department's budget as is, but if we are to reject the Pentagon's cost-saving measures we need to offer alternatives. We didn't. We ducked every difficult decision. We played accounting games and cut readiness as we stand by and wait for a miracle. We owe our troops more.

I am deeply concerned about cutting readiness to $1.2 billion below the President's budget request. This committee has relentlessly and correctly pointed out the negative effect that across-the-board budget cuts have had on military readiness, yet this bill slashes readiness accounts by $1.2 billion below what was requested by the President. That is unacceptable. Certainly, given the congressionally mandated spending caps, this year's budget is far more difficult than past years, but that is no excuse to further undermine the readiness of our forces.

On many of these issues, Congress wasn’t even allowed a vote. The Rules Committee ruled the vast majority of the difficult votes out of order. We dodged the difficult issues by not even allowing a vote. I had an amendment to restore the Navy's plan for the cruisers and dock landing ships and another amendment that would allow the military to execute a BRAC. Neither was even given a vote.

Additionally, the bill maintains the congressional barriers to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We must close this expensive international eyesore. But again, Congress simply said no without offering an alternative.

Ultimately, I voted in favor because I believe in our oversight role and I believe that we still have time to fix this bill. But, in the end, if our bill simply becomes about protecting parochial interests, then we are not doing our job.

So as we go into conference and as we go forward, it is the obligation of this Congress to say: What is our plan? Right now our plan is hope. We are hoping that the money will appear. We are hoping for a miracle. We are hoping that somehow we magically won't have to make tough decisions. I heard very early on in my time on the Armed Services Committee one of the sayings in the military is "hope is not a strategy." We must heed that advice. We must do better.

As we move to conference with the Senate, we must address these issues.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is due to begin marking up its version of the bill this afternoon in a closed session.

(UPDATE 7:30 p.m.: The Senate Armed Services Committee completed its mark-up of the bill late this afternoon. Click here to read the story.)