Senate Leaders Under Gun to Deliver Votes on Defense Bill

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
National Journal
Stacy Kaper
Dec. 17, 2013, 2:40 p.m.

Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee lead­ers are un­der pres­sure to win sup­port on a cru­cial vote — ex­pec­ted Wed­nes­day — that would clear the way to passing the Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act be­fore year’s end.

The bill — which provides for the na­tion’s de­fense, in­clud­ing such crit­ic­al com­pon­ents as com­bat pay, armed ser­vices’ health care be­ne­fits, re­sources for troops in Afgh­anistan, and coun­terter­ror­ism op­er­a­tions — is viewed as one of the few vestiges of bi­par­tis­an­ship in a dys­func­tion­al Wash­ing­ton.

But for first-time Armed Ser­vices rank­ing mem­ber James In­hofe, R-Okla., and re­tir­ing Chair­man Carl Lev­in, D-Mich., the stakes are es­pe­cially high. Neither wants the stain of fail­ure on his re­cord, as In­hofe seeks to prove him­self and Lev­in looks to ce­ment his ca­reer ac­com­plish­ments.

“There is a lot of pres­sure on them polit­ic­ally,” said Steven Bucci, a former top Pentagon of­fi­cial, who is the dir­ect­or of the Al­lis­on Cen­ter for For­eign Policy Stud­ies at the Her­it­age Found­a­tion.

“The sort of em­bar­rass­ment and threat that it would be the first time in 52 years that they didn’t pass a de­fense bill, and the fact that it does have some rel­ev­ance to the abil­ity to de­fend the na­tion, are sig­ni­fic­ant.”

There are also im­port­ant policy rami­fic­a­tions of the le­gis­la­tion.

“For the HASC and the SASC, it’s a big part of where law­makers put their fo­cus for the year,” said Sen. Mar­tin Hein­rich, D-N.M., who served on the House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee. “It gives some over­all dir­ec­tion to the De­part­ment of De­fense. … It gives them the North Star of what they should be work­ing to­ward in the next year, and when you don’t do that, you get mis­sion drift.”

For In­hofe, as a new rank­ing mem­ber this year, fol­low­ing in the foot­steps of the ever-in­flu­en­tial de­fense heavy­weight Sen. John Mc­Cain, R-Ar­iz., fail­ing to win suf­fi­cient Re­pub­lic­an votes in his first year as the seni­or Re­pub­lic­an could hurt his cred­ib­il­ity as a lead­er on the com­mit­tee’s most fun­da­ment­al task.

In­hofe has made plain he be­lieves the stakes are high.

“We have a Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act,” In­hofe said on the Sen­ate floor last week. “That act is more im­port­ant than any­thing else we do around here, in my opin­ion. … For 51 con­sec­ut­ive years we have passed an NDAA bill pri­or to Janu­ary, and it’s al­ways been that way.”

When In­hofe an­nounced the de­fense-bill com­prom­ise reached between Sen­ate and House lead­ers last week, he made clear that Re­pub­lic­ans push­ing for amend­ments would only im­per­il its chances at the ex­pense of the na­tion’s de­fense.

In­hofe has reached out to mem­bers, per­son­ally ur­ging them to sup­port the bill, ex­plain­ing what is in it and the con­sequences of not passing it, and build­ing co­ali­tions. He has en­lis­ted the as­sist­ance of Mc­Cain, who still wields con­sid­er­able sway as a lead­ing de­fense hawk and has been mak­ing the case that the bill must be com­pleted this year.

“Cer­tainly In­hofe, as his first year as rank­ing mem­ber, wants to see this as a suc­cess, and he’s do­ing the right thing,” said Ro­ger Za­kheim, a former gen­er­al coun­sel to House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Re­pub­lic­ans, who is now of coun­sel with Cov­ing­ton & Burl­ing.

“Com­ing out with Mc­Cain about a week ago is very note­worthy. … In­hofe knows that Mc­Cain is some­body who has been pas­sion­ate about get­ting the de­fense bill passed; he has worked it for many years. It was a nat­ur­al place to go to bring Mc­Cain along to help with the Re­pub­lic­an con­fer­ence.”

Re­pub­lic­ans are fed up with the way Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id, D-Nev., is run­ning the cham­ber, and many have ex­pressed out­rage at not hav­ing a more open amend­ment pro­cess on the floor, with a strong con­tin­gent ral­ly­ing for ac­tion on ad­di­tion­al Ir­an sanc­tions.

The de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill routinely over­comes the drama that con­sist­ently cripples Con­gress, but in­creas­ingly only after over­com­ing its own share of hic­cups. The same is shap­ing up to be true now. A suf­fi­cient num­ber of Re­pub­lic­ans are ex­pec­ted to sup­port a clo­ture vote on the bill at the con­clu­sion of the budget vote Wed­nes­day to move to fi­nal pas­sage this week, but not without grip­ing about the pro­cess and blam­ing Demo­crats for the lack of de­bate.

“It’s out­rageous that we are presen­ted with a Hob­son’s choice of vot­ing for this bill and not be­ing able to have amend­ments. … It’s un­con­scion­able,” said Mc­Cain, who is provid­ing Re­pub­lic­ans the foil of beat­ing up on Re­id’s lead­er­ship.

On the oth­er side of the aisle, Lev­in has long shep­her­ded the de­fense bill through the tu­mul­tu­ous land­scape of the Sen­ate. He has chaired the com­mit­tee for the past sev­en years and has served as either chair­man or rank­ing mem­ber since 2001. Since 2008, he has twice had to ne­go­ti­ate a deal on the bill with the House be­fore the Sen­ate ever voted on it, in or­der to se­cure its pas­sage in the cham­ber be­fore it ex­pires at the end of the year, and he has taken that route again now.

Lev­in is on his way out, hav­ing an­nounced that he is not seek­ing reelec­tion in 2014, and fail­ing to com­plete a de­fense bill in the fi­nal stretch of his long ca­reer is not a leg­acy he en­deavors to add to his re­sume as he ap­proaches re­tire­ment. Demo­crats are in line, and he be­lieves Re­pub­lic­ans will get there.

“There is a lot of sup­port in the com­mit­tee be­cause they know what the chal­lenge was, and they know that we made an ef­fort on the floor for a week be­fore Thanks­giv­ing to get votes on amend­ments ad­dressed and we just couldn’t get it done,” he said. “So the Re­pub­lic­ans on the com­mit­tee are kind of fa­mil­i­ar with what we’ve done. In terms of the oth­er Re­pub­lic­ans, I think most want a bill and know this is the only way we are go­ing to get a bill.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
35 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×