GOP Defense Bill Squabble Leaves Measure in McConnell’s Hands

Nuclear option hangs over choice between Inhofe’s bipartisan deal or Rand Paul’s demands for deliberation.

Stone wall: McConnell & Co. frowns on Obama delays.
National Journal
Stacy Kaper
See more stories about...
Stacy Kaper
Dec. 10, 2013, 7:44 a.m.

Re­pub­lic­an Sens. Tom Coburn and Rand Paul are ob­ject­ing to a bi­par­tis­an deal that would fast-track the de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill, set­ting up a split GOP caucus and leav­ing Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell with a dif­fi­cult choice to make.

Sen. James In­hofe, the top Re­pub­lic­an on the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, has reached a deal with top com­mit­tee Demo­crat Carl Lev­in that is de­signed to move the bill be­fore year’s end. To make that hap­pen, the House would pass a com­prom­ise ver­sion of the bill be­fore their ex­pec­ted de­par­ture Fri­day, and then the Sen­ate would pass an identic­al ver­sion the fol­low­ing week. The plan would not al­low for amend­ments to the bill, and that’s a stick­ing point for Paul and Coburn, who told re­port­ers on Tues­day they ob­ject to the bill.

“I’m not OK,” said Coburn. “When was the last time we had a [de­fense] bill without any amend­ments on it? Over 50 years ago.”

Said Paul: “We will do everything we can to try to force de­bate around here.”

The fast-track plan’s fate now rests partly in the hands of Mc­Con­nell, whose de­cision will be a guide — al­beit not a bind­ing one — for oth­er cham­ber Re­pub­lic­ans as they de­cide wheth­er to move the meas­ure. And sup­port for passing a bill without amend­ments is made all the more dif­fi­cult by Harry Re­id’s de­cision last month to in­voke the “nuc­le­ar op­tion,” a rules change that gut­ted the minor­ity’s abil­ity to fili­buster nom­in­ees.

The battle is not purely over pro­ced­ure: Paul, Coburn, and oth­er sen­at­ors are all push­ing amend­ments that would achieve key policy pri­or­it­ies. Coburn is seek­ing sev­er­al budget-re­lated amend­ments, in­clud­ing an audit of the Pentagon.

Paul said he wanted to see amend­ments on in­def­in­ite ter­ror­ist de­ten­tions, on Sen. Kirsten Gil­librand plan to change the way the mil­it­ary deals with sexu­al as­sault, and on a pro­vi­sion aimed at send­ing ques­tions about Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency de­cisions to the Su­preme Court rather than the secret For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Act court.

In­hofe said he plans to talk to Mc­Con­nell and pre­sum­ably the rest of his col­leagues at the weekly lunch Tues­day, but he stressed that there is not time for a floor de­bate on the bill.

“We are talk­ing to him. We are go­ing to have a con­ver­sa­tion on this at 1 today,” he told re­port­ers. “But I’m very hope­ful. We are down now so the choices are few: Either we have this bill, this com­prom­ised bill, this big core bill, or we don’t have a bill at all. And the dis­aster that would take place if we did not have a bill at all we could not do.”

He in­sisted that this is a make-or-break mo­ment for the de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill.

In­hofe said, “It’s not a strategy, it’s wheth­er you want a bill or not.”

The Lev­in-In­hofe deal — which also has the back­ing of House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Buck McK­eon — in­cludes 79 amend­ments that lead­ers rolled in­to the bill be­hind the scenes. The de­fense bill has passed 51 years in a row, and there is pres­sure to con­tin­ue the trend, es­pe­cially as fail­ing to fi­nal­ize the meas­ure by year’s end would delay com­bat pay in­creases and oth­er changes to sol­diers’ com­pens­a­tion.

Across the aisle, Lev­in ap­pears to have a smooth­er path to caucus sup­port, but he’s wait­ing to hear from his fel­low Demo­crats as he dis­cusses the bill dur­ing their lunch Tues­day.

“I have not heard of [ob­jec­tions]; that doesn’t mean there aren’t any,” he said. “I would hope not, be­cause I think it is in every­one’s in­terest to pass a bill.”

Lev­in ad­ded there is no oth­er choice: “This is not the best way to pro­ceed ob­vi­ously, but we tried for a week and there was so many ob­jec­tions that we couldn’t even get cleared amend­ments passed, so there’s no way we could pass a bill here today or to­mor­row and get it to the House be­fore they ad­journ,” he said.

What We're Following See More »
“PROFOUNDLY DANGEROUS”
Clinton Rips Into Trump
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Just a day after Donald Trump called her a bigot, Hillary Clinton delivered a scathing speech tying Trump to the KKK and so-called “alt-right.” This new frontier of debate between the two candidates has emerged at a time when Trump has been seeking to appeal to minority voters, among whom he has struggled to garner support. Calling him “profoundly dangerous,” Clinton didn’t hold back on her criticisms of Trump. “He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party,” Clinton said.

SEVEN-POINT LEAD IN A FOUR-WAY
Quinnipiac Has Clinton Over 50%
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump 51%-41% in a new Quinnipiac poll released today. Her lead shrinks to seven points when the third-party candidates are included. In that scenario, she leads 45%-38%, with Gary Johnson pulling 10% and Jill Stein at 4%.

Source:
PROCEDURES NOT FOLLOWED
Trump Not on Ballot in Minnesota
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
MIGHT STILL ACCEPT FOREIGN AND CORPORATE MONEY
Chelsea to Stay on Board of Clinton Foundation
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

Is the Clinton family backtracking on some of its promises to insulate the White House from the Clinton Foundation? Opposition researchers will certainly try to portray it that way. A foundation spokesman said yesterday that Chelsea Clinton will stay on its board, and that the "foundation’s largest project, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, might continue to accept foreign government and corporate funding."

Source:
INTERCEPT IN MIDDLE EAST
Navy Calls Iranian Ships’ Actions Dangerous, Unprofessional
10 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Four Iranian ships made reckless maneuvers close to a U.S. warship this week, the Pentagon said Thursday, in an incident that officials said could have led to dangerous escalation." The four Iranian vessels engaged in a "high-speed intercept" of a U.S. destroyer in the Strait of Hormuz. A Navy spokesman said the Iranina actions "created a dangerous, harassing situation that could have led to further escalation including additional defensive measures" by the destroyer.

Source:
×