By Thomas Whitaker
WASHINGTON — When lawmakers return to the Capitol on Nov. 9, six days after Election Day, the Armed Services and Budget committees in both chambers will face a short calendar. A $1.15 trillion defense policy bill built around President Donald Trump’s budget request has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate. The stopgap law funding the Pentagon and the rest of the government runs out on Dec. 11.
The House passed H.R. 8800, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027, by a vote of 216 to 212 on July 22, according to the House Clerk’s record of Roll Call 278. Republicans voted 209 to 7 for the bill. Democrats voted 205 to 6 against it, and the chamber’s one independent voted yes.
Eight days earlier, the Senate failed to begin debate on its own version, S. 4784. A cloture motion to take up the bill got 50 votes in favor and 46 against, short of the 60 it needed. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) voted no, a step Senate rules require of a leader who wants the option of bringing a failed motion back up. New York Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both Democrats, also voted no. Gillibrand sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Republicans: a budget that “accounts for the true cost” of deterrence
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) presented the bill on the floor as a match for the White House’s priorities.
“Peace through strength doesn’t begin on the battlefield – it begins in our factories, depots, and shipyards,” Rogers said, according to his prepared floor remarks. Rogers said the committee was “authorizing $1.15 trillion in discretionary funds to match President Trump’s historic budget request,” adding: “For the first time in 40 years, we’ve been presented a budget that accounts for the true cost of American deterrence.”
Rogers said the bill cuts “nearly $30 billion in wasteful spending.” According to the committee, it also writes more than 65 of the president’s executive orders and legislative proposals into law. After the bill passed, he issued a statement: “Our national security depends on a ready, capable, and well-equipped fighting force backed by a robust and innovative defense industrial base. The FY27 NDAA delivers that,” Rogers said.
The administration backed the House bill but asked for changes. In a Statement of Administration Policy issued July 21, the Office of Management and Budget said it “acknowledges and appreciates the work of the House Committee on Armed Services.” It praised the bill’s authorization of 18 ships and $1 billion in advance procurement for a new battleship. OMB said it “strongly urges Congress to adopt mandatory funding levels in the bill to accurately reflect the full President’s Budget Request.” The White House has described that request as a $1.5 trillion national defense topline.
OMB also objected to section 1025, which bans the use of foreign shipyards, and asked for $10 billion in general transfer authority. “The Administration expects to work with Congress to ensure these concerns are addressed before the NDAA for FY 2027 is presented to the President,” the statement said.
Democrats: the policy is sound but the price is too high
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the committee’s ranking Democrat, gave the bill credit for its work on military pay, housing and acquisition reform. He voted against it over cost.
“The problem is the $1.6 trillion price tag—a 60 percent increase in the defense budget at a time when our country is running a nearly $2 trillion deficit,” Smith said in a July 22 statement. “Though I voted against floor passage today, I remain committed to working with my colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate…”
Senate chairman faults the blockade
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) blamed the Senate impasse on the Democratic leader. Wicker noted that the committee approved its bill after adopting 86 amendments, divided evenly between the parties, and considering “over 1,100 individual ideas.”
“Senator Schumer has chosen to block a bipartisan NDAA from advancing on the Senate floor,” Wicker said in a July 15 statement. “It is difficult to understand this action given that the objections to beginning debate on the bill center on what is not in the bill. This bill is not the proper vehicle to settle disagreements over the adequate balance between defense and domestic spending.”
As Wicker described it, the Democratic objections centered on the balance between defense and domestic spending.
The budget committees’ $60 billion defense instruction
Much of the extra Pentagon money depends on the budget committees. The House adopted H.Con.Res. 113, the fiscal 2027 budget resolution, by a vote of 216 to 214 on July 22. The resolution directs the House Armed Services Committee to write legislation that increases the deficit by no more than $60 billion over fiscal years 2027 through 2036. A reconciliation bill can pass the Senate by a simple majority, so the 60-vote threshold that stalled the NDAA would not apply.
House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said the resolution would help Republicans “break the Democrat obstruction so we can provide emergency support for our troops, safeguard the integrity of our elections,” according to a committee release. “I urge the Senate to seize this fateful moment to SAVE and Protect America,” Arrington said.
The House calendar of Oct. 22 shows no Senate action on the resolution. The Senate Budget Committee would have to take it up, or the Senate would have to adopt a resolution of its own, before reconciliation can start.
The Dec. 11 deadline
The stopgap law, H.R. 6500, was signed Sept. 2. It keeps agencies running at fiscal 2026 levels through Dec. 11. Section 102 bars the Defense Department from starting production of new items, raising production rates or starting programs that had no funding in fiscal 2026. Section 104 applies a similar ban on new starts across the government.
The House has passed three of the 12 annual spending bills for fiscal 2027, including military construction and veterans affairs. CBS News reported that none had cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told CBS News, “We’re going to be in a crunch time.”
Election years have run late before. The fiscal 2023 and fiscal 2025 defense authorization bills, both passed after midterm or presidential elections, were each signed on Dec. 23.
What it means for Western New York
The House bill authorizes $25 million for an automated record fire range at Fort Drum, according to the bill’s military construction tables.
Rep. Tim Kennedy (D-Buffalo) has asked the Armed Services Committee to keep funding a new Consolidated Operations and Aircrew Facility at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, home of the 914th Air Refueling Wing’s KC-135 tankers. The fiscal 2026 defense law authorized $54 million for the project, and the fiscal 2026 military construction law provided $16.11 million of that. Kennedy noted in written testimony to the committee’s Member Day that the operations group now works out of “six outdated, disjointed, and code-deficient buildings.”
“In the FY27 NDAA, additional funding is needed to provide $54 million in total federal support for completion of the COAF,” Kennedy wrote. “This project requires sustained federal investment in order to achieve the highest mission efficiency for refueling operations both at home and abroad.”
The Buffalo Chronicle did not find the Niagara project in the House-passed NDAA text or in the House’s fiscal 2027 military construction bill and its committee report. Kennedy voted against the House NDAA. Republican Reps. Nick Langworthy, Claudia Tenney and Elise Stefanik voted for it. Democratic Reps. Joe Morelle, Josh Riley and John Mannion voted against it.
The Buffalo Chronicle has asked the House Armed Services Committee for comment on the timeline for a final bill and on the Niagara Falls project.
Photo: A KC-135 Stratotanker arrives at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station in 2017. U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Stephanie Sawyer, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain).


















Leave a Reply