On Tuesday evening, the House Rules Committee moved forward with a significant bipartisan defense policy bill, marking a crucial step after extensive deliberations by the House and Senate Armed Services committees. This advancement paves the way for the bill to be debated on the House floor.

The legislation, known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), was approved with a recorded vote of 9-3. The bill proposes a range of initiatives, including a pay raise for service members, military aid to Ukraine, restrictions on U.S. investments in China, and a full repeal of sanctions on Syria.

However, some Democrats voiced concerns during the Rules Committee hearing, noting that certain provisions they championed were not included in the final version of the bill.

One notable exclusion is the expansion of IVF coverage for active duty service members and their families. This provision had gained support earlier in the year, with Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) successfully passing an IVF amendment through the House Armed Services Committee in July. Similarly, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) had advanced a comparable provision through the Senate committee.

Reports from MS Now suggest that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) played a role in the removal of the IVF provision. On Tuesday, Representatives Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) raised their concerns about this omission, underscoring the importance of the provision for military families.

“I just don’t see why we couldn’t have fought for that,” Fernández said.

But Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said during the hearing that “there’s this delicate little balance that most people don’t realize” when it comes to getting the bill passed. 

“We got a lot of Democrats who are going to vote against this bill for a variety of different reasons. If we lose a swath of Republicans over the language on IVF, then we don’t have a bill that can pass,” he said. 

House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) noted that once the committee completes its work on the bill, “the leadership takes it over and they make their call.”

The bill also doesn’t include a comprehensive bipartisan package pushed by members of the Senate Banking Committee aimed at making housing more affordable for Americans. And a House leadership aide previously told The Hill that efforts to include a ban on central bank digital currency (CBDC) fell apart amid negotiations over the bipartisan Housing package. 

Republicans during the hearing expressed concerns about other aspects of the bill. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, questioned why the bill has a topline of about $8 billion more than the $892.6 billion that President Trump requested in May. 

Norman is a big advocate for spending cuts.

“At the end of the day we have no control over this. We are ultimately not going to set the top dollar. What’s going to set the top dollar is going to be the Appropriations Committee and they are currently in negotiations,” Smith said.

Despite the concerns, the bill is widely expected to pass the House with bipartisan support.

It could, however, run into trouble during a final procedural vote on Wednesday. Republicans can only afford to lose three members on the rule vote, which is typically seen as a test of party loyalty.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for instance, has already said she will vote no on the bill.

“Funding foreign aid and foreign wars is America Last and is beyond excuse anymore,” she wrote on X. “I would love to fund our military but refuse to support foreign aid and foreign militaries and foreign wars.”

Other Republicans have also expressed disappointment with the bill.

“Dems removed several republican policies on DEI in the military and Dems are bragging about it and our Republican leadership expects us to vote for this??” Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) wrote on X. 

It’s unclear whether the opposition is enough to sink the rule, and doing so would only delay, not kill, the legislation. Leaders could still bring it to the floor under a fast-track suspension of the rules process that requires two-thirds support to pass.

Smith in a Dec. 8 statement urged his Democratic colleagues to vote for the bill.

“While I have concerns about how the Speaker and White House handled the final negotiations of the bill, the majority of this legislation reflects months of bipartisan negotiations done in good faith between the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. While I do not support everything included in this bill, on balance I believe it deserves support,” he said.