Mediaboss Marketing

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

Few things are clear about next years defense spending authorization billwhen Congress will be able to debate it, when it will be approved, when President Donald Trump might sign it. The only certainty, at a time when the coronavirus crisis has upended almost every known quantity in Washington, is that progressive Democrats are going to hate this legislation.

Every spring, Congress puts together a mammothbill that is supposed to authorize the Defense Departments spending for the next fiscal year, but usually contains dozens of unrelated amendments that help shape the federal governments national security policy. For decades, lawmakers passed the bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Actor NDAAwith strong bipartisan majorities and avoided prolonged debates over controversial policy matters.

That changed last year when the progressive flank of the House Democratic caucus pushed to include amendments limiting Trumps ability to spend Pentagon funds on his border wall, preventing him from starting a war with Iran without congressional approval, and ending American support for Saudi Arabias war in Yemen, among other things. None of those provisions made it into the compromise bill, which emerged after negotiations with the Republican-controlled Senate. In the end, progressives were left feeling discouraged.

This years debate originally presented an appealing opportunity for progressives in the House to extract concessions from Senate Republicans. Nearly every major Democratic presidential candidate has spent months calling for a rethinking of American national security strategy, which has been dominated by endless wars in the Middle East. Even Joe Bidenthe presumptive nominee, who is distrusted by many on the leftacknowledged to Military Timesthat the Pentagon can maintain a strong defense and protect our safety and security for less.Meanwhile, the Center for International Policys Sustainable Defense Task Forcecomposed of former government budget analysts, retired military leaders, and other expertsdetermined that the United States could save at least $1.25 trillion over the next decade by trimming the size of the military by 10 percent, eliminating waste and redundant positions, and halting the Trump administrations massive investment in nuclear weapons.

And now, the death toll and economic devastation caused by the coronavirus has reinforced the fact that there are urgent national priorities and security threats not named Russia, Iran, or ISIS that might require some of the resources normally reserved for the military. With the pandemic wreaking havoc on the US Navy, there would, perhaps, be no better time than this year to craft a compelling message against maintaining the Pentagons status quo.

But structural obstaclesincluding a lengthy,coronavirus-caused delay that is expected to push the passage of the bill into the next fiscal yearwill probably make any significant changes near impossible. There will probably be a prejudice within the leadership and the Congress to dispense with the NDAA as expeditiously as possible, Bill Hartung, director of the Center for International Policys Arms and Security Program, told me. Hartung is one of many advocates for a slimmer defense budget who views the pandemicas an appropriate moment to reset the eternal debate over how to spend the Pentagons money. But, because of the truncated schedule lawmakers now face, he doesnt expect reformers will have as many opportunities as last year to attempt to amend the NDAA.

Progressive advocates who are in touch with the committee staff crafting the House version of the bill have also tempered their expectations. It is very, very likely were going to see an NDAA that reflects business as usual, a source affiliated with a group that works on military issues told me, adding that this years legislation is just not designed to encompass the vision progressives had for last years bill.

The primary architect of the the House bill will be Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who chairs the Armed Services Committee. Last year was his first time shepherding the NDAA process, and he was evidently no fan of how the debate unfolded. Liberal lawmakers stacked the bill with contentious policy provisions, resulting in a rare party-line vote in committee, zero Republican support from the rest of the House, and a compromise negotiation with the Senate that left progressive leaders like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) blasting the legislations astonishing moral cowardice. An exasperated Smith told Politicoat the time that he would be a lot more critical in the future of lawmakers trying to insert amendments that were not within our jurisdiction.

Whilethe delay in moving forward with the NDAAcould open the door to pandemic-related provisions that shore up the Pentagons response to the virus, its not likely the bill will be as expansive as in previous years. I think there is a renewed resolve, certainly by both Adam and me, to confine our bill to our issues, and not allow it to be a vehicle for lots of other wish lists that are not able to make it through other committees, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), the committees top Republican, told Defense News earlier this month. Having gone through last year, everybody has a better understanding of what is and is not doable with a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and a Republican president.

Thats not to say Democrats wont offer amendments that challenge Trumps war-making authority. Smith told reporters last week that he expects to revisit the provisions from last years bill aimed at limiting American support to Saudi Arabia.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Smith said the chairman understands and shares the concerns of House liberals, as well as those of other House members. But this time around, progressive lawmakers say they arent going to support a bill without assurances that their priorities will be included in the final product. The progressives are not going to pass a House NDAA to give them license to strip all the progressive priorities from the bill, as it was last time. The leadership is going to have to make a choice, Khanna, an Armed Services Committee member, told reporters on a conference call Tuesday. Theyll either pass a progressive NDAA or pass a bill with Republican votes.

Continued here:
Progressives Are Going to Hate This Year's Defense Spending Bill - Mother Jones