Dems look to defense bill to put pressure on Trump

Democrats are pushing to make the annual defense policy bill a referendum on President Trump, with plans to introduce a series of amendments as the legislation makes its way through committee.

Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) will take the lead on introducing an amendment on climate change in an effort to throw Defense Secretary James Mattis’s words back at the administration.

And Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, will introduce the portions of his Russia bill that haven’t already been included in the defense legislation.

Democrats are still working out other amendments, but a spokesperson said more could be expected relating to Trump.

{mosads}

“It’s a safe bet that there probably will be,” a spokesperson for House Armed Services Committee Democrats said when asked about more anti-Trump amendments.

Lawmakers regularly use the massive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) –– which authorizes funding for the Defense Department and all of its activities –– to try to provide a check on the president on both defense and non-defense issues.

The bill is one of few that reliably becomes law, passing on a bipartisan basis for 55 years in a row, making it a prime vehicle for attempts to rein in the executive branch.

As of Thursday, this year’s bill would authorize a total of $705 billion for defense spending, broken down into $640 billion for the base budget and $65 billion for a war fund known as the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account.

During the previous administration, Republicans used restrictions in the defense bill to successfully prevent former President Barack Obama from shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Lawmakers also often introduce amendments while the bill is still in the committee process to make a point. For example, in recent years an amendment has been added that would have prevented the sage grouse from being listed on the endangered species list.

Last year, the NDAA also got entangled with the wider debate over LGBT rights versus religious freedom because of an amendment added in mark up. Such amendments mucked up later bicameral negotiations, but were eventually stripped from the bill.

Asked this week about amendments like the sage grouse one, committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said he hopes such debates can be avoided this year.

“This is the time to pursue other methods to accomplish your goals,” he said. “And it is absolutely true one of my hopes is that we can keep this bill focused on defense rather than other issues that have proved to be problematic.”

But the GOP chairman acknowledged that some lawmakers will attempt to use the bill for specific goals.

“I am under no illusions, there are a variety of things that are floating around and more will come to the surface that want to be on NDAA,” Thornberry said. “But what I’m trying to do is encourage everybody is keep this focused on defense and the men and women who serve, and I think that works out better for everybody.”

Democrats have just 28 of 62 seats on the committee, meaning any amendment not supported by Republicans will be largely symbolic.

Langevin’s amendment would “aim to ensure that the Department of Defense remains mission resilient in the face the national security threat posed by climate change,” according to a brief description provided by his office.

“The needs of the Pentagon with respect to climate change are clear and have been consistently articulated by military and intelligence officials,” Langevin said in a statement Friday. “Mission resiliency must be a core objective of the Department of Defense, and Congress has a responsibility to ensure that objective is met.”

The officials cited by Langevin include Mattis, who in written answers to questions during his confirmation process said that “climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.”

Meanwhile, Smith, with the backing of 22 Democratic colleagues on the committee, has introduced a standalone bill to try to force the Trump administration to craft a comprehensive policy to deter Russian aggression.

Some portions, including bolstering support for the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence and requiring a Pentagon report on training for troops in Europe, were in the subcommittee portions of the NDAA released this week.

But Smith has pledged to get the whole bill into the NDAA, either by convincing the majority to include it in the so-called “chairman’s mark” or by amendments.

He’s described his bill as necessary in the face of Trump’s inaction on Russian aggression, including its interference in the U.S. election, violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, its stated defense strategy of “escalating to de-escalate” that allows for the use of nuclear weapons and its annexation of Crimea and support of separatists in eastern Ukraine.

“It is time for Congress to lead on this issue, especially given President Trump’s unwillingness take the danger seriously,” Smith said in a statement this week.

Even this week’s genial subcommittee mark ups, where opening statements were plaudits of bipartisanship, included a couple swipes at Trump from Democrats, telegraphing arguments to come in Wednesday’s full committee mark up.

“I remain concerned about how the administration plans to pay for its overall budget plan,” Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) said at the Tactical Air and Land Forces mark up, “namely by prioritizing defense spending at a cost to other important federal agencies that are critical to our national security. “