Progressives seek concessions from Pelosi over massive defense bill
House Democratic leaders eager to pass a massive $733 billion defense bill this week must first win over frustrated progressives who are still stinging from their loss on last month’s bitter border spending fight.
The Democratic caucus’ most prominent liberals, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), say they’re in no mood simply swallow another bill from Democratic leaders. And while they’re not threatening to tank the legislation just yet, the leaders of the 90-member Congressional Progressive Caucus are demanding a string of concessions from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants.
Progressives say they want amendments to rein in the Trump administration’s war powers on long-simmering issues like Iran and Yemen as well as a vote to slash the defense budget. And the group will hold a special closed-door meeting Tuesday night — their first time gathering as a group since the fallout from the border fight — to settle on a strategy for the defense bill.
“NDAA, it’s already tough, a lot of us have traditionally voted against it,” Pocan, co-chair of the caucus, told POLITICO. “Given what just happened ... in this case, we’re going to need some real assurances.”
The high-wire act on the defense bill comes just 12 days after Pelosi and her Democratic leadership team tossed out progressives’ hard-fought changes to a border bill in favor of a Senate compromise, enraging the same group whose support they now need.
With no guarantees of GOP votes, top Democrats on the defense panel have carefully courted the Congressional Progressive Caucus for months, eager to win their support despite provisions that liberals have long detested, like yet another increase to the Pentagon’s budget and a lack of constraints on what they see as endless wars by the Trump administration.
As the bill heads to the floor this week, Democratic leaders say they’re confident it will pass, though they acknowledge that progressive support will hinge on a slew of amendments on the floor — and whether any will pass.
Pelosi and her leadership team have just 18 votes to spare, forcing them to walk a careful line as they tee up liberal amendments without losing support from the caucus’s centrists.
Progressive leaders warned before the July 4th recess and just after their border funding defeat that they may not give in to leadership so quickly on future bills, including on the National Defense Authorization Act.
“I was already thinking it was going to be difficult. It’s going to be even more difficult after today,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), another co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, after the House adjourned after passing a stripped down version of a border funding bill.
Asked about the prospects for the defense bill, Jayapal said: “I think it’s going to be progressives saying ‘if you won’t even stick with us on a House [border] bill, then we’re not going to compromise on a defense bill with that kind of money.’ But I don’t know.”
“The final bill has to be progressive or progressives aren’t going to support it,” one Democratic aide close to the CPC added.
Chief among liberal Democrats' concerns is the bill's hefty $733 billion price tag. While still below Trump’s massive $750 billion budget, progressives contend it's still too high for a Pentagon rife with waste that hasn't passed an audit. Progressive leaders have also noted that even the Democratic chairman in charge of the bill, Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.), has opposed boosting the defense budget — and argued it should be cut to $700 billion.
Democratic leaders have already told progressives they will allow a vote on an amendment to block war with Iran, drafted by ultraliberal Rep. Ro Khanna of California and a firebrand Republican, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a close Trump ally.
Progressives are also seeking votes on measures that would halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia and end U.S. military aid to the Saudi-led coalition that’s intervened in Yemen’s bloody civil war. Another amendment would slash funding for the Pentagon’s special war spending account and reduce the bill’s total price tag by another $17 billion.
The defense policy bill, one of the few pieces of legislation that still reliably becomes law each year, typically attracts a raft of contentious proposals. On top of progressive demands, the House could also vote to repeal of the broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which underpins a myriad military of operations around the world. The House previously approved the repeal as part of a massive spending package in June.
But progressive leaders have also acknowledged that the process to shape the Democrats’ defense bill felt much different from the contentious border funding bill from the start. Top Democrats like Smith — who is a member of the progressive caucus — has intentionally worked to include the caucus’s left as he shaped the bill.
Smith, who concedes he isn't counting on much Republican support, argues the bill contains many progressive priorities. In recent weeks, he's said the bill would trim $17 billion from Trump's budget request and stymie the administration's efforts to deploy new low-yield nuclear warheads and tap into the defense budget to build a border wall.
“There are a lot of things in here that are important for Democratic progressive priorities, and I wouldn’t be asking them to vote for the bill if there weren’t,” Smith said.
As he looked to court progressives, Smith and other Democrats on the defense panel were encouraging members to write up their own amendments and make an effort to keep members up to date even before key details were finalized.
“With NDAA, there’s proactive work with the progressives to make sure we have progressive amendments," Khanna said. “That’s been noticed, that’s been rewarded.”
“I do think that a lot of progressives will support it,” Khanna added, noting several progressive-backed amendments are teed up for votes.
In a break from bipartisan tradition, Republicans have so far balked at the bill. Only two Republicans supported the measure during the Armed Services Committee’s marathon markup last month.
Defense hawks argue the bill, which cut $17 billion from the $750 billion Trump proposed, would jeopardize military readiness and hurt military efforts to deter Russia and China. They also slammed Democrats’ push to limit nuclear weapons programs and block military funding for barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border.
House Armed Services ranking member Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said Republicans would work to change the bill on the floor, but warned it isn’t suitable as written.
"Unfortunately, partisan provisions in this bill have robbed it of bipartisan support," Thornberry said in a statement. "Through this bill, House Democrats are forcing our troops to pay the price for their political disputes with the President."
Smith countered that there would be enough Democrats to pass the bill on the floor, even as some progressives have aired their grievances publicly. But he said he's been listening to concerns from both parties because "I want to get as many votes for the bill as possible."
“I think there’s more votes potentially on the table than it might at first glance appear,” Smith said. “We don’t have 200 members of Congress right now saying, ‘Hell no, no way am I voting for this.’”
