{"id":23822,"date":"2019-06-19T19:38:22","date_gmt":"2019-06-19T19:38:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2019\/06\/19\/house-passes-983-billion-spending-package-226-203-bucking-white-house\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T22:07:07","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T22:07:07","slug":"house-passes-983-billion-spending-package-226-203-bucking-white-house","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/congress\/2019\/06\/19\/house-passes-983-billion-spending-package-226-203-bucking-white-house\/","title":{"rendered":"House passes $983 billion spending package 226-203, bucking White House"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2015 The Democratic-controlled House passed a $985 billion appropriations package<\/a> for fiscal 2020 that aims to fund national security at $17 billion less than the White House requested, end the post-2001 war authorizations after eight months, pull military support in Yemen and defund the W76-2 nuclear warhead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The vote was 225-203, with seven Democrats voting with the Republican minority. Zero Republicans voted for the bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s a salvo from Democrats in FY20 budget negotiations with the GOP-controlled Senate and White House, and the White House has threatened that President Donald Trump would veto the massive bill. Beyond the above provisions and others, the administration strongly objected to language meant to block Pentagon funds being applied to a wall on the southern border.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The threat foreshadows pushback from the Senate and the White House, in part because both advocated for a $750 billion national defense budget, while the House-passed bill is consistent with a $733 billion national defense budget. (The House bill would fund the Pentagon alone at $8 billion less than the White House request.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The four-bill \u201cminibus\u201d contained the two largest of the 12 annual appropriations bills; the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill and the Defense bill. For the defense, it totaled $645.1 billion in base-defense funding, and $68.1 billion in the budget-cap-exempt wartime funding account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., emphasized the package\u2019s investments outside the Pentagon, including a 4 percent increase in State Department funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis bill rejects the administration\u2019s unacceptable budget request and irresponsible policies and, rather, strives to uphold many bipartisan congressional priorities,\u201d Lowey said when the bill was introduced. \u201cAmerica\u2019s foreign policy is strongest when diplomacy, development and defense are well-funded and equally prioritized, as many of today\u2019s global challenges cannot be addressed by military intervention alone.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Republicans have opposed the minibus as an empty exercise because Congress lacks a bipartisan deal to ease spending caps and avoid across-the-board sequestration cuts. Nor does the bill contain border wall funding sought by conservative Republicans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMoving these bills as-is is a wasted opportunity because the bills are far from what the president has requested and will support,\u201d said the House Appropriations Committee\u2019s ranking member, Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDefense spending does not meet the request while nondefense spending greatly exceeds the request in current levels. This could lead to a veto and another government shutdown, something both [parties] agree would be devastating \u2015 in addition to these funding concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The White House issued a veto threat last week that spelled out its objections to provisions in the bill that would end the post-2001 war authorizations after eight months and pull military support in Yemen\u2015and because the House parked less defense spending in the budget-cap skirting war fund.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The language surrounding the authorization for the use of military force, Granger said, could jeopardize the Pentagon\u2019s ability to conduct military operations worldwide. \u201cIt\u2019s a bad policy that will force the DoD to unwind counterterrorism operations overseas if the Congress and the president cannot agree on a new authorization,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To avoid another government shutdown, 12 appropriations bills must pass Congress and get the president\u2019s signature by Oct. 1. Negotiations between the White House and lead lawmakers on a deal to ease budget caps has been ongoing, according to a statement last week by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.. (The Senate Appropriations Committee hasn\u2019t yet moved any of its bills.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another likely sticking point in budget talks with the GOP-controlled Senate and the White House is the minibus\u2019 bill\u2019s prohibition on the Defense Department spending funds to implement its policy on open transgender service. The vote to approve an amendment that contained the prohibition broke mostly along party lines, 234-183.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amendment targets a March 12 memo that would largely bar transgender troops and military recruits from transitioning to another gender, and require most individuals to serve in their birth sex.<\/p>\n\n\n\t