{"id":44796,"date":"2019-05-21T20:07:22","date_gmt":"2019-05-21T20:07:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2019\/05\/21\/democrats-pentagon-budget-bill-would-curb-trumps-war-powers\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T23:37:13","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T23:37:13","slug":"democrats-pentagon-budget-bill-would-curb-trumps-war-powers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/congress\/2019\/05\/21\/democrats-pentagon-budget-bill-would-curb-trumps-war-powers\/","title":{"rendered":"Democrats\u2019 Pentagon budget bill would curb Trump\u2019s war powers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2015 A House defense spending bill that aims to end the post-2001 war authorizations after eight months, pull military support in Yemen<\/a> and fund the Pentagon at $8 billion less than what the White House requested, advanced out of committee in a 30-22 vote Tuesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exemplifying the Democratic-controlled House\u2019s willingness<\/a> to check President Donald Trump on foreign policy and military matters, the House Appropriations Committee\u2019s bill revives the years-old war authorization debate<\/a> amid heightened tension<\/a> between the U.S. and Iran. It also tees up fights with the GOP-led Senate and the White House over the bill\u2019s $690.2 billion defense top line for 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Partisan policy disputes eclipsed top-line talk as the committee marked up the bill. The real debate over how much to raise budget caps for the defense and nondefense sides of the budget was happening at a meeting between White House officials and Congress\u2019 four top party leaders Tuesday morning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the markup, lead Republicans opposed the bill absent a larger spending agreement with the White House, voicing fears that without a deal, budget caps would be exceeded, triggering steep sequestration budget cuts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They also opposed language to restrict <\/a>the Pentagon\u2019s authority to transfer money between accounts to $1.5 billion \u2015 a response from Democrats to Trump\u2019s use of defense funds for his proposed border wall<\/a> that the panel\u2019s top Republican, Rep. Kay Granger, called \u201ca poison pill.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe bill includes many critical investments, which is why it\u2019s so unfortunate that important initiatives that have broad support are overshadowed by new restrictions on the department\u2019s ability to provide lawful assistance to other agencies in combating the real crisis on our southern border,\u201d said Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., the ranking member on the committee\u2019s defense subpanel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., and other Democrats touted the bill\u2019s 3.1 percent military pay raise<\/a> and other personnel-focused spending as well as its rejection of Trump\u2019s plans to get around mandatory spending caps by shifting<\/a> almost $100 billion extra into the overseas war account<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bill also rejects<\/a> the Pentagon\u2019s request for $72 million to build a Space Force headquarters and instead grants $15 million so it can explore alternatives. The bill also strips <\/a>funding from the Pentagon\u2019s JEDI cloud computing program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Republican minority was unsuccessful in fending off other language targeting the administration, chiefly California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee\u2019s amendment to sunset the 2001 authorization of the use of military force, or AUMF. Calvert and other Republicans said the 2001 AUMF covering the Islamic State group and al-Qaida must be replaced before it\u2019s phased out as proposed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs imperfect as it may be, the 2001 AUMF is the foundational U.S. authority for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, against al-Qaida and against ISIS,\u201d Calvert said. \u201cThese fights are so critical to our national security that it would be irresponsible and dangerous to repeal the 2001 AUMF until we replace it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pentagon and State Department officials have asserted the president has the legal authority to indefinitely keep U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria. However, saber-rattling from Trump\u2019s advisers<\/a> toward Iran has prompted new focus on Capitol Hill regarding the boundaries of existing war authorizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis body, Democrats and Republicans, can in eight months debate the costs and consequences of the wars that we\u2019re engaged in,\u201d Lee said. \u201cWe have have been missing in action, we have abdicated our responsibility. We have a job to do for the American people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t