{"id":46971,"date":"2018-10-23T19:24:38","date_gmt":"2018-10-23T19:24:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2018\/10\/23\/the-military-could-see-big-changes-if-democrats-win-control-of-congress\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T12:57:43","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T12:57:43","slug":"the-military-could-see-big-changes-if-democrats-win-control-of-congress","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/congress\/2018\/10\/23\/the-military-could-see-big-changes-if-democrats-win-control-of-congress\/","title":{"rendered":"The military could see big changes if Democrats win control of Congress"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/atype-video-jwplayer>
At the 2018 Defense News Conference, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., explains how he feels congressional oversight of the military has to increase.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 In July, as lawmakers were putting the final touches on a $716 billion defense authorization bill <\/a>for fiscal 2019, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus<\/a> unveiled their own plans to severely slash Pentagon spending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Trump agenda drastically cuts programs supporting working families \u2026 while giving massive tax cuts to big corporations and bloating the military budget beyond belief,\u201d their proposed spending plan stated. \u201c(This plan) takes a very different path, reinvests in American families, and prioritizes funding for education, health care, jobs and clean air and water.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plan called for reductions in the base Pentagon budget, eliminating overseas contingency spending and \u201cachieving a smaller force structure through gradual attrition.\u201d The caucus, a more liberal wing of the Democratic Party which includes 77 current House members, hopes the document would serve as a blueprint for the mainstream Democratic leadership should they take control of the chamber next year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It received strong backing from Pentagon critics like Peace Action, Just Foreign Policy and Win Without War but only passing conversation from more moderate Democrats. But it has also served as a convenient boogeyman for Republican backers warning that a \u201cblue wave\u201d in the upcoming midterms would mean drastic cuts in defense spending and a backslide into a less prepared fighting force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recent campaign speeches, President Donald Trump has repeated his mantra that \u201cour military will soon be the strongest it has ever been in the history of our country\u201d thanks to Republican moves in the last two years. He has accused the rival political party of being weak on national security and naive on the need for a better-funded military force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With a sizable number of Republican retirements in Congress and polls showing the possibility of significant Democratic pick-ups of district seats, military advocates may soon have to grapple with the possibility of again lobbying a politically divided government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Republicans hold on to both chambers, much of the defense debate on Capitol Hill will remain unchanged from the past year: a push for bigger defense budgets, focus on modernization and readiness improvements, and status quo on oversight of a host of overseas military operations. But predicting exactly what a Democratic takeover of the House or the Senate would mean for defense priorities next year remains unclear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While party leaders have stressed their desire to plus-up the budgets<\/a> of non-military agencies, many want to pay for that through tax hikes rather than Pentagon cuts. The $716 billion defense authorization bill received support from nearly three-fourths of the Democrats in the House, including numerous members of the progressive caucus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democrats on both chambers\u2019 armed services committees fought with their Republican colleagues on a nuclear build-up<\/a> and transgender<\/a> recruitment this year, but also broadly backed plans for equipment upgrades and have largely supported Trump\u2019s Defense Department nominees<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And defense issues barely received a mention in the \u201cBetter Deal<\/a>\u201d policy priorities list unveiled by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer last spring. Instead, that document focuses on issues like health care, infrastructure improvement and government corruption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) spoke at the second annual Defense News Conference, Sept. 5 2018. (Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

HASC chairman Adam Smith?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Democrats win either the House or the Senate, the main faces of their defense policy will be the new armed services committee chairs: Washington Rep. Adam Smith and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of the two, Smith has generally been the more outspoken. The 11-term congressman has has worked well with current HASC chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, in advocating for a host of defense issues, but he has also been known to vote against defense spending over the years to defend the domestic side of the budget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in recent months, he has cast himself as more of a foil to the president\u2019s unchecked military growth, even boasting about conservative fears of his potential chairmanship during a recent debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf you read conservative opinions about, \u2018what if the Democrats take back the House,\u2019 one of the biggest arguments is \u2018you can\u2019t let Adam Smith be chairman of the Armed Services committee because he wants to cut the defense budget\u2019 \u2014 and they\u2019re right,\u201d he said at an Oct. 16 event. \u201cI think there\u2019s way too much waste, way too much inefficiency.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t