War funding a GOP hang-up

House panel OKs budget plan, but lawmakers still at odds

WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders are struggling to find a compromise between spending-cut advocates and defense hawks on how to increase U.S. war funding in their proposed fiscal 2016 budget.

The House Budget Committee approved the plan Thursday while leaving unresolved the demands by many lawmakers for fewer restrictions on defense spending. Minutes later, Speaker John Boehner said the plan will be amended next week on the House floor to boost defense.

"I cannot see a circumstance where the Republican Congress would pass a defense budget that's lower" than President Barack Obama's request, said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas. He said there was "pretty broad support" for a larger defense budget.

Boehner is attempting to persuade enough Republicans to back the overall budget resolution.

"We've walked everybody through it and think we are in a good place," the Ohio lawmaker during his weekly news conference.

Assuming no Democrats support the plan, at least 217 of the chamber's 245 Republicans would need to vote for the plan, if all 433 current House members cast votes.

"I am confident that Democrats will oppose the budget," Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, said Thursday.

Seventy Republicans have threatened to vote against the budget plan if defense spending isn't high enough.

The initial budget proposal presented by House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price offered $94 billion in war funding in Overseas Contingency Operations, which funds war operations. Of that, $19.5 billion would be offset with unspecified cuts elsewhere in the budget.

Midway through a 13-hour Budget Committee meeting Wednesday, House leaders altered the plan to try to get a deal. They proposed $96 billion in war funding, with no offsetting cuts elsewhere. Too few committee members supported that, and the meeting broke up late in the evening.

The use of the contingency fund is designed to get around defense spending caps set by a 2011 budget-cutting law. The contingency fund is counted as emergency spending, not part of the military budget.

Some Republicans, including members of the Armed Services Committee, objected Wednesday to the plan of having part of the war funding offset by unspecified cuts elsewhere through a separate, deficit-neutral "reserve fund."

Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, an Armed Services Committee member, was among those seeking assurances that the $19.5 billion would be "real" and not depend on unspecified cuts elsewhere.

Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Thursday that the House rule for debate on the budget would remove the requirement to find $19.5 billion in offsetting spending cuts. Franks said Thursday that he was satisfied with the proposal to boost defense spending.

"At least now we have declared where we stand on national security," the Arizona lawmaker said.

Other Republicans, including Tea Party-aligned members who back a smaller government, said they objected to the entire off-budget approach.

"I'm really struggling with the $90 billion" in the contingency fund, Rep. Mick Mulvaney said. The South Carolina Republican is a co-founder of a group of House fiscal conservatives who call themselves the Freedom Caucus.

"Off-budget is the wrong way to spend taxpayer money," Mulvaney said. "You are breaking the law -- not the letter but the spirit," he said, by not considering such spending to be an increase because it isn't subject to budget caps.

The Senate on Thursday moved to adopt the House leadership approach of adding $96 billion in war funding. Budget Chairman Mike Enzi on Wednesday took a much different approach to defense, proposing $58 billion in war funds for 2016 and maintaining strict defense spending caps in later years.

The Senate Budget Committee adopted a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to increase the war funds by $38 billion without offsetting the amount elsewhere.

Enzi said the Senate will begin debate on the budget Monday. Votes are set to begin three days later.

Information for this article was contributed by Roxana Tiron and Laura Curtis of Bloomberg News.

A Section on 03/20/2015

Upcoming Events