by Joe Gould
\nMarch 24, 2016<\/p>\n
The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday advanced an $81.6 billion 2017 military construction and Veterans Affairs bill, though the lower chamber\u2019s budget blueprint remains\u00a0stalled.<\/p>\n
The bill, which funds Pentagon infrastructure and veterans programs, includes $1.2 billion less than President Barack Obama\u2019s budget request, but $1.8 billion more than last year\u2019s level.<\/p>\n
The spending bill comes amid House Republican infighting over whether to stick to last year\u2019s budget deal between Obama and former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, which set spending at $1.07 trillion. Fiscal hawks in the House Freedom Caucus are calling for a $30 billion cut to match 2011 budget caps eased by the 2015 deal, citing the nation\u2019s economic security.<\/p>\n
Despite House Speaker Paul Ryan\u2019s calls for regular order, the budget blueprint remained in limbo as the House went into recess through April 11. The Senate, in recess since March 18, returns April 4.<\/p>\n
At\u00a0the hearing to mark up the\u00a0Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee\u2019s\u00a0“milcon-VA” bill on Wednesday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., touted the timing of the legislation, which comes several weeks before it was passed in 2015.<\/p>\n
\u201cI want to commend you for working through your hearings expeditiously and putting this bill together in a very timely manner, at our request,\u201d Rogers said.<\/p>\n
The Appropriations Committee\u2019s ranking democrat, Nita Lowey, of New York, on the other hand\u00a0lamented\u00a0the \u201cmost extreme voices in the Republican party have taken over\u201d and condemned the movement to renege on the budget deal.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt seems we are not on track for regular order or responsible governing as we are leaving for almost three weeks of recess. How irresponsible is that?\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Debates over the defense portion of the budget blueprint continue, particularly its use of\u00a0the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), which is exempt from budget caps, to fund defense.<\/p>\n
The plan, passed by the House Budget Committee on March 16, sets $574 billion in base budget requirements, with some funded through the base budget and some through OCO. Defense hawks argue that leaves OCO funding $18 billion short of the activities the president has asked for, and that it would be up to the next administration to address it through a supplemental funding measure.<\/p>\n
At Tuesday\u2019s House Armed Services hearing, Tactical AirLand subcommittee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said the president\u2019s budget request fell short of the Bipartisan Budget Act, and Defense Secretary Ash Carter pushed back.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe’re going to have to agree to disagree about that \u2014 about whether we budgeted to the BBA, because we believe we did,\u201d Carter said.<\/p>\n
At the HASC, a key Democrat on the committee, Rep. Susan Davis, of California, questioned Carter on the wisdom of funding base requirements through OCO. Carter did not express an objection to the arrangement.<\/p>\n
\u201cGenerally speaking, the base and the OCO budgets have different managerial purposes,\u201d Carter said. \u201cThe base budget is for things that are enduring, meeting enduring requirements, and OCO is for the variable costs associated with urgent, ongoing operations. That’s still largely true, but it’s not completely true.\u201d<\/p>\n
On Wednesday, one Freedom Caucus member, Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., expressed concern that OCO, which originated as a wartime fund, was being \u201cgamed\u201d to fund baseline needs, and he disputed assertions that DoD is underfunded.<\/p>\n
\u201cLook at the other 10 largest industrialized countries. They\u2019re spending a de minimis among of their GDPs on defense, and they\u2019re in essence resting on us to take care of it,\u201d Sanford said. \u201cI don\u2019t know that\u2019s going to be sustainable.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sanford, a Budget Committee member, voted for the plan in committee but is expected to vote against it on the House floor. He said the success of the budget resolution is \u201cnot contingent upon defense\u201d and called for \u201ca degree of reformation in every part of government.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe concern for the budget hawks, and I\u2019m one of those, is\u00a0that the numbers in the long run don\u2019t add up, and we will have a much bigger squeeze on defense spending unless we get our financial house in order,\u201d Sanford said. \u201cIf we can\u2019t cut\u00a0tens of billions now, how will we do it down the road?\u201d<\/p>\n
When the Budget Committee met March 16 to consider the budget plan, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., offered a failed amendment to prevent any OCO increase, calling it a wasteful \u201cslush fund,\u201d improperly exploited to skirt spending caps.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe know it has expanded beyond what any contingency fund should be,\u201d she said, \u201cand it\u2019s really a black box with no oversight.\u201d<\/p>\n