Whether Democrats support Sen. John McCain’s plan to boost defense spending in fiscal 2017 on the floor could have a lot to do with where candidates stand in the race for the White House, according to one analyst.
Michael O’Hanlon, a defense analyst with the Brookings Institution, said senators are likely to use their votes to reinforce the message of their party’s candidate. As a result, whether the amendment for increased funding passes could depend on where Donald Trump stands on defense spending.
“It’s less predictable this year than usual because of the Trump factor,” O’Hanlon said. “It sounds like elements of Trump’s thinking would reinforce the traditional fight where Republicans want to say they’re strong on defense, and Democrats want to say we’re strong on defense too, but we’re also strong on domestic investment.”
If Trump is seen as a typical Republican who wants to invest in and build up the military, O’Hanlon predicted most Senate Democrats would vote against boosting defense spending without a comparable increase in domestic spending. But if Trump seems to have no position on the issue, Democrats could vote their personal conscience, which could lead more of them to approve of the increase.
“The chances of 10 to 15 Democrats voting for McCain’s amendment would be higher to the extent that Trump’s message is muddled or that he himself doesn’t necessarily endorse a higher level of defense spending. Then individual Democrats wouldn’t feel that they had to reinforce Hillary’s position,” O’Hanlon said.
Because Trump is such a “moving target,” O’Hanlon said it’s difficult to know where the GOP presumptive candidate will stand and, as a result, how it may impact the vote on McCain’s plan.
The Senate begins its consideration of the fiscal 2017 National Defense Authorization Act this week and will try to close an $18 billion defense spending gap with the House-passed bill.
McCain said last week that he intends to introduce an amendment on the Senate floor to increase defense spending above budget caps to match the House level. One of his top priorities with the extra money would be to end Army troop-level reductions.
“I do not know whether or not this amendment will succeed. But the Senate must have this debate. And senators must choose a side,” McCain said during an event at the Brookings Institution.
McCain wouldn’t specify if he’d seek the increase in the base budget or in the overseas contingency operations account to be used for base priorities, but Justin Johnson, an analyst with the Heritage Foundation, said he predicted the request would be in war spending to use for base efforts.
“It becomes an interesting, perhaps a unique vote at least in recent times where we potentially see a straight vote on do we increase the defense budget or not?” Johnson said.
The House-passed plan moves $18 billion from the war chest to fund base initiatives that were on the services’ unfunded priorities list but left out of the president’s budget request. During floor debate, many Democrats said they couldn’t support the plan because it boosts defense spending without an increase in domestic spending. It also will mean U.S. missions overseas run out of money in April, forcing the next administration to pass a supplemental funding bill through Congress.
Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it is too soon to tell how the two chambers will reconcile any spending differences, noting that he’s waiting to see how McCain’s amendment fairs.
The president has issued a veto threat of the House’s plan, both because of the spending proposal and multiple other provisions, such as extending restrictions on Guantanamo Bay transfers. Defense Secretary Ash Carter also said last week that he would recommend a veto of the bill.
