The budget deal is setting up a battle between the State Department and Defense Department for overseas funding by putting both department’s requests into a single pot of money for appropriators to divide.
Supporters of the House Republican’s budget deal have praised it as one that boosts the Pentagon’s war chest to $74 billion, significantly more than the $59 billion requested by the administration. That account is separate from the Pentagon’s base budget and is not affected by sequestration.
But analysts say that $74 billion covers overseas contingency operations for both the Defense Department and the State Department, which could end up leading to a cut for either’s operations or funding for the war lasting only part way through the fiscal year.
“Basically the House Budget Committee is kicking the can down the road,” said Justin Johnson, the senior policy analyst for defense budgeting at the Heritage Foundation. “Either the appropriators just stick with [Balanced Budget Act] deals and the numbers where we are today, or they have to cut the State Department’s OCO request to increase defense.”
If the Defense Department is actually to see an increase, it would mean a cut to the State Department’s $15 billion request, a choice that will be left up to appropriators, Johnson said.
The Balanced Budget Act reached last year designated $59 billion for a war fund for overseas operations in fiscal 2017, the same level requested by President Obama in his budget released this year.
But Republicans have argued that the administration violated last year’s budget deal by treating the war fund number as a ceiling, not a floor. Lawmakers reached the bipartisan deal before the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. The administration also requested more funding in the fiscal 2017 base budget for exercises in Europe and operations against the Islamic State, eating into other operations included in the base budget.
All of these things, some Republicans say, show the need for a higher overseas contingency operations fund.
Despite objections by conservatives to the deal, the House Budget Committee approved the $1.07 trillion budget agreement on Wednesday by a 20-16 vote. It’s not yet clear when the full House will vote on the plan.
It’s unlikely, however, that the House can pass the measure, Johnson said, since both defense hawks and budget hawks will not support the measure.
At least one key defense lawmaker is behind the budget deal. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said he would support it because it gives Congress an opportunity to pass a defense appropriations bill at the level agreed to last year after years of budgetary uncertainty and passing bills at the last minute.
“Given what we’ve been through … if there is a chance to get a defense appropriations bill this year so that service members don’t have to worry about whether they’re getting paid … we need to do that,” Thornberry told reporters following an event last week at the Brookings Institution.
Thornberry said the administration’s request for the war fund would pay for its overseas plans “well into next year, but not all the way through.”
The House Armed Services Committee chairman said that if the war chest runs out of money, it would give the next administration the opportunity to come to Congress with an emergency request that funded his plans. For example, the current administration’s request proposes quadrupling the funding for exercises in Europe. If this isn’t a priority for the next president, he or she can come to Congress with a specific request that pays for what that president hopes to accomplish.
But Johnson said this is a “political bet” that the next president will support troops in combat and have the political capital to pass a funding bill through Congress.
“Republicans always beat up Democrats for trying to use troops as leverage. That’s exactly what that play is is using the troops as political leverage,” he said.
