OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: House seeks $90B war fund to skirt spending caps

by Martin Matishak and Kristina Wong - 03/17/15 7:19 PM ET

THE TOPLINE: House Republicans unveiled a budget proposal Tuesday that would provide $613 billion in total defense spending in fiscal 2016.

The budget keeps the cap of $523 billion on base defense spending mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA), which cuts $500 billion from defense spending over a decade.

{mosads}But the House GOP is provides about $90 billion for the Pentagon’s war fund to compensate.

The budget would be close to the president’s request for 2016, which was $561 billion with $51 billion in war funding, for a total of $612 billion.

The GOP budget resolution appears to be a compromise between Republican fiscal hawks, who wish to keep the spending caps in place and slash government spending, and defense hawks, who argue the caps jeopardize national security and should be lifted.

The chairmen of the Armed Services committees, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) have pushed for additional defense spending. McCain previously had called for fiscal 2016 defense spending to be restored to $577 billion, the level intended before the budget caps.

McCain on Tuesday, though, signaled he is open to the idea of adding $90 billion to the war fund, something he had previously called a “gimmick” to get around spending caps.

“I do not like that, but I will consider anything to get the numbers up,” he said.

However, defense hawks are troubled by the inclusion of a $20 billion “deficit-neutral” reserve fund, which gives House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) flexibility later this year to approve that amount of additional defense spending.

That $20 billion in funding would have to be approved by the House Budget Committee and the full House, prompting some to call it a “hollow” fund that should not count toward the $613 billion figure.

BRASS BACK BUDGET: Military service leaders embraced the House Budget Committee proposal to fund the Pentagon beyond spending caps, arguing it could help reverse the toll of sequestration.

Army Secretary John McHugh told the House Armed Services Committee that the provision would give his branch around $4.2 billion over sequester levels, as opposed to President Obama’s proposed $126.5 billion budget for the service, which is roughly $6 billion over.

“That’s a far better outcome than sequestration. There’s no argument about that,” he said during a hearing, noting that the funds would most likely go toward end-strength needs, something that is an “allowable” use of Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds.

“My plea to you simply would be, I don’t know how to fix this, but if the use of OCO, if it’s allowable, or if you can find a way to make it allowable, and if that gets us over this hump, I’m all in favor of getting over this hump because we are all very much in need of it,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James added before the panel.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said his service is in a “dire place” and while his branch can’t count on war funding over the long term, “anything’s better than nothing.”

While Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) warned using war funds to cover gaps in the base budgets of the services could lead to a “downward spiral” of more spending, but acknowledged the Budget panel’s proposal appears to be the “best approach to take.”

But Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) wasn’t so sure. He railed against the president’s budget and asked the service leaders what difference it makes if the additional funds come from OCO or the base budget.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said that utilizing war funds presents some challenges as it has restrictions, such as not being allowed to build ships.

Both McHugh, a former member of the House from New York who served on the Armed Services panel, and James admitted it would be better if the additional dollars originated from base service budgets.

“The worst of all is if we don’t get this fixed through some mechanism,” James said.

IRAN VOTE NEXT WEEK? Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he is planning to schedule a committee vote next Wednesday or Thursday on an Iran bill that would allow Congress to review a nuclear deal.

“We hope next week, Wednesday or Thursday morning,” he told reporters on Tuesday. “We certainly plan to mark it up next week.”

A committee vote could come just days after the March 24 deadline for a framework agreement with Iran.

The White House opposes any legislation passed before June 30 and earlier this week reissued a veto threat on the bill which would delay the deal’s implementation for 60 days to allow Congress to approve it.

Corker said he did not want to predict whether the bill, co-authored with committee Ranking Member Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), will receive a veto-proof majority, but said “we’ve got a lot of support.”

“The bill is crafted in such a way to be judicious and to cause the Senate and House to appropriately weigh in on a very important issue. It’s not crafted in any way as a ‘Gotcha’ bill,” he said.

Corker predicted the committee would successfully pass the bill if a vote is held next week.

“I hope we’re going to have a successful markup next week, if people stay in the positions that they’ve been… I don’t see any indication that that’s not the case,” he said.

ARMING UKRAINE NOT A STRATEGY? The U.S. Army’s top commander in Europe said providing weapons to Ukraine’s military to fight off Russian-backed separatists “isn’t a strategy.”

“I think the focus on lethal versus non-lethal aid is the wrong argument to have,” U.S. Army Europe Commander Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges said Tuesday during a Defense Writers Group breakfast.

Western leaders should be focused on the “desired end state” in the region, he added.

“There are great arguments for giving weapons to them to help raise the cost for the Russians. I think that is a valid argument. But saying that’s a valid argument is different from saying that this ought to be the policy,” Hodges said.

Lawmakers in both chambers have clamored for President Obama to give millions in arms to Ukraine’s military forces following Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula last year.

An increasing number of high-ranking administration officials have publicly stated that the president should provide arms to Ukraine.

“I think we should absolutely consider providing lethal aid,” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told a panel of House members earlier this month.

Hodges admitted that Dempsey is “in conversations I’m never in” but that he personally believes “it’s more important that we get to the strategy” that resolves the security crisis, preserves the NATO alliance and brings Russia back into the international fold.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

– GOP lawmaker: Afghan war a ‘graveyard of empires’

– Air Force veteran charged with trying to join ISIS

– Cruz channels inner John Hancock on Iran letter

– Israel vote too close to call

– House chairman: ‘Landmark’ cyber bill coming this week

Please send tips and comments to Kristina Wong, kwong@digital-staging.thehill.com, and Martin Matishak, mmatishak@digital-staging.thehill.com.