Debate over $25 billion boost in defense spending complicates government funding negotiations

Spending limits set in last year’s debt-limit law should have made it easier for Congress to negotiate government funding bills this year, but a new push from Senate defense hawks to increase Pentagon spending $25 billion beyond the cap is throwing a wrinkle into negotiations.

“If it’s at the expense of the domestic budget, I think it’s going to be controversial,” Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois told The Washington Times.

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted last week to add the extra $25 billion to its defense policy bill that authorizes spending on various Pentagon programs. But ultimately it is up to the Senate Appropriations Committee whether to approve the funding, which would also require legislation to alter the spending caps that the debt limit law set for fiscal 2025.

Democrats who control the Appropriations Committee are not fans of the spending caps, which provide only a 1% increase to both defense and nondefense accounts for the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But they say they won’t boost defense spending without equal increases for the nondefense portion of the budget that funds programs like education, health care, housing and nutrition.

“Nondefense funding — except veterans’ medical care — is down 6% from 2010 when you adjust for inflation, and down 14% when you adjust for inflation and population growth,” Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray said in a floor speech this week.

“That’s not just a number on a page,” the Washington Democrat said. “That’s less support for families, fewer research grants to keep us on the cutting edge, fewer officers cracking down on crime in neighborhoods — it is just so many opportunities lost.”

Ms. Murray and other Democrats are pushing for “parity,” or equal percentage increases to defense and nondefense spending.

Republicans say that’s a nonstarter.

“That, in my view, is absurd, and it doesn’t reflect current need,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

Mr. McConnell said the defense limit set in the debt-limit law was passed a year ago, when “the world did not seem to be quite as much afire as it is now.”

“We need to react to where we’re headed,” he said. “Not only big power competition with China and Russia but also Iran. And now, of course, we have a war in Israel on top of everything else.”

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer said in a statement that the Armed Services Committee’s decision to increase defense spending in its annual authorizing bill “reflects the bipartisan support to ensure robust funding for our national security.” But to achieve that goal, the New York Democrat said, Congress either needs to repeal the spending caps set in the debt limit law or reach a new budget agreement setting new limits.

“In that case, Democrats are committed to ensuring an equitable increase in our domestic investments alongside an increase in defense spending,” Mr. Schumer said.

Concerns over violating the budget caps without a new agreement in place led Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed, Rhode Island Democrat, to vote against his committee’s defense bill.

Mr. Reed, who also serves on the Appropriations Committee, said he would like to see the Senate take up the defense policy bill in July, but he is not sure if that will happen until the spending dispute is resolved.

“I think that change will require close and serious discussions with the House and Senate,” he said. “Those might not come about until after the election.”

Other Democrats on the Armed Services Committee said they voted for the final defense policy bill in committee but against the amendment from ranking member Sen. Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi Republican, that authorized the additional $25 billion.

“I didn’t like the [spending caps] to begin with, but a deal was a deal,” Senate Armed Services member Tim Kaine told The Times.

The Virginia Democrat said the spending caps set in the debt limit law were for only two years and this upcoming fiscal year will be the last. Altering the deal “poses a challenge for the appropriators,” especially with House Republicans passing a defense policy bill and starting to advance appropriations bills that adhere to the spending limits.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, who serves on both the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, said she voted against Mr. Wicker’s amendment because “we didn’t have a clear identification of where the money was going to come from.”

Democrats insisting that any defense spending increase be matched with an equal increase to nondefense spending “is very short-sighted,” Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer, the only Republican who serves on both the Armed Services and Appropriations committees, told The Times.

“We should provide for the common defense. We should be able to provide for the national security,” she said. “And it shouldn’t be this gamesmanship that, ’Oh, gee, Republicans, they support defense more, so we’re going to demand more on this side.’ No, our number one responsibility by everybody here should be the security of this country.”

House Republicans, who want to cut nondefense spending even further, are unlikely to agree to Democrats’ demands, even if defense-minded lawmakers in the House agree with the need to boost Pentagon spending.

“I believe that most of the Republicans on the [House] Armed Services Committee would agree with Wicker doing a $25 billion increase,” Rep. Don Bacon, Nebraska Republican, told The Times. “The problem is every time we do this the Democrats want $25 billion more for nondefense. And so then it becomes a real budget buster.”

While the House has already begun passing spending bills through committee and on the floor, the Senate has not started its process because of the desire to reach a bipartisan agreement on spending levels first.