Congressional Democrats and the White House offered tepid support for budget legislation that would help the Pentagon, though they signaled they are not happy with the bill up for debate today in the Republican-led House.

The House legislation–complete defense and military-construction appropriations bills for the rest of fiscal year 2013 attached to a bare-bones “continuing resolution” (CR) funding most the government–would shift around Pentagon funding and allow military officials to reprogram other monies and enter into multi-year contracts. This new CR would replace an existing one–that has funded the Pentagon since fiscal year 2013 began on Oct. 1, and runs until March 27–that defense leaders say has severely constricted their budgeting abilities because it holds them to FY ’12 funding levels (Defense Daily, March 5).

The new CR factors in the “sequestration” cuts that started last Friday, which President Barack Obama and some lawmakers said they still want to find a way to stop. Sequestration, $1.2 trillion in decade-long cuts, would tap more than $40 billion in defense spending until the end of FY ’13 on Sept. 30.

House Appropriations Committee (HAC) Ranking Member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) joined other congressional Democrats yesterday in saying she wished the new CR provided full appropriations bills for more of the federal government. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, said they will advance a different version of the legislation yet still believe they will reach a deal with the House this month.

“I understand that (HAC) Chairman (Hal) Rogers (R-Ky.) faces a very difficult task, however I do regret that we find ourselves here today with a package that really only addresses the needs of two agencies, the Defense Department and Veterans Administration, while leaving every other program and agency operating under last years’ guidelines,” Lowey told the House Rules Committee late yesterday. That Rules panel worked past press time to set parameters for the House floor debate on the bill, and during the meeting additional Democrats lamented that more federal agencies would not have leeway to shift around funding under the CR.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday that his chamber will “move on our own legislation to fund the government next week,” saying he is “cautiously optimistic” Congress will reach a deal before a planned recess the last week of March.

Reid said he believes there is agreement within Congress on the level of funding in the new CR, which essentially funds the government for the rest of FY ’13 at FY ’12 levels. Yet he said the Senate will seek to add “anomalies” to its version of the CR, which Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) is crafting.

Mikulski told reporters yesterday she does not support the House CR, saying it “does not meet compelling human need, and we don’t think it makes the investments in science and technology that we need.”

“The content is too Spartan for us,” she said. “So we have to look at what does it mean to not only look at national security but also those domestic programs that are important to our economy.”  She said she has other concerns “that relate to national security,” citing the examples of border guards and food safety.

Mikulski she is in “negotiations” with the House about the CR, and planned to meet with Rogers later in the day yesterday. She said it is “unlikely” she will fulfill her wish to pass a full budget with FY ’13 appropriations bills for all federal agencies.

“So we are now looking at how we can fashion a hybrid that makes sure we meet the national security needs of the nation but also compelling human priorities and the kind of investments we need to make in science and technology for the jobs of the future,” she said.

Obama said last Friday he will likely sign a new CR that Congress sends him, because he doesn’t want a government shutdown on March 27 (Defense Daily, March 4). The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a statement of administration policy yesterday that cites qualms with the new House CR, but stops short of threatening to recommend Obama veto it.

“While the administration is pleased to see that H.R. 933 is consistent with the mutually agreed upon budget framework in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), the bill raises concerns about the government’s ability to protect consumers, avoid deep cuts in critical services that families depend on, and implement critical domestic priorities such as access to quality and affordable health care,” the OMB statement says. It adds that most federal agencies “are left to operate at last year’s level, which will impede their ability to provide services to Americans and efficiently allocate funding to key programs including those in infrastructure, clean energy, education, and research and development.”

OMB says the administration will work with Congress to “refine” the legislation.

The House CR includes a $518.1 billion base defense budget for FY ‘13, which is the same as the FY ’12 level and $2 billion more than the Pentagon previously requested. The bill would change funding levels closer to what the Pentagon may need in FY ’13. It notably includes $10.4 billion in additional operation and maintenance funding compared to the FY ’12 levels, which the Pentagon has been operating under in FY ‘13.

That boost is offset with other reductions, including a $4.2 billion dip in procurement funding and $2.5 billion less for research and development, compared to FY ’12 levels in the current CR.