After the House passed a bill to lift the debt ceiling that also caps defense spending for the next two years, Republicans Senators on Thursday pushed for supplemental funding measures as a means to pursue increases for the Pentagon’s budget.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee and its defense panel, was among GOP lawmakers urging the upper chamber to commit to the use of supplementals for defense spending increases before taking up the debt limit bill for a vote.
“The first problem of an inadequate defense budget could be addressed and remedied by having an emergency defense supplemental. That is what we need to do. That is what I would ask the administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to commit to, because we know this budget is not adequate to the global threats that we face,” Collins said during floor remarks on Thursday.
The House voted 314 to 117 on Wednesday evening to advance the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which raises the debt ceiling through FY ‘25, calls for an $886 billion defense topline, the level requested in the president’s budget for FY ‘24 and a 3.3 percent increase over FY ‘23, and a $704 billion topline for nondefense, around a five percent cut from the request (Defense Daily, May 31).
The bill then authorizes a one percent increase in FY ‘25 to the defense and nondefense toplines.
“[On Wednesday], the House passed the largest deficit reduction package in American history. Taxpayers will save an estimated $2.1 trillion, and Congress will spend less money next year than this year for the first time in a decade — without adding new taxes on families,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) and GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said in a joint statement after the vote.
In the House, 71 Republicans comprised primarily of Freedom Caucus members voted against the legislation for not going far enough with spending cuts while many of the 46 ‘no’ votes from Democrats were cast by Congressional Progressive Caucus members who cited objections including the bill’s addition of work requirements for certain federal assistance programs.
“As a Member of Congress I have a responsibility to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. I would not allow a default. But this is a problematic agreement that protects billionaires from taxes and hurts middle class and working families. It also subverts the annual appropriations process, constrains only domestic investments, and sets us on a dangerous path. I will vote no,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Democrats’ top appropriator and a Progressive Caucus member, said in a statement ahead of the House’s vote.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday his aim is for the upper chamber to take up the legislation “as soon as possible,” with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen having said the U.S. may need to act on the debt ceiling by June 5 to avoid a default scenario.
“Time is a luxury the Senate does not have if we want to prevent default. June 5 is less than four days away. At this point, any needless delay or any last minute hold-ups would be an unnecessary and even dangerous risk. And any change to this bill that forces us to send it back to the House would be entirely unacceptable. It would almost guarantee default,” Schumer said on the floor.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, said he will oppose the bill and that it has “enshrined” the president’s $886 billion defense topline request, which he called “woefully inadequate.”
“It amounts to a cut in defense capability. It sounds like an increase. You can call it an increase. But inflation is running at seven percent, so we’ll have to increase defense spending by that much simply to keep up with what we did last year. And we would have to increase by several billion [dollars] more in order to give us the capability that we need to prevent war in the Pacific,” Wicker said. “The fact that this is being called a victory by some people on our side of the aisle is absolutely inaccurate.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) added the bill “poses a mortal risk to our national security by cutting our defense budget” and noted it would break with the pattern of bipartisan defense spending increases during the most recent budget cycles.
“If we continued our recent bipartisan custom of increasing the defense budget from President Biden’s irresponsible budget proposals, we could afford four additional Ford-class aircraft carriers, 500 F-35 fighter jets, more than 91,000 Stinger missiles or half-a-million Javelin anti-tank missiles, all vital to our defense and to the defenses of Ukraine and Taiwan,” Cotton said. “I cannot support the bill because it does not adequately fund our military given the threats we face.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) joined Collins in urging the Senate to commit to supplemental funding measures, such as a subsequent emergency spending bill for Ukraine, as an option for increasing defense spending above the bill’s mandated cap.
“We’ll be here till Tuesday until I get commitments that we’re going to rectify some of these problems,” Graham said on the floor. “I want a commitment from the leaders of this body that we’re not pulling the plug on Ukraine. There’s not a penny in this bill for future efforts to help Ukraine defeat Russia and they’re going to gain on the battlefield in the coming days. And it’s not just about Ukraine. I want a commitment that we’ll have a supplemental to make us better able to deal with China.”
Cotton expressed some skepticism about relying on supplementals to grow the Pentagon’s budget above the mandated spending cap.
“Some have claimed that we can still get more defense funding through a supplemental bill or some other backdoor funding mechanism, but these same hollow promises were made when Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011, which devastated our military under President Obama,” Cotton said.
Collins and Cotton also noted concern with the bill’s provision implementing an automatic one percent sequester cut if all 12 appropriations bills are not passed on time, with the latter filing an amendment that uses the FY ‘23 defense topline for the baseline of such a cut rather than the FY ‘22 spending level.
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) has also floated an amendment that would call for transferring the savings from the bill’s IRS reductions to plus-up defense funding, according to reports.
The Senate, which could begin considering the bill as soon as Thursday evening, may be wary of considering amendments that would lengthen the process, requiring the House to consider an updated version of the bill as the June 5 default deadline looms.
“We do not think the [Fiscal Responsibility Act] will be amended by the Senate. It will pass as-is. DoD spending would likely be increased by a yet-to-be-announced [Ukraine] supplemental attached to appropriations later this year and would not be counted under the cap,” investment firm TD Cowen said in a note on Thursday morning.