Part of the long to-do list for the lame duck Congress is deciding whether to authorize new spending for operations against ISIS while setting broader defense priorities in a constrained fiscal environment.
The administration recently requested an additional $5.6 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding for Fiscal Year 2015 to fight ISIS.
Part of the long to-do list for the lame duck Congress is deciding whether to authorize new spending for operations against ISIS while setting broader defense priorities in a constrained fiscal environment.
The administration recently requested an additional $5.6 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding for Fiscal Year 2015 to fight ISIS.
The overseas contingency fund generally supports activities related to immediate war efforts and is exempt from federal spending caps. The new $5.6 billion request includes money for U.S. military advisors and to equip and train Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers.
Current funding for operations against ISIS is set to expire on Dec. 11, along with the continuing resolution keeping the government open.
Earlier this year the administration requested $65.8 billion for OCO spending for Fiscal Year 2015 — $58.6 billion for the military and just over $7 billion for the State Department. The total request is $26 billion less than in 2014.
OCO funding had been expected to fall and eventually end as troops returned home from Afghanistan. However, operations against ISIS that were started last summer could extend how much longer the military will request emergency war funding.
Scrutiny of OCO funding has increased as military leaders have struggled to keep spending in the base budget below spending caps and sequester levels. Initial reports say the military’s base request for Fiscal Year 2016 could be about $70 billion above the cap for that year.
While Congress should work with the administration to authorize an appropriate amount of war funding, lawmakers should ensure that OCO funding is only being used for its intended purpose of supporting combat operations. The administration, lawmakers and military leaders have been criticized for moving items into OCO accounts to avoid the caps on defense discretionary spending.
Exacerbating this problem is that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have blocked the military from enacting compensation reform — as happened after last year’s bipartisan deal to avoid some sequester cuts by slightly reducing retirement benefits — and retiring some aging weapons systems.
Just last week, lawmakers balked at the Pentagon’s call to retire several dozen A-10 aircraft so that maintenance personnel could be transferred to support the military’s next generation aircraft, the F-35 joint strike fighter. Military leaders previously wanted to retire the entire A-10 fleet, but Congress refused. That led the Pentagon to craft a compromise that some lawmakers still rejected.
The lower caps on defense spending and the refusal of lawmakers to allow military leaders to enact cost-saving reforms give less room for the Pentagon to respond to other challenges. Last week, for example, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced he wants to increase spending on the U.S. nuclear force by 10 percent, or between $7.5 to $8 billion, over the next five years after a review found systemic problems.
However, with a Congress that routinely prevents the Defense department from moving money around in its budget, how this new spending will be paid for is unclear.
Some lawmakers may talk a good game when it comes to reducing spending, but they often oppose common-sense cuts and reforms. Both Republicans and Democrats have protected programs even when those in charge of running them believe reductions are warranted.
Elected officials should ensure that tax dollars are spent responsibly throughout the entire federal government, including the Pentagon, and they should be willing to end programs that no longer serve a useful purpose.
