House GOP Overcomes Key Hurdle to Pass 1st Spending Bill

House Republicans passed the first of 12 spending bills for the 2024 fiscal year on Thursday after clearing the hurdle of intraparty divisions on Wednesday. The bill concerns appropriations for military construction and Veterans Affairs.

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington on July 12, 2023. Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Get Free

House Republicans passed the first of 12 spending bills for the 2024 fiscal year on July 27 after clearing the hurdle of intraparty divisions a day earlier.

The legislation concerns appropriations for military construction and Veterans Affairs and is typically the easiest spending bill for members to pass. But on July 26, that proved not to be the case as hard-liners in the House Freedom Caucus haggled with GOP leadership over spending cuts.

Earlier this week, members of the staunchly conservative group said they were ready to fight to keep spending in check, announcing their intentions to limit discretionary spending to $1.471 trillion during the appropriations process.

“The American people gave us the majority back in November because we ran on fiscal responsibility,” Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) noted at a July 25 news conference outside the Capitol. “We are committed to using every tool at our disposal to going back to the $1.471 [trillion] pre-COVID level of spending for nondefense discretionary, and allowing defense to stay at the current levels.”

Freedom Caucus members met with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on July 26 to negotiate an agreement. Among the lawmakers was Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), who told Reuters he was “cautiously optimistic” that a deal would be reached.

Ultimately, the House adopted a measure to allow debate on the bill, and on July 27, it passed in a 219–211 vote.

Commenting on the bill’s passage, Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) told The Epoch Times that he was pleased with the bill’s provisions for U.S. military installations.

“Our installations have been neglected between sequestration, the Middle East wars, and we need to reinvest in them,” he said. “It’s not only a retention issue in terms of barracks and housing, but it’s a readiness issue to have these facilities able to host our service members.”

Provisions

The bill, H.R. 4366, allocates more than $317 billion for the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and other related agencies. Of that total, roughly $155 billion is discretionary spending.

The bill’s provisions include $17.5 billion for military construction and family housing projects—including more than $293 million for the NATO Security Investment Program—and $299.5 billion for Veterans Affairs.

The bill also allocates $88.6 million to complete the expansion of Arlington National Cemetery and $294.6 million for community projects.

Defending the bill on July 26 on the House floor, Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) noted that, while the military construction appropriations represent a reduction from current levels, it exceeds the president’s military construction funding requests by nearly $800 million.

Also touting the bill’s inclusion of full funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, he added: “It keeps our promise to veterans, and we do more to help veterans in the Pacific. But we also ensure taxpayer funds are used appropriately and effectively by increasing oversight of several programs.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) praised the bill as a demonstration of Republicans’ commitment to preserving veterans’ benefits while still practicing fiscal responsibility.

The measure, she said, “prioritizes our nation’s heroes by providing critical funding for military bases and facilities; improving the quality of life for our service members and their families; and ensuring our veterans are appropriately honored in our cemeteries and battle monuments.

“The bill also prohibits funding to be used for biased and controversial programs,” the congresswoman added.

Democrats Disapprove

House Democrats, unmoved by their Republican colleagues’ praise, were less complimentary in their reviews of the bill.

Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.), for example, said on July 26 that the bill “sacrifices our promises to veterans, our military readiness, and our national security” for the sake of “picking culture war fights.”

The legislation, she noted, prohibits the Veterans Affairs secretary from flying or displaying unsanctioned flags over department facilities or national cemeteries, which would include the LGBT pride flag.

Other provisions forbid the expenditure of funds for abortion or for transgender surgeries and hormone therapies.

“Abortion care is health care,” Ms. Lee added.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) also was critical of the bill and its drafters.

Meanwhile, Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) told The Epoch Times on July 27 that it was “no surprise” to her that House leadership “got every member of their conference to support their extreme measure.”

“The Republicans have shown where their values are,” she said. “They can put all the lipstick on the pig that they have developed in this bill that they want, but at the end of the day, they are still cutting $1.5 billion from military construction.”

Despite passing the House, the bill will likely face a tougher challenge in the Democrat-controlled Senate. If the measure prevails there, according to the White House, it will be dead on arrival on President Joe Biden’s desk.

“If the President were presented with H.R. 4366, he would veto it,” the White House said in a July 24 statement of administration policy (pdf).

Noting that the appropriations mark a departure from the debt limit deal struck between Mr. Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the White House criticized Republicans for “wasting time” with the bill.

“House Republicans had an opportunity to engage in a productive, bipartisan appropriations process, but instead, with just over two months before the end of the fiscal year, are wasting time with partisan bills that cut domestic spending to levels well below the (Fiscal Responsibility Act) agreement and endanger critical services for the American people.”

Specifically, the administration denounced the bill’s restrictions on the funds’ use, charging that the consequences would be “devastating” for LGBT individuals and women seeking abortions.

“Certain provisions of the draft bill raise separation of powers concerns, including by conditioning the Executive’s authority to take certain actions on receiving the approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,” the statement adds. “The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these and other concerns.”

Reuters and Lawrence Wilson contributed to this report.