WASHINGTON -- House Armed Services Committee Chair Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, in which says he will vote against authorizing an attack on Syria unless sequestration is fixed:
I need to understand just how committed the president is to negotiating a resolution on sequester in order to make an informed decision about my vote to use military force in Syria. I understand that we can't lessen the damage of sequester before taking action in Syria. But we have a near-term opportunity to do so.
I plan to ask the president, in light of the weight of his decision to intervene in Syria, for his commitment to address sequestration as part of any deal on the debt ceiling. If he makes that commitment, then he has my support. If not, I won't be able to vote to send our over-stretched and under-funded military into action. The opportunity to undo the harm of the budget sequester is unlikely to come around again.
McKeon, however, voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011, which authorized the across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration. The cuts were never supposed to take effect because Congress and the president were supposed to come up with an alternate budget plan.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has also expressed skepticism about a strike on Syria due to the budget cuts.
“We must not forget this president has put us on the brink of a hollowed force," Inhofe said recently in a statement. "Our troops are stretched thin, the defense budget has been slashed to historic levels, and we are facing an unprecedented time of unrest across the Middle East amid growing concerns about Iran's influence on the region and its nuclear ambitions. No red line should have been drawn without the strategy and funding to support it."
McKeon, who consistently advocates against cutting the Pentagon's budget, also brought up his concerns during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday morning, during which Secretary of State John Kerry, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel testified.
"We have surged troops to Afghanistan -- and cut the military's budget. We have flown missions over Libya -- and cut the military's budget. We are pivoting to the Asia-Pacific -- and cutting the military's budget. All told, these cuts total an astounding $1.2 trillion. And now we are considering strikes on Syria -- while the military's budget continues to be cut," McKeon said.
"If this Syrian crisis prompts a more serious discussion of [sequestration]," agreed the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), "that will be one tiny little positive on what is otherwise a very, very dangerous situation."
Smith recently returned from a trip to the Syrian border and has said he's skeptical of a strike.
Gen. Dempsey, however, told the committee that while he's concerned about the effect of sequestration on the military, he was not as concerned about it for this mission.
"I am concerned -- not about this operation, but in general -- that unforeseen contingencies will be impacted in the future if sequestration continues," said Dempsey, adding, "My assumption is if something is in our national interest and we act upon it, we can find the money to pay for it."
A senior House aide recently told Defense News that President Barack Obama told McKeon during a meeting with congressional leaders that he shares the Republican's concerns on sequestration.
View the current whip count of where House lawmakers stand on Syria intervention:
Before You Go
