Wilson and Mulvaney Split on Defense Bill Amendment

In his three years in Congress, Mick Mulvaney (R-5) has earned a reputation as one of the House’s finest economic minds. Colleague Trey Gowdy (R-4) has often said Mulvaney is second to none on financial matters.

Mulvaney also has shown a willingness to make tough decisions. He famously worked with now-retired Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank on the defense budget. He also was among the Republicans who sought to oust John Boehner as speaker (Mulvaney has since said their relationship is fine).

Earlier this week, Mulvaney was again at the center of a potentially controversial situation. As the House was working through the defense budget, Mulvaney offered an amendment to remove an additional $5 billion from the defense budget. Negotiations eventually brought the number closer to $3.5 billion and the amendment narrowly passed, 215-206 with more Democrats voting for it than Republicans.

Mulvaney’s amendment also split the Republicans South Carolina delegation, which often votes in lock-step. Reps. Joe Wilson (R-2) and Tom Rice (R-7) voted against it. On the larger bill to fund defense for Fiscal Year 2014, South Carolina’s House GOP were unanimous in their approval of the $594 billion measure.

But, Mulvaney’s role in reducing the defense budget has the potential to be problematic for him politically. Mulvaney takes pride in his fiscal conservatism —and it was that aspect of his resume that helped him unseat longtime incumbent John Spratt in 2010 — but there is also a large military population in his district, specifically in and around Shaw AFB in Sumter. As a result of sequestration, numerous military families there have faced furloughs and they have made their dissatisfaction with Mulvaney apparent at times.

It does not take much imagination to see a negative ad aimed at Mulvaney in 2014 — from either a Republican or a Democrat — pointing out that he voted for sequestration and cut billions from the defense budget.

But such an ad would not be accurate, according to Mulvaney.

Mulvaney told Patch he did not cut anything. He explained that the House Appropriations Committee budgeted $5 billion more for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) than President Obama’s request of $80 billion, asking for a total of $85 billion.  

“This wasn’t money that generals asked for, this was the politicians on the (House Appropriations) Committee putting money in,” Mulvaney said. 

“There’s a temptation to hide money during a time of war. This was an accounting sham and it was shadowy,” Mulvaney said.

A source familiar with OCO budgeting said the extra money was requested to cover unforeseen circumstances that occur in war, particularly in a war as unpredictable like the one the nation is fighting in Afghanistan.

Mulvaney said he had not spoken with either Wilson or Rice about their objections to his amendment.

Wilson’s spokesperson Caroline Delleney gave Patch the following statement with respect to his vote against Mulvaney’s amendment:

"Our brave men in uniform dedicate their lives to keep us safe. By securing additional resources for flexibility in addressing unanticipated or emergency situations, Congress is fulfilling its responsibility of keeping our war fighters safe. It is because of the heroic actions of our military that we are able to enjoy and experience freedom."

Mulvaney noted that his measure had the support of Tim Walz (D-1) of Minnesota, who served for 25 years in the Army National Guard.

“(The amendment) will have absolutely no effect on defense and military employees,” Mulvaney said.

He’s hoping his constituents remember that when he’s up for re-election next year.