Representatives Van Hollen (D-MD) and Mulvaney (R-SC) are sponsoring amendments to cut several overseas military construction projects from the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) portion of the Appropriations bill funding Military Construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs. These amendments could be the beginning to a healthy debate over proper uses of the OCO account. Unfortunately, the House leadership stopped debate on the amendments before a vote could occur.

At Taxpayers for Common Sense, we have written and spoken against improper uses of the OCO accounts for several years. Putting more than half a billion in military construction projects in the OCO part of the budget is exactly the kind of thing we believe must be stopped. If these projects in Bahrain, Djibouti, Italy, Oman, Poland and Niger are important to our national defense, the Pentagon should fund them out of its “base” budget where they are subject to the Budget Control Act (BCA) caps.

Putting them in the OCO accounts, simply because they are overseas, is an unacceptable attempt to build them with “free” money from the slush fund. Domestic military construction has been squeezed in the last few years – the FY15 appropriations level was $4.7 billion. Adding a greater than 10% bump in the OCO slush fund maybe the easy way out…but that doesn’t make it right.

Military construction is not a contingency – unless the Navy is planning on dropping that P-8 hangar directly on the heads of ISIS, kind of like Dorothy’s house landing on the Wicked Witch of the East – military construction is carefully planned for in advance.

Placing overseas military construction in the OCO account is a transparent dodge to avoid the BCA caps. We hope the House leadership allows straightforward votes on these amendments so we can see who is serious about cutting spending and adhering to the BCA – the only way to avoid sequestration.