Sessions-McCaskill Discretionary Caps Amendment

SUMMARY:

• Caps discretionary spending levels for Fiscal Years 2011-2014 at the level that
was passed in the Budget Resolution for FY2010. The FY 2010 budget allows for
approximately 2% increases per year in both defense and non-defense spending
• Specifies spending levels for “defense” and “non-defense” programs until 2014
• Due to the current state of the economic emergency, FY2010 is exempt from the
caps
• Contains a $10 billion per year “emergency fund” for unforeseen emergency
spending
• Requires a two-thirds vote of 67 Senators to waive the annual caps for emergency
spending above $10 billion
• Does not apply to funding for any military action in which Congress has
authorized the use of force (including Afghanistan and Iraq)
• This approach is very similar to what the president has called for in his State of
the Union address
• The amendment has the endorsement of a number of fiscal accountability groups
including Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal
Budget.

Myth vs. Fact on the Sessions-McCaskill discretionary spending cap

amendment:
Myth: Sessions-McCaskill would prevent the federal government from responding to
emergencies.

Fact: $10 billion a year are automatically dedicated to emergency spending. In case
of emergency funding beyond the $10 billion 67 votes are needed to override the
amendment. Emergency appropriations for 9/11, the 2004 Tsunami, and
Hurricane Katrina all passed with overwhelming support in the Senate (93 votes
or more).

Myth: The Sessions-McCaskill amendment would prevent Congress from adequately

funding the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fact: Funding for Iraq, Afghanistan, or the War on Terror is not affected by the caps.
Funding for authorized conflicts like these is not subject to the 67 vote threshold.

Myth: The Sessions-McCaskill amendment would prevent Congress from caring for
Veterans.
Fact: The pre-set spending levels already include significant increases in funding for
veterans. Veterans programs have always enjoyed wide support in the Senate;
should the need arise to provide substantially increased funding for veterans
programs far above current increases, it is highly probably that the legislation
would get the 67 votes needed to waive the caps.

Myth: The sponsors claim this will balance the budget even though non-defense
discretionary spending is only 18% of the federal budget.

Fact: First, the amendment caps growth in both defense and non-defense
discretionary spending. Second, the sponsors have never claimed this amendment
would balance the budget. Much more will need to be done. However,
restraining discretionary spending growth is important, and it will result in real
budget savings. The President himself estimates that a three year freeze in
discretionary spending not related to defense, veterans, foreign affairs, or
homeland security will result in $250 billion in savings over 10 years.