The current GOP majority in the U.S. House is not a guarantee that proposals from members of the party will actually pass.
Amid recent debate in the chamber over a bill that provides funding for areas of government including veterans affairs and military construction, the House rejected a right-wing proposal that would have stripped several million dollars in planned funding for a NATO initiative that deals with construction related to the alliance’s operations and is generally supported by member countries. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) had offered a similar amendment that would have entirely eliminated a planned increase in the U.S. funding given to that NATO initiative, but this amendment, sponsored by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), would have undone the lower amount of $3 million.
A full 327 members of the House voted “no” on the Ogles initiative, far above the level of opposition that would have been needed to stop it from moving forward.
In comments offered amid the actual debate on the initiative, Ogles argued for his proposal by pointing to claimed gaps between the amounts spent by other members on their national defense and the target level that equates to two percent of an individual country’s GDP. Funding for the NATO Security Investment Programme, which he and Greene were targeting, is considered separately from the amounts spent by individual countries on their national defense. Ogles also failed to note that, as outlined by NATO itself, the expectation that individual countries spend the equivalent of two percent of their GDP on national defense demands compliance by next year… a still future point, making complaints of non-compliance premature.
“The U.S. contribution supports projects needed by the alliance and also supports U.S. strategy in the region,” Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) said in the House. “It does not finance other countries’ construction costs, and the cost share is favorable to the United States. The increase included in the bill this year is needed to reinvest in infrastructure in the region to deter Russia’s aggression. Literally, this program is a concrete investment in deterrence.”
