The Budget Committee last week advanced a bill that would increase defense and nondefense spending to $664 billion and $631 billion, respectively, despite objections from progressives who want to freeze military funding or further boost spending for nondefense programs.

Three of the 15 progressives on the committee opposed the bill.

Yarmuth said that finding consensus among House Democrats would give the party a chance to show it can govern and negotiate with the GOP-controlled Senate and White House, which wants to slash nondefense spending while boosting defense spending.

"We have to figure out whether we're going to be able to govern or not. And this is the first test of it," Yarmuth said.

ADVERTISEMENT

"I understand that some people would want more. I would want more," Yarmuth said of nondefense spending. "I don't want as much defense spending as is in the bill. But, again, we're involved ultimately in a three-way negotiation on the caps. And we think these numbers are the ones that position us best with the Senate and the White House."

When asked if the potential for progressive defections reminded him of GOP infighting when Republicans were in the majority, Yarmuth replied, "It's like looking in the mirror."

Jayapal said she and other proponents are whipping support for their amendments. She said many liberals would prefer cuts to the defense side outright, but recognizing that such a proposal would likely fail in the GOP-controlled Senate, they are pushing for a boost in nondefense instead.

"If my amendment passes, I think we could get ... a majority, if not all, of the Progressive Caucus members to vote for this [caps deal]. Without that, there are people in our caucus who have been here for decades who have never voted for this kind of a military spending number," she said.

"So we have got to be able to show the American people that we understand that this is too high of a number. And that in the interim of not controlling all three branches of government, that we are doing what we can to at least invest in what is now the worst inequality since 1920."

Supporters of Jayapal's amendment said they have the most leverage in the debate — not pushing to reduce defense spending but fighting for a hike in nondefense domestic funding to address growing inequality.

Asked how many members of the CPC would oppose a caps deal without the additional domestic spending, Pocan didn't hesitate.

"Enough that it wouldn't pass," he said. "I think they'll have a very difficult time passing it without our amendment."

“I just think there’s a math problem for them, period," he added.

Other liberals, though, said they'd likely support the deal even without the additional money.