We’ll look at both of these justifications, but first, let’s outline what Obama proposed for fiscal year 2012 (figures are rounded):
Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.45 billion
Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contingency operations): $247 million
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $938 million
Total: $2.64 billion
Cuts in spending already passed by Congress
Using the second justification -- comparing Obama’s request to what the GOP-controlled House voted to spend for fiscal year 2012 -- has the advantage of not being speculative. Here’s the amount passed by the House for fiscal 2012 (figures also rounded):
Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.31 billion
Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contigency operations): $247 million
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $755 million
Total: $2.31 billion
The difference between these two amounts is nearly $327 million -- a bit above the $300 million Biden cited.
Ultimately, a
final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president.
But this approach has problems as well. For starters,
Biden glosses over the fact that the president did ultimately sign the bill with the new lower funding amount, meaning he shares some responsibility for the lower level. (All presidential budget requests are opening offers that inevitably become subject to negotiation.)
The main problem with Biden’s claim, however, is that it’s not really what he was referring to in his claim from the debate. Biden said Ryan "cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for," but what passed the House wasn’t Ryan’s budget blueprint --
it was an actual spending bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee.
Our ruling
Both ways of defending the claim of a $300 million cut have some justification, but also come with problems. Extrapolating from Ryan’s budget is a speculative exercise, while the enacted appropriations figures were not directly shaped by Ryan's budget. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.....snip~
PolitiFact | Joe Biden says Paul Ryan cut embassy security by $300 million
Looks like Politi-Fact says The SPENDING BIll by the Appropriations bears Team Obama's mark.....Doesn't it?