Republicans in the House and Senate unveiled their separate budget proposals this week, kicking off debate over the federal government’s spending for fiscal year 2016.

Though the documents were just recently released, spending for the Defense Department is proving to be a point of contention between GOP lawmakers in both chambers.

Neither the House nor the Senate’s proposals for the Pentagon’s budget broke the mandatory spending caps set in 2011. However, the blueprints differ in their approaches to allocate more defense spending through means that are immune to the limits.

The House’s budget, released yesterday, boosts spending for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) to $90 billion—a move that has fiscal conservatives pushing back.

Overseas Contingency Operations funds are effectively exempt from the spending caps and are supposed to be used to pay for costs associated with the global war on terror.

The Senate budget proposal, meanwhile, creates a “deficit neutral reserve fund,” which would serve as a placeholder for increased defense spending. It also matches President Obama’s request for $58 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds.

In his base budget, the president called for $561 billion for the defense budget—breaking the spending caps by $38 billion.

Disagreement Among Republicans

Many Republicans in both the House and Senate agree that increases to the Pentagon’s budget are necessary to maintaining the country’s national security. However, lawmakers differ in what they believe is the correct approach to doing so.

“I don’t like the OCO account. I think we should be honest and put it in the budget, if that’s what we’re trying to do is plus up the military budget,” said @Raul_Labrador

At the monthly event Conversations with Conservatives, Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, said he wouldn’t vote against the budget because of the money added to the Overseas Contingency Operations account. However, he said he would prefer if the money was added to the Defense Department’s base budget.

>>> How Does the House Budget Measure Up?

“I don’t like the OCO account,” he said. “I think we should be honest and put it in the budget, if that’s what we’re trying to do is plus up the military budget.”

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who also attended the panel, agreed that the money should be added to the base budget instead of the Overseas Contingency Operations account. However, he said it was important to look at what the money in the defense budget is being spent on.

“Defense should be our number one priority as a country. That’s what the federal government is supposed to be handling,” Amash said Tuesday. “We also spend as much on our military as approximately the next 10 countries combined, so we should be honest and serious about our budget situation and not always assume that because some people want some increase spending, that that’s necessarily the case—that we can’t find savings within the existing budget.”

In a statement released today, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of the most outspoken defense hawks, said he would support increased defense spending through the Overseas Contingency Operations account.

“Using OCO to prevent this scenario is not my preference, but it is infinitely better than the current defense spending caps, and it could help to avert a looming disaster for our military,” said @SenJohnMcCain.

“This Congress can and should do better than use Overseas Contingency Operations funds to address this crisis of our own making. However, I refuse to ask the brave young Americans in our military to defend this nation with insufficient resources that would place their lives in unnecessary danger,” he said. “Using OCO to prevent this scenario is not my preference, but it is infinitely better than the current defense spending caps, and it could help to avert a looming disaster for our military.”

Though the Senate GOP’s budget proposal allocates $58 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he plans to introduce an amendment to the budget increasing it to $90 billion—matching the House’s proposal.

“I’m definitely looking at it,” he told The Hill today. “I’m almost certain I will do it.”

The Budget Control Act of 2011

In 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act, which included a provision that put severe spending caps on defense and discretionary domestic spending.

The provision was supposed to be a last-ditch effort to force lawmakers to reach an agreement on a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction package. However, the cuts kicked in after Congress failed to reach an agreement on a budget, and mandatory cuts went into effect on March 1, 2013.

The spending cuts have been widely criticized by defense hawks in the House and Senate, as well as military leaders. But now, fiscally conservative lawmakers believe the caps help to rein in government spending.

To undo the sequester, Congress must pass legislation doing so. Until then, lawmakers have worked to employ budget tools—or “gimmicks,” according to some Republicans—to beef up defense spending while adhering to the 2011 spending caps.

Since 2013, Congress has offered some spending relief. However, if lawmakers do not come to an agreement soon, the full cuts will go into effect in 2016.

>>> House Conservatives Cite Obamacare Repeal as ‘Motivating Reason’ for Supporting GOP Budget