HomeLeading The News As Bush seeks $190B more for war, Dems signal protracted battle looms
Leading The News
As Bush seeks $190B more for war, Dems signal protracted battle looms
By Manu Raju and Roxana Tiron
Posted: 09/27/07 07:49 PM [ET]
As the Bush administration took its case to Congress Wednesday for an additional $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democratic leaders downplayed calls for swift action on the massive spending package, foreshadowing a protracted battle over new funding for the U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
At a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, which was repeatedly disrupted by raucous anti-war protesters, Democrats were skeptical of comments made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that Congress should pass the fiscal 2008 supplemental spending bill “as quickly as possible and without excessive and counterproductive restrictions.”
When asked before the hearing whether there was a sense of urgency in taking up the supplemental funding package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told The Hill, “Not for me, there isn’t.”
Delaying consideration of the bill could give Democrats more time to agree on a strategy for what is likely to be an acrimonious debate over the war funding bill. But if they do not act swiftly, they could open themselves up to charges by the White House and Republicans that they are delaying needed funding for troops in harm’s way.
For Democrats, debate over the spending bill could prove trickier than the debate over the defense authorization bill. With an angry anti-war base insisting that funds be spent strictly on redeploying troops from Iraq, Democrats are weighing how to restrict war operations without appearing to delay money for troops on the ground. At the same time, they are trying to avoid the same fate that greeted them with the fiscal 2007 supplemental war bill, when they failed to override a presidential veto and were forced to drop restrictions on the war and send a clean spending bill to President Bush.
One of the options under consideration is to approve a spending bill that would be divided up into three-month increments. But Democrats on the Appropriations Committee said they still hadn’t come up with a strategy, largely because the White House had yet to send to Congress the details of $42 billion of its $190 billion request.
“There are those that think that the president might be wanting to get us in so deep that the next administration can’t pull out, so this is a supplemental that has to be scrutinized very carefully over a substantial period of time,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sits on the Appropriations Defense subcommittee and supports splitting the bill up into increments.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, expressed disappointment with the White House for not yet sending a revised supplemental request four days before the start of the new fiscal year. Byrd said he had considered postponing Wednesday’s supplemental hearing until the president submits his requests.
Byrd added: “There should be no assumption that we would simply approve the request of the president.”
With the end of the fiscal year looming without a new supplemental package, Democrats are giving themselves breathing room by moving forward with a stopgap measure that would extend fiscal 2007 spending until Nov. 16, including $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed the continuing resolution 404-14 on Wednesday, and the Senate is expected to follow suit this week.
The Pentagon’s comptroller, Tina Jonas, said that the money included in the continuing resolution would allow the military to operate “at least for the month and a half period,” or until mid-November.
If Democrats do not pass the supplemental or a defense appropriations bill by Nov. 16, the Pentagon could still use the remainder of the $70 billion bridge fund for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — if Congress also extends the continuing resolution, according to congressional aides and budget experts. Under that scenario, the $70 billion could last until the beginning of next year, the experts say.
If Congress passes a defense-spending bill that does not include funding for the wars, the Pentagon could borrow operations and maintenance costs from that bill to fund the wars until the beginning of March. The fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bills do not contain any money for the wars.
Gen. David Petraeus is expected to give an updated progress report to Congress in March on the status of the war.
At the Wednesday hearing, the increasingly vocal protests from the anti-war group left a bitter taste in the mouth of some Democrats. Byrd ordered the doors closed to keep protesters out, but the protesters could still be heard registering their displeasure with the war.
“What a sad day in this committee,” said Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski. “To have such tension, such chaos, such disrespect — this has not been the best day that has occurred here.”
On the request, Gates said of the additional $42 billion, $6 billion would go toward Army and Marine Corps combat formations currently in Iraq through fiscal 2008. Another $14 billion would go to force protection, $11 billion of which would go toward fielding about 7,000 more Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles on top of the 8,000 already funded or requested.
In addition, $9 billion would fund equipment reconstitution; $1 billion would support National Guard pre-deployment training; $1 billion would improve U.S. facilities in the region and consolidate U.S. bases in Iraq; and $1 billion would train and equip Iraqi Security Forces.
While Republicans on the Appropriations Committee did not criticize the war in Iraq, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) asked Gates to submit estimates of what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would cost “under the least favorable assumptions” as well as under “the most favorable assumptions.”
Republicans said any delay in enacting the funding would be met with strong opposition if the Bush administration says inaction would hurt troop readiness.
“We want to be sure that military forces have what they need right now, not any delay that puts into jeopardy our ability to successfully wage our effort there,” said Sen. Thad Cochran, the Mississippi Republican who serves as ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.
“If slowing [the process] down will cause disruption, we’ll be against that,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
