Senate approves change in future war funding

After gaining support from several heavy hitters, the Senate voted unanimously Wednesday to pass an amendment to the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill that would force the Pentagon to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from its regular budget.

The amendment, sponsored by Armed Services Airland Subcommittee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., would allow the administration to request emergency funding measures for unforeseen expenses only.

Its wide acceptance reflects growing frustration in Congress over hefty wartime funding requests that have contained few details and circumvented scrutiny from authorizers.

"We are blowing the budget process," McCain said before the Senate voted, 98-0, for his amendment. "We are carving gigantic holes in the system and we are removing the authorization committees, and to a degree the Appropriations committees" from oversight.

Budget Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, were among the names on the amendment's long list of co-sponsors.

But Stevens stressed that the amendment would not end supplemental spending bills entirely, arguing that the Defense Department cannot budget for all wartime costs well in advance of the fiscal year. Indeed, the Pentagon already has begun to put together its regular spending plan for fiscal 2008, due on Capitol Hill in February.

"Can you tell your husband how much you want for dresses next year?" Stevens quipped to reporters.

The amendment, which would affect the fiscal 2008 budget, requires the Defense Department to provide an estimate and a detailed justification for all war-related funds expected in a fiscal year.

"We have this Cayman Islands budgeting going on here," Gregg said, comparing a popular tax haven to the fact that emergency supplementals are not counted against the federal deficit under budget rules.

But Gregg cautioned that while McCain's amendment is a "step in the right direction," it ultimately might not be the best approach to handling the wartime funding issue. The amendment would force Congress to adjust budget caps upward, dramatically inflating the annual defense budget, he said.

At the same time, mounting public pressure to reduce the federal deficit and harness the soaring annual increases in defense spending could result in much tighter budgets than the military has been used to seeing.

"This isn't the final product," Gregg said, in a nod to potentially contentious conference negotiations with the House on the spending issue.

House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee ranking member Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, failed last month to add language to the defense authorization bill that essentially would have forced the Pentagon to budget a year in advance for war costs and other contingencies. During markup of the House bill, Abercrombie proposed extending its six-month, $50 billion bridge fund to a full year of spending at $92 billion.

On Tuesday, the House passed a $94.5 billion fiscal 2006 supplemental spending bill for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, border security, hurricane relief and pandemic flue preparedness. The Senate plans to vote today on the supplemental, the ninth since 2001.

Meanwhile, Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., continued Wednesday to work on a compromise with Sens. Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that proposes, among other things, to promote the chief of the National Guard Bureau to a four-star general and make this officer a member of the elite Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Warner would not indicate whether he would support the elevation of the National Guard chief, but said he expects to include a "significant" amount of the senators' original language in any compromise amendment.

Also Wednesday, the Bush administration released a Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate's version of the defense authorization bill. While it contained no explicit veto threats, the White House voiced displeasure on several provisions in the bill, including those increasing the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps.

The administration also does not want Congress to restrict the retirements of aging aircraft such as the B-52 bomber, a move that "will divert funds from other more critical capabilities," the SAP said. And the White House opposes cutting missile defense and space programs, while also objecting to language that would continue development of a second engine for the international Joint Strike Fighter program.