Defense may wait until after elections to push supplemental

With the 2004 presidential election in mind, the Defense Department is not expected to ask lawmakers for fiscal 2005 supplemental funding until well into that fiscal year, according to Pentagon sources -- a move that could jeopardize military readiness if Congress is unable to quickly approve the anticipated request.

Last week the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments projected the Defense Department will request roughly $50 billion in emergency supplemental funds following the November elections. Any request would be the third in a string of sizable supplemental spending bills to cover the costs of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Last spring Congress approved a $62.6 billion supplemental and another $87 billion supplemental in November. But with lawmakers eager to wrap up any last-minute legislation and return to their districts to campaign, it could be January before Congress considers any supplemental spending appropriations.

If Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the White House want to keep operations in Iraq and Afghanistan funded through supplemental dollars, military commanders might be forced to dip into regular operations and maintenance accounts at the beginning of fiscal 2005. That prediction assumes Congress passes a defense appropriations bill before the next fiscal year begins Oct. 1. Otherwise, the Pentagon will have to operate under a continuing resolution at fiscal 2004 spending levels.

Christopher Hellman, director of the Project on Military Spending Oversight at the Center for Defense Information, said the military has little to worry about, even if the supplemental budget does not go to the Hill until much later.

"It's too early to panic when you know that whatever the size of the supplemental, they'll get the full amount," Hellman said. "The military may panic over reimbursing their [operations and maintenance] accounts, but with a Republican administration and a very likely Republican-controlled Congress, I doubt they'll have long to wait."

Steve Kosiak, director of budget studies at CSBA, agreed that a January 2005 time frame for the supplemental might not present a risk to current readiness levels. "It will depend on how large the operations are," he said. "If they need a lot of money to pay for a lot of troops in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, that could be a problem.

On the other hand, they appear to be obligating money slowly for operations, and there is some suggestion that they may have some funds left over that could act as a cushion at the beginning of [fiscal 2005]." In addition, the supplemental is not likely to be controversial if it is intended primarily to pay for troop and other operational expenses, rather than aid for Iraq reconstruction.

Still, others are not so confident about lawmakers' ability to rapidly pass any emergency spending legislation. One congressional aide familiar with the budget and appropriations processes said if Congress becomes log-jammed over emergency funding needs, military readiness could be in jeopardy.

"If Congress can't act quickly and move it out in a period of six to eight weeks, you could potentially have problems," the aide said. "They could have to cut training and postpone or cancel large international training exercises. Those things factor into readiness, and that's when commanders start to worry."