Playing Chicken With Military Funding
It's being called a game of chicken. On one side of the war funding debate, Democrats in the House and Senate have passed legislation that would set up a timetable to withdraw American troops from Iraq--in the House, by September 2008 and in the Senate by the end of March 2008. They still need to work out some internal kinks, but the message is clear: Democrats have a timeline for withdrawal. Too bad, says President Bush. He'll veto the bill, saying it hamstrings troops in Iraq and his "surge" plan. Each side is racing to claim it's the one supporting the troops, and the funds going to the military are, well, caught in the middle. Beneath the rhetoric, though, there are some important questions about the appropriations process that we've tried to outline below:
Why does the Pentagon need a supplemental appropriations bill in the first place?
Congress frequently considers supplemental appropriations bills to provide additional money for a specific reason or provide new money for an unforeseen problem (hurricane and earthquake relief, for example). There is usually at least one supplemental appropriations bill in each session of Congress.
In addition to the regular Defense Department budget requests, the administration has submitted a supplemental funding bill in each of the past six years to fight against terrorism and for war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
When does the Army say it'll run out of money?
The Army has a fair degree of wiggle room in the budget to finance military operations, but military officials have outlined deadlines of April 15 and May 15 before the services would have to alter their spending and training programs.
On May 29, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a hearing of the House Appropriation subcommittee on defense that "potentially, you would have troops who are currently overseas who would have to be extended" if the funds aren't provided by May 15.
But according to the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of Congress, the Army could finance operations through the end of May with funds already appropriated by Congress.
Can the Army shift money around to finance the war longer?
Yes, CRS also says that the military could shift funds around to cover operations "for almost two additional months or through most of July." That's because there is an extra $7.5 billion in already appropriated funds that could be transferred to cover operation costs. The Defense Department says this would disrupt all sorts of programs, but even if that's right, says CRS, the reason Congress has given the department this flexibility is "so that funds can be moved to meet more urgent requirements."
How much of this funding debate is related to the "surge" plan?
When the "surge" plan was announced, the administration, suggested that it wouldn't be too costly. The administration pegged the cost at only $5.6 billion. That would be roughly equal to just six weeks' worth of wartime funds if the administration had its wish and the 2007 fiscal year supplemental bill is approved, according to CRS.
But many Democratic members of Congress scoffed at that estimate, saying it was much too low. And the number of troops has increased from 21,500 to roughly 30,000 since the plan was announced. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in early February that for a four-month deployment the cost would range from $9 billion to $12 billion. For a 12-month deployment, the cost would range from $20 billion to $27 billion.
By Silla Brush