Reply #18: WP: Congress Approves $82 Billion for Wars

[paineinthearse]

This morning I surfed all the Senate Dem websites looking for their statements on apending the "Real ID" provision to this bill. Results are in a new post in GD and an except in lalarawraw's HR418/Real ID thread in GD.

One phrase repeated itself throughout the sites: "must pass legislation". Either the rethugs have browbeat the dems into submission, or the dems are just corporate shills. The only dem who consistantly is speaking out against the war on Iraq is Dennis Kucinich (must recently in House morning business today).

=========================================================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/10/AR2005051001145.html

Congress Approves $82 Billion for Wars
Iraq Cost to Pass $200 Billion; Army to Ask for More

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 11, 2005; A01

The Senate gave final passage yesterday to an $82 billion emergency war-spending bill, sending President Bush a measure that will push the cost of the Iraq invasion well past $200 billion. Even with such large, unanticipated expenditures, Army officials and congressional aides say more money will be needed as early as October. The Army Materiel Command, the Army's main logistical branch, has put Congress on notice that it will need at least two more emergency "supplemental" bills just to finance the repair and replacement of Army equipment. By 2010, war costs are likely to exceed half a trillion dollars, according to nonpartisan congressional researchers. "We're fighting a war on supplementals, and it's a hell of a way to do business," said retired Army Lt. Gen. John M. Riggs, who until last year was working on the Army's modernization plans. "The base budget of the U.S. Army needs to be adjusted to fight the war on terror, and I have no idea where the money is going to come from."

The final spending measure was nearly identical in cost to the $81.9 billion request Bush submitted in February. Most of the debate in Congress revolved not around the money but around unrelated immigration measures. The bill includes a provision that would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to acquire driver's licenses that the federal government would recognize as identification. It would also expand the list of terrorism-related activities that will make an immigrant inadmissible or deportable, tighten rules on political asylum, and add federal powers to ease construction of border barriers. The Senate unanimously approved the spending measure. The House gave final approval to the bill last week, 368 to 58.The bill provides the Defense Department nearly $76 billion on top of $25 billion already appropriated mainly for Iraq for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. It also contains $5 billion for foreign policy efforts, including $1.28 billion to construct and operate a U.S. embassy in Baghdad that will be among the world's largest, $660 million for tsunami relief, $200 million for aid to the Palestinians, and $370 million in relief for the conflicts in Sudan.

The overwhelming vote and the desultory debate over the mounting cost of the war in Iraq belied concerns that the war is taking a toll on both the U.S. Treasury and the military's efforts to retool for the future. For fiscal 2005, the Pentagon has now been allocated about $100 billion for war costs, 45 percent more than last year. That total is nearly 30 percent of the $350 billion deficit the federal government is projected to run this year. With the president's signature, the government will have allocated $350.6 billion for war-related spending since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Congressional Research Service estimates. Since 2003, Congress has given the Defense Department $183 billion for Iraq, while appropriating an additional $25 billion to other government agencies operating in Iraq, such as the State Department, for a total of $208 billion, according to the CRS. During last year's presidential campaign, the Bush team excoriated Democratic challenger John F. Kerry for asserting that the war would cost $200 billion.

An additional $74 billion has been appropriated for Afghanistan. Still more has been spent on enhanced security and other military operations that stemmed from the 2001 attacks. The recently passed budget resolution assumes that an additional $50 billion will be spent in 2006, but few congressional aides thought war costs would stay that low. "It's your money, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer," mocked Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.). Indeed, some lawmakers are pressuring the administration to rein in supplemental requests, especially for items that could hardly be viewed as unforeseen emergencies. The latest emergency bill includes $5 billion to help reorganize and equip the Army into smaller "modular" brigades, a move that was announced in 2003. Members of Congress complain that the emergency process denies lawmakers' oversight powers and keeps Iraq costs off the deficit projections for future years. "It's dangerously irresponsible," Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) warned in February. Although support for the current package was overwhelming, lawmakers insisted it is the final straw.

more.....