patrick
05-13-2005, 05:18 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050513/pl_nm/iraq_congress_funding_dc_1&printer=1
-
The Senate Armed Services Committee has recommended a further $50 billion be set aside to fund U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S.-declared global war on terrorism.
The proposed new war spending for fiscal 2006, which starts Oct. 1, would push the cost of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and its aftermath toward $250 billion, far ahead of initial expectations voiced by the Bush administration.
Officials advocating the invasion played down the financial cost. Then White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor."
The recommendation for fresh emergency spending was sent to the full Senate on Thursday night as part of a bill that also would authorize $441.6 billion in regular defense spending in fiscal 2006, a 3.1 percent real increase over last year's authorized sum.
Three days ago Congress gave final approval for an $82 billion emergency war-spending bill, of which about $76 billion would go to war-fighting.
Even with such a large, emergency funding measure, the Pentagon has said more money would be needed as early as October. By 2010, war costs could top $500 billion, some experts have projected.
The White House Office of Management and Budget did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
The additional $50 billion for war spending had bipartisan support on the committee.
"I am particularly pleased that the bill will authorize $50 billion to support the day-to-day military operations of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq," Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the panel's top Democrat, said in a statement.
WOMEN IN COMBAT
The Senate's version of the bill put it on a potential collision course with the House of Representatives over the role of women the military.
The House Armed Services Committee next week will consider an amendment to bar women from serving in Army combat support and combat service support units. That is not in the Senate committee's bill.
The House military personnel subcommittee approved the amendment, which was pushed by the chairman of the full committee, California Republican Duncan Hunter.
Democrats on the House panel said women have shown their capabilities on the front lines. They said the amendment would undermine morale, making recruiting more difficult, and put further strains on U.S. forces.
Women currently make up about 20 percent of combat support and service support units.
Hunter defended the proposed ban as needed to prevent women from being placed in the front battle lines, which he said could happen soon unless Congress intervened.
"The American people have never wanted to have women in combat and this reaffirms that policy," Hunter said in a statement
-
The Senate Armed Services Committee has recommended a further $50 billion be set aside to fund U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S.-declared global war on terrorism.
The proposed new war spending for fiscal 2006, which starts Oct. 1, would push the cost of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and its aftermath toward $250 billion, far ahead of initial expectations voiced by the Bush administration.
Officials advocating the invasion played down the financial cost. Then White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor."
The recommendation for fresh emergency spending was sent to the full Senate on Thursday night as part of a bill that also would authorize $441.6 billion in regular defense spending in fiscal 2006, a 3.1 percent real increase over last year's authorized sum.
Three days ago Congress gave final approval for an $82 billion emergency war-spending bill, of which about $76 billion would go to war-fighting.
Even with such a large, emergency funding measure, the Pentagon has said more money would be needed as early as October. By 2010, war costs could top $500 billion, some experts have projected.
The White House Office of Management and Budget did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
The additional $50 billion for war spending had bipartisan support on the committee.
"I am particularly pleased that the bill will authorize $50 billion to support the day-to-day military operations of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq," Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the panel's top Democrat, said in a statement.
WOMEN IN COMBAT
The Senate's version of the bill put it on a potential collision course with the House of Representatives over the role of women the military.
The House Armed Services Committee next week will consider an amendment to bar women from serving in Army combat support and combat service support units. That is not in the Senate committee's bill.
The House military personnel subcommittee approved the amendment, which was pushed by the chairman of the full committee, California Republican Duncan Hunter.
Democrats on the House panel said women have shown their capabilities on the front lines. They said the amendment would undermine morale, making recruiting more difficult, and put further strains on U.S. forces.
Women currently make up about 20 percent of combat support and service support units.
Hunter defended the proposed ban as needed to prevent women from being placed in the front battle lines, which he said could happen soon unless Congress intervened.
"The American people have never wanted to have women in combat and this reaffirms that policy," Hunter said in a statement