Iraq panel fuels debate on ending Defense supplementals

The high-profile Iraq Study Group has stepped into a long-simmering budget dispute by urging the Bush administration to pay for military operations in Iraq out of the regular budget, not supplemental spending bills, beginning with the fiscal 2008 budget request due in February.

The bipartisan group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., chided the White House in its report this week for its reliance on wartime supplemental spending bills that face "minimal scrutiny" and erode budget discipline and accountability.

"The war is in the fourth year and the regular budget process should not be circumvented. Funding requests for the war in Iraq should be presented clearly to Congress and the American people," the report said. "Congress must carry out its constitutional responsibility to review budget requests for the war carefully and to conduct oversight."

Its recommendation that the annual defense budget cover war-related expenses -- already about $400 billion -- was overshadowed by many of the 78 other policy proposals the group made to press for a new U.S. strategy in Iraq. But on Capitol Hill, the group added muscle to a campaign by lawmakers from both parties to end what they see as a growing reliance on ballooning, multibillion-dollar supplementals.

Buoyed by the Iraq Study Group report, members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees are "strategizing" on how to force the administration to rely solely on the regular Defense budget, which would subject all war-related programs and expenses to review by the authorizing committees and require more detailed documentation, congressional aides said.

Indeed, House Armed Services ranking member Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who will become chairman next month, said he wants to "authorize every penny that we can." But he acknowledged the committee had not yet determined a strategy for dealing with this issue.

The Baker-Hamilton group's recommendation resembled language that incoming Senate Armed Services ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., added to in the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill that would severely curb the administration's ability in 2008 and beyond to request massive supplemental spending bills for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. His amendment passed unanimously.

But President Bush challenged the McCain language when he signed the bill into law, issuing a signing statement questioning whether he is legally bound to abide by it. The Pentagon now is drawing up a supplemental for the remainder of fiscal 2007 that might exceed $100 billion.

Senate Budget ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who gets the gavel in the 110th Congress, said he, too, will work to pay for most of the war -- except for unforeseen costs -- out of the regular budget. In the last week, Conrad has discussed the matter with outgoing Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Government Accountability Office chief David Walker, and incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Conrad would not comment on the details of his discussions, but said the Bush administration would face harsh criticism on Capitol Hill if it "flaunts the law," and said congressional leaders can "chastise" the administration if it ignores the McCain amendment.

Congress' options include hearings and investigations on past supplemental spending bills, as well as detailed reporting requirements and conditions placed on future wartime supplementals.

"Congress can do a lot here, if they want to get active," said Gordon Adams, who served as Office of Management and Budget associate director of national security in the Clinton administration. "A real fight on budgeting is possible."

If there is a fight, it will be a bipartisan one. McCain's amendment picked up a long co-sponsor list that included such heavy hitters as Gregg and Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

Even stalwart administration supporters have backed the language. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Thursday applauded the Iraq Study Group for its conclusion on supplementals, acknowledging that it is one area in which he and Senate Armed Services ranking member Carl Levin, D-Mich., can agree.

"I have not agreed quite often with some of the [positions] that Sen. Levin's ... taken," Inhofe said. "But one that I have agreed with is that we need to budget this stuff and not have it depend on these emergency supplementals."