Washington Report

President Faces Fight Over Clarity In War Funding Requests

With President George W. Bush pushing tax cuts and Social Security reform as two key issues for his second term, budget experts in Washington say some on Capitol Hill will be asking for more detail and predictability in the president’s war funding requests.

Sources estimate the monthly cost, or “burn rate,” of the conflict in Iraq has grown from $3.8 billion per month a year ago to about $5 billion per month today. Analysts warn the total cost of the war will exceed $225 billion by September 2005. But Pentagon leaders say they are unable to pro-ject future costs associated with the contingency, where the number of troops needed and the duration of their deployment remain unknown.

This uncertainty has led the president to rely heavily on emergency supplemental appropriations to pay for the global war on terrorism, which has been dominated by the Iraq contingency since March 2003, rather than funding it in the Pentagon’s annual budget. The department’s fiscal 2006 spending package that goes to Congress early next year will be no exception. Requests for money to fund the conflict will be sent separately.

The political friction that some see on the horizon is about fiscal nuance rather than increased opposition to funding for the war in Iraq. Few on Capitol Hill are expected to oppose Bush’s fiscal 2006 wartime funding package, estimated to be between $50 billion and $70 billion. Given the president’s election victory over Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry — who voted against an $87 billion Iraq supplemental for fiscal 2004 — “no Democrat in his [or her] right mind could say ‘no’ to more money for the troops,” said Christopher Hellman, a budget analyst with the Washington-based Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. And with the expanded GOP margins in the House and Senate, Pentagon leaders are likely to get what they want, the way they want it.

However, the administration’s reliance on vague supplementals poses potential pitfalls for the Bush agenda. Wartime supplemental requests fall outside the normal budget process and do not count toward spending ceilings set in the annual budget resolution. Consequently, they tend to wreak havoc on long-term budget projections, which the president relies on as a basis for determining the amount of other spending initiatives — such as tax cuts or changes to the Social Security system.

“You want a realistic baseline if you’re going to propose permanent changes to things like taxes,” said Steve Kosiak of the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

No easy task, given that the military’s operational tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan is high, with maintenance problems in virtually every system, spare parts shortages and equipment wear and tear.

One Republican lawmaker who may stand up to the administration and insist on building some sort of predictability into the Pentagon’s spending future is Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, chairman of the House Budget Committee. Nussle is expected to engage senior White House officials as the Office of Management and Budget reviews the Pentagon’s supplemental spending package and the fiscal 2006 budget request. In the past, Nussle has demanded additional detail from administration officials, asserting that a certain degree of future planning is in order.

Last year, when the administration was defending the $87 billion supplemental on Capitol Hill, Nussle told then-Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim that lawmakers were “growing frustrated” with the Defense Department’s lack of fiscal planning, and that he found its inability to provide specific figures “troubling.”

“This committee and this Congress must have a solid plan, a blueprint, a financial blueprint to set our priorities for the year and for long-term,” Nussle said then.

Congressional aides say they also expect some grumbling from senior Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

USCG Icebreaker Breakdown Hinders Polar Research

The U.S. Coast Guard has told the National Science Foundation (NSF) that its ability to support future U.S. polar scientific research and naval operations has been diminished by the breakdown of one of its three oceangoing icebreaking cutters.

The NSF is looking into the possibility of leasing another icebreaker as a substitute, as well as other options for resupplying its Antarctic research stations.

A U.S. government official confirmed that the 26-year-old cutter Polar Sea was “down hard.” Estimates for how long it may be out of service range from more than a year to at least 2007.

Meanwhile, shifts in the Ross Ice Shelf in recent years have complicated icebreaking in the Antarctic, to the point that, in 2002, two Coast Guard icebreakers were required to clear the way to McMurdo Station.

Next Move is Marines’ After Congress Approves Increase to End-Strength

Although Congress has given the Marine Corps authority to grow its ranks by as many as 9,000 troops through 2009, it is unclear whether the Marines will use that new authority. The end-strength increase was called for in the newly enacted fiscal 2005 Defense Authorization Bill, and would allow the Marines and the Army to add more troop strength through the end of this decade.

Military budget planners say they will have to come up with some way to pay for the additional Marines, since Congress included no funding to cover costs associated with a larger force.

Changes Are Afoot In DHS Oversight

House and Senate oversight of the Homeland Security Department may look quite different during the next session of Congress.

U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., chairman of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, ostensibly a temporary panel, is reportedly negotiating with other committee chairmen in the hope they will hand over some oversight of areas related to national security and make his committee a permanent one. But lawmakers are loath to give up turf, and congressional observers say Cox’s chances are slim.

The committee’s mandate ended in November with the current session, leaving the House Rules Committee to decide whether Cox’s panel will become permanent or simply be extended for two years. The Rules Committee also could opt to kill it entirely.

The House is expected to vote on the committee’s recommendations in January, and Cox is not expected to stay on as chairman if the panel is not made permanent.

New Tax Bill Helps Navy Shipbuilders

A new corporate tax bill that passed Congress last month would lower taxes for two major Navy contractors by nearly $500 million over the next decade. The provision, embedded in a broader tax bill that would give tax cuts to industry, allows shipyards to defer paying taxes for years on profits from Navy shipbuilding.

It is aimed at benefiting a handful of major shipyards including Bath Iron Works in the home state of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who sponsored the legislation.

The new rule would allow shipyards to delay paying taxes on shipbuilding profits until work on government projects is completed. But detractors say the new law will do little to remedy stagnant job growth at the shipyards, which remain highly dependent on government contracts.

Landing Strip Funding Cut May Give Navy Time To Consider Options

The Navy will lose two-thirds of the money needed to build a landing strip for fighter jets in North Carolina, a setback included in the fiscal 2005 military construction appropriations bill that passed the House and Senate in October. The Navy needs more than $95 million for the land acquisition, but a House-Senate conference trimmed the amount to just $30 million.

The move is not expected to kill the project, but it leaves the Navy to request the balance of the funds pending the outcome of a number of environmental lawsuits. The 30,000-acre site, which lies between Naval Air Station Oceana, Va., and the Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point, N.C., is where the Navy hopes to construct an 8,000-foot runway for training purposes.

Old Legislation to Get Another Look

With a Republican majority firmly in place in both houses of Congress, several lawmakers are expected to renew their support for pet pro-jects and military initiatives that didn’t make it to the floor during the last session.

One issue sure to be revived is compensation for wounded servicemen. U.S. Rep. David Markey, D-Mass., will re-introduce the Crosby-Puller Combat Wounds Compensation Act, designed to continue combat pay and allow-ances for wounded soldiers until they recover or are discharged. The bill intends to compensate soldiers for the drop in military benefits between evacuation from a combat zone and the start of VA benefits.

The bill received only Demo-cratic backing when it was introduced in October, but aides in Markey’s office expect bipartisan support for the measure as the issue attracts more public attention.

Reporting by Seapower Correspondent Amy Klamper. Managing Editor Richard R. Burgess and Associate Editor Sue A. Lackey contributed to this report.