QUOTE
US Democrats to back additional spending
By Holly Yeager in Washington
Published: February 16 2005 00:36 | Last updated: February 16 2005 00:36
President George W. Bush's $82bn supplemental spending request appeared set for easy approval by Congress, as Democrats on Tuesday pledged to support the measure in spite of complaints about faulty estimates of war costs and lax oversight of Pentagon spending.
“Democrats are hopeful we are successful” in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Steny Hoyer, House Democratic whip, explaining his plan to support Mr Bush's request for extra funding.
“This administration has been extraordinarily wrong” in its cost estimates, he said, but the money proposed as an addition to the annual budget was needed to help stabilise and develop Iraq. The supplemental funds are to be used to cover the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as tsunami relief and some homeland security, intelligence and foreign operations programmes.
John Kerry, the failed presidential candidate, was among Democrats who voiced support for the supplemental spending measure. Mr Kerry was one of 12 Democrats who voted against the Senate version of an $87bn supplemental spending bill in 2003. That vote, and another in support of an alternative measure, prompted Mr Kerry's much-quoted remark, “I actually did vote for the $87bn before I voted against it.” Mr Bush's re-election campaign used the comment to demonstrate what it said was Mr Kerry's weak record on defence.
Mr Kerry on Tuesday called the latest spending request from the president “important to our being successful and to the completion of the process”. He said he would offer a plan to increase the size of the military by 40,000 and to improve benefits for soldiers and their families when the Senate considers Mr Bush's supplemental.
Republican leaders in Congress have vowed quick action on the measure. Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, and Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, are scheduled to testify this week on the request.
A spokesman for John Spratt, the top Democrat on the House budget committee, said he intended to vote for the supplemental, and “he suspects most people will, because we have troops in the field”. That contrasts with the 2003 vote, when 115 House Democrats voted against the supplemental.
US spending on the war in Iraq could cost between $461bn$646bn by 2015, according to a report issued yesterday by the Democratic staff of the budget committee.
The Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative Democrats in the House, called for greater accountability in the way money is spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The group also complained that much of the supplemental should instead be part of the regular defence budget, because it is not directly related to the costs of the war.
But coalition members including several who voted against the 2003 supplemental said they would nonetheless support Mr Bush's request.
Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dab5e2da-7fb1-11d...acl=,s01=1.html
By Holly Yeager in Washington
Published: February 16 2005 00:36 | Last updated: February 16 2005 00:36
President George W. Bush's $82bn supplemental spending request appeared set for easy approval by Congress, as Democrats on Tuesday pledged to support the measure in spite of complaints about faulty estimates of war costs and lax oversight of Pentagon spending.
“Democrats are hopeful we are successful” in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Steny Hoyer, House Democratic whip, explaining his plan to support Mr Bush's request for extra funding.
“This administration has been extraordinarily wrong” in its cost estimates, he said, but the money proposed as an addition to the annual budget was needed to help stabilise and develop Iraq. The supplemental funds are to be used to cover the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as tsunami relief and some homeland security, intelligence and foreign operations programmes.
John Kerry, the failed presidential candidate, was among Democrats who voiced support for the supplemental spending measure. Mr Kerry was one of 12 Democrats who voted against the Senate version of an $87bn supplemental spending bill in 2003. That vote, and another in support of an alternative measure, prompted Mr Kerry's much-quoted remark, “I actually did vote for the $87bn before I voted against it.” Mr Bush's re-election campaign used the comment to demonstrate what it said was Mr Kerry's weak record on defence.
Mr Kerry on Tuesday called the latest spending request from the president “important to our being successful and to the completion of the process”. He said he would offer a plan to increase the size of the military by 40,000 and to improve benefits for soldiers and their families when the Senate considers Mr Bush's supplemental.
Republican leaders in Congress have vowed quick action on the measure. Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, and Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, are scheduled to testify this week on the request.
A spokesman for John Spratt, the top Democrat on the House budget committee, said he intended to vote for the supplemental, and “he suspects most people will, because we have troops in the field”. That contrasts with the 2003 vote, when 115 House Democrats voted against the supplemental.
US spending on the war in Iraq could cost between $461bn$646bn by 2015, according to a report issued yesterday by the Democratic staff of the budget committee.
The Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative Democrats in the House, called for greater accountability in the way money is spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The group also complained that much of the supplemental should instead be part of the regular defence budget, because it is not directly related to the costs of the war.
But coalition members including several who voted against the 2003 supplemental said they would nonetheless support Mr Bush's request.
Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dab5e2da-7fb1-11d...acl=,s01=1.html