Senate signals unhappiness with war supplementals (blow to *)

[The Straight Story]

Senate signals unhappiness with war supplementals
By Peter Cohn, CongressDaily


The Senate dealt a symbolic blow to Monday the Bush administration's practice of funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan under emergency spending requests, voting 61-31 to express the chamber's will that war funds be included in regular annual budget submissions.
Backed by 21 Republicans, the provision authored by Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., was attached to an $80.7 billion fiscal 2005 supplemental spending bill. Although non-binding, it reflects growing bipartisan unease with funding ongoing military operations through emergency measures in a time of rampant budget deficits.

But debate on the underlying bill, and on an overall budget plan for the next fiscal year, is notable for how difficult it is to keep spending down, with some lawmakers lined up to try to add projects.

With backing by Catholic charities and grain and dairy exporters, bipartisan momentum is building to boost spending on supplemental food aid to developing nations by $320 million, for example. Supporters say the amendment would enable the U.S. Agency for International Development to meet its commitments and replenish funds already disbursed for tsunami relief.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0405/041905cdam1.htm

[EC]

1. Byrd, wrote allot about this in his book

how then under emergency accounts, there is no accounting of the money, Bush would have complete control of it, and where it goes...rather he's stealing...or not

On edit: spelling