By Jen DiMascio
Leading Democrats said they intend to move a $50 billion bridge fund for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before leaving for a Thanksgiving recess.
The question is whether it will be a viable bill with language pressing for a presidential plan to bring troops home from Iraq by December 2008 and language restricting the deployment of troops that are not fully trained or equipped.
Democrats put those elements to votes as standalone bills earlier this year, and they failed to receive the 60 votes necessary to move beyond the Senate.
Despite the likelihood of another legislative defeat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said, “I always have expectations to get 60 votes.”
Reid and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) were on hand for a press briefing on a Joint Economic Committee report that said the indirect costs would push the war’s price tag to $3.5 trillion–well beyond the $2 trillion figure recently discussed by the Congressional Budget Office.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) dismissed the report saying even though the war costs money, he is grateful the nation has not experienced an attack at home in the last six years.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that even though the bridge fund would not provide a deadline for getting out of Iraq, Republicans are likely to oppose it for other reasons– including language applying the Army Field Manual’s prohibitions on torture to all government agencies.
Should the bridge fund stall, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) is waiting in the wings with another proposal to provide the full $196 billion in war funding along with calling for a change of mission in Iraq and a way to hold the Iraqi government accountable for progress.
“Both sides want funding approved, it’s a question of how much and under what conditions,” Nelson told reporters yesterday. He said he is working on language with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
Even if the currently proposed bridge fund fails, the Defense Department does need funding, Nelson said. The moderate Democrat said he fears that allowing DoD to transfer funding to pay for the war could put funding for resetting National Guard and Reserve equipment in jeopardy.
“Robbing Paul to pay Paul is really sort of a hazardous thing for those areas where we really need support–like resetting National Guard and reserve units,” Nelson said.