WASHINGTON, May 27 (Reuters) – The Senate rejected a proposal on Thursday to require President Barack Obama to submit a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Afghanistan, despite unease among some members of his own party over the nine-year-old war. The 80-18 vote nixed a bid by liberal Democrat Russ Feingold for a detailed troop timetable, which he argued would avoid future "emergency" war spending bills such as the $33 billion one now before the Senate. Most members of the Democratic-majority Senate proved unwilling to dictate to the president, with a buildup of 30,000 additional troops still underway that Obama ordered to Afghanistan and a new military push in the Kandahar area. Adopting Feingold’s plan would "reinforce the fear … that the United States will abandon the region," Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat, said. Levin said this was unwise as the Taliban is "doing everything it can" to convince Afghans that U.S., NATO and Afghan forces cannot protect them. But several senators in Democratic leadership positions did back Feingold’s call for an exit strategy. Supporters included Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin and senators Patty Murray, Byron Dorgan and Chuck Schumer. Majority Leader Harry Reid, however, opposed the proposal. Reid, who is in a tight race for re-election in a western state, said this week that "I’ve felt no impatience about Afghanistan in my caucus." Around the Senate, some anxiety could be heard now that U.S. combat deaths have passed 1,000 in Afghanistan and the cost of the war topped $300 billion. The war in Iraq has cost over $700 billion, with 4,400 U.S. military dead since 2003. "I’m impatient. Time to start thinking about a different approach, I think," Senator Tom Harkin said of Afghanistan earlier this week. Senator Jeff Bingaman, another Democrat, said: "I think there’s a high level of impatience, but exactly what should be done legislatively about that issue, I don’t know." He voted against Feingold’s proposal; Harkin voted for it. END DATE SOUGHT Feingold acknowledged Obama had set July 2011 as a starting date for removing U.S. troops, but said there should also be an end date. "The president should convey to the American and Afghan people how long he anticipates it will take to complete his military objectives," he said. There were no Republican votes for his plan. "Thanks to the McChrystal strategy, American forces have already brought pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan. We need to keep that pressure up if this counterinsurgency strategy is to succeed, and it must," Republican leader Mitch McConnell said. General Stanley McChrystal is in charge of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Senate also shelved a Republican proposal to find ways to pay for the new war spending with cuts to other programs. Reid scoffed at this idea, saying Republicans "never raised a fuss about paying for the war under President Bush." Reid wants the Senate to finish the war spending bill this week. The money must also be approved by the House of Representatives, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls it a "heavy lift" among Democrats wary of spending more on the battlefield. The House won’t act until next month at the earliest. The Appropriations Committee had been expected to vote on its version of the bill Thursday, but the meeting was postponed. Obama requested $33 billion in February to pay for his Afghan surge, but Congress has been busy with domestic priorities and worried about scarce budget resources. The money comes on top of about $130 billion that Congress already approved for Afghanistan and Iraq for this year. The Senate version includes around $4 billion for a "civilian surge" of economic aid for Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Editing by Sue Pleming and Philip Barbara)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama sent a landmark arms-reduction treaty with Russia to the Senate on Thursday for ratification and called for $80 billion in nuclear funding, which could help win opposition support.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the funds, which would be spent over a decade, were needed to “rebuild and sustain America’s aging nuclear stockpile.”

The treaty, which must be ratified by the Senate and Russia’s parliament before it goes into force, would reduce the strategic nuclear arsenals deployed by the former Cold War foes by 30 percent within seven years.

Known as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, it is also seen as a major step toward “resetting” U.S.-Russia relations, which were prickly under the Bush administration.

“The U.S. is far better off with this treaty than without it,” Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. “It strengthens the security of the U.S. and our allies and promotes strategic stability between the world’s two major nuclear powers.”

Gates said the treaty had the unanimous support of America’s military leadership.

Obama, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in part for his vision of a nuclear-free world, must get some Republican backing to win the 67 votes needed for Senate approval. Obama’s Democrats and their allies have 59 seats in the Senate.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A Senate committee on Thursday approved another $33.5 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq this year, although some members said they did so reluctantly.

The action by the Senate Appropriations Committee is the first step toward congressional approval of the extra war spending that President Barack Obama requested in February to support his surge of 30,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan.

But the money still must be approved by the full Senate and also by the House of Representatives, where the majority Democrats are split over the wisdom of continuing the wars.

The Senate panel unanimously approved $33.5 billion for the Pentagon for the two wars and a little under $4 billion for the State Department to help fund a “civilian stabilization strategy” to deliver more economic aid to Afghanistan as well as neighboring Pakistan.

Chairman Daniel Inouye said he hoped the Senate would act on the legislation by the end of May. The money comes on top of about $130 billion that Congress already approved for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars through September 30 of this year.

Senator Barbara Mikulski said she had “grave questions” about spending so much in Afghanistan given that its president is “running the second-most corrupt country in the world.”

While U.S. troops are fighting in Afghanistan, “the Chinese are building railroads and buying up mining interests” there, Mikulski added. But she voted for the bill.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama sent a landmark arms-reduction treaty with Russia to the Senate on Thursday along with a request for $80 billion in nuclear funding that could help win opposition votes.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the $80 billion — which would be spent over a decade — was needed to “rebuild and sustain America’s aging nuclear stockpile.”

The treaty, which must be ratified by the U.S. Senate and Russia’s parliament before it goes into force, would reduce the strategic nuclear arsenals deployed by the former Cold War foes by 30 percent within seven years.

Known as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, it is also is seen as a major step toward “resetting” U.S.-Russia relations, which were prickly under the Bush administration.

“The U.S. is far better off with this treaty than without it,” Gates said in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

“It strengthens the security of the U.S. and our allies and promotes strategic stability between the world’s two major nuclear powers.”

The funding request could address concerns of some Senate Republicans, who have said the Obama administration needs to commit more resources to modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons complex if it is to convince them that a smaller arsenal is viable.

WASHINGTON, May 12 (Reuters) – The U.S. government, while urging the world to cut business ties with Iran, has given government contracts worth nearly $880 million to seven foreign companies involved in Iran’s energy sector in recent years, a report said on Wednesday.

The report by the Government Accountability Office spurred criticism by U.S. lawmakers from both parties. They said the government should not be contracting with companies that help Iran’s economy as long as Tehran is pursuing nuclear work that the West suspects is aimed at making a bomb.

“It is simply unacceptable for the U.S. government to enrich foreign firms that are enriching the extremist, expansionist, terrorist government of Iran,” said Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent and chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Foreign companies with big investments in Iran’s energy sector can be sanctioned under U.S. law. But Lieberman and others charge this has not been enforced for years, by either Republican or Democratic administrations.

Both the House of Representatives and Senate have passed legislation to tighten and extend U.S. sanctions on Iran and negotiators are working on merging the bills into one.

The Obama administration is also pressing other global powers to agree to a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt its nuclear work. Tehran says that work is for energy needs.

The GAO report was a follow-on to a report it did in March in which it identified 41 foreign companies that have commercial activity in Iran’s energy sector. The new report identified which of those companies had U.S. government contracts from fiscal years 2005 to 2009.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States has made it clear to Russia that delivering an anti-aircraft system to Iran would have severe consequences for U.S. ties with Moscow, a senior advisor to President Obama said Tuesday.

In a generally upbeat assessment of ties with Russia, Gary Samore, White House coordinator for arms control, weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism, said he thought Russia understood Washington’s position and would be surprised if Moscow shipped the S-300 anti-aircraft system that Iran has ordered.

“We’ve made it very clear to the Russians that that would have a very significant impact on our bilateral relations,” said Samore. “I think the Russians understand that the consequences would be very severe.”

Tehran has urged Russia not to bow to Western pressure over the sale of the system which, analysts say, could help Iran thwart any attempt to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The United States and Israel have refused to rule out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to resolve the dispute over its nuclear facilities. Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but Western governments believe it is aimed at bomb-making.

Washington is pressing other global powers to agree to a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Tehran over its refusal to halt its nuclear work, but Samore said Iran’s program had suffered technical setbacks, giving diplomacy a bit more time.

“The nuclear clock is not moving as quickly as some feared,” he said.

WASHINGTON, May 10 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s request in February for more money to pay for the war in Afghanistan is still snarled in Congress as lawmakers work on other priorities and deal with scarce budget resources. When Afghan President Hamid Karzai meets lawmakers this week as part of his four-day trip to Washington, they will want reassurances from him that he is committed to tackling corruption and ensuring U.S. taxpayer funds are not wasted. Obama has asked for $33 billion more to help fund 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers being sent to Afghanistan this year. He wants $4.5 billion more for beefed-up foreign aid and civilian operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year; about $2 billion of that amount is dedicated to Afghanistan. Congress is expected to approve the new money but appears to be in no hurry. Following are the costs to U.S. taxpayers so far, as well as some of the future funding needed. COSTS SO FAR Congress has approved $345 billion so far for the war in Afghanistan, where the United States invaded to fight al Qaeda and topple the Taliban after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. This figure is from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which says that about $22 billion has gone for Afghan-war-related activities in other countries. COMPARISON WITH IRAQ About twice as much money — $708 billion — has gone to the war in Iraq so far, CBO says. But Afghanistan is becoming the more expensive battleground, as the pace of U.S. military operations slows in Iraq and quickens in Afghanistan. The current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, is the first year that more money has been allocated to Afghanistan ($72.3 billion) than Iraq ($64.5 billion), according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan budget research group that examines congressional appropriations. MONEY FOR AFGHANISTAN’S MILITARY AND POLICE FORCES Included in the money spent on Afghanistan so far is more than $25 billion for training and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces — the army and police, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Obama wants another $14.2 billion for this purpose for the rest of this year and next; the idea is to leave behind security forces that can take on the responsibility of fighting the Taliban as U.S. forces start to leave. FUTURE MILITARY COSTS Future expenses are a question mark, partly because troop levels are uncertain. Obama says he wants to start withdrawing forces from Afghanistan in mid-2011, but that will depend, in part, on conditions on the ground. No departure deadline has been set. Estimates of the cost per troop per year in Afghanistan vary from $500,000 to $1 million depending on whether expenditures on troop housing and equipment are included along with pay, food and fuel. Medical costs for the injured and veterans’ compensation balloon as time goes on. FOREIGN AID AND CIVILIAN SURGE Foreign aid, including food and development assistance, to Afghanistan has totaled some $17 billion since 2002, according to Department of State and Congressional Research Service documents. But future expenses in this area are also a question mark that is expected to linger after the military one. "As President Obama made clear, our civilian engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan will endure long after our combat troops come home," the State Department said in its justification for its supplemental budget request this year. That request includes $2 billion in 2010 to help fund a "civilian stabilization strategy" to deliver more economic assistance to Afghanistan, especially in its agricultural sector. Part of the idea is to create jobs that will draw insurgents off the battlefield in Afghanistan. (Editing by Sue Pleming and Cynthia Osterman)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s request in February for more money to pay for the war in Afghanistan is still snarled in Congress as lawmakers work on other priorities and deal with scarce budget resources.

When Afghan President Hamid Karzai meets lawmakers this week as part of his four-day trip to Washington, they will want reassurances from him that he is committed to tackling corruption and ensuring U.S. taxpayer funds are not wasted.

Obama has asked for $33 billion more to help fund 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers being sent to Afghanistan this year. He wants $4.5 billion more for beefed-up foreign aid and civilian operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year; about $2 billion of that amount is dedicated to Afghanistan.

Congress is expected to approve the new money but appears to be in no hurry. Following are the costs to U.S. taxpayers so far, as well as some of the future funding needed.

COSTS SO FAR

Congress has approved $345 billion so far for the war in Afghanistan, where the United States invaded to fight al Qaeda and topple the Taliban after the September 11 attacks in 2001. This figure is from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which says that about $22 billion has gone for Afghan-war-related activities in other countries.

COMPARISON WITH IRAQ

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Once hailed as a hero in the U.S. Congress, Afghan President Hamid Karzai may find the welcome mat a bit smaller when he visits Washington next week.

Karzai, whose recent behavior rankled both U.S. political parties, has some explaining to do if he wants Congress to see him as a credible ally whose government is worth the continued cost of the Afghan war, some U.S. lawmakers say.

President Barack Obama has asked Congress to approve $33 billion more to help fund 30,000 additional U.S. forces this year, and $4.5 billion for related foreign aid and civilian operations directed by the State Department.

But this request is languishing on Capitol Hill amid work on other domestic priorities and scarce budget resources.

“He has a major task ahead of him to convince the Congress that he has the capacity and commitment to be a reliable and committed partner in our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban,” Democratic Representative Nita Lowey told Reuters.

She chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees spending on Obama’s civilian “surge” in Afghanistan.

Back in 2004, lawmakers feted Karzai as the then-interim leader talked of building a new Afghanistan in an address to a joint meeting of Congress, an honor given to few foreigners.