A growing number of lawmakers are increasing their criticism of the dependence on repeated supplemental or emergency funding requests from the White House. While in the past the criticism has been from a limited group of lawmakers (mostly deficit hawks) and was mostly rhetorical, the increasing unease of lawmakers has pushed congressional appropriators to take action. Within the current supplemental working its way through Congress, appropriators have added language that challenges the administration for continuing to fund known and ongoing military costs through supplemental requests - which are exempt from spending controls. Appropriators included this slap to the White House in the committee report for the bill: Congress will not be able to fully support [future] supplemental requests unless it is provided with the same detailed justification and program materials that it receives with the annual request. Previously, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Rep. David Obey (D-WI), and a host of other lawmakers have tried to convince the administration, and their colleagues in Congress, to end the practice of depending on huge supplemental bills to fund ongoing war costs. It is an extremely bad budget procedure that weakens fiscal responsibility, errodes congressional oversight, and discourages long-term planning and preparedness. Why has it taken Congress so long to figure this out? Roll Call: Senate Targets Supplemental: 'Emergency' Bills Draw Scrutiny (sub. required)