March 23, 2007

Supporting the Troops, Defending the Taxpayer

By Congressman Joe Pitts

The U.S. House of Representatives recently held its most consequential vote of the year. 

The controversy over the bill in question was intriguing, given that it dealt with a seemingly non-controversial subject.  This was supposed to be a bill to fund our troops serving in combat.

Congress is a place that doesn’t agree on much, but nearly everyone believes in giving the soldiers we’ve put in harm’s way the resources they need to succeed and come home safely.  Similar legislation in the past has drawn overwhelming support in both the House and the Senate.

So why the controversy this time?

As is so often the case in public policy debates, the answer lies in the details.  In this case, the details reveal a fiscally irresponsible and constitutionally flawed piece of legislation masquerading as an emergency war funding bill.

The constitutional concerns arose first.

The U.S. Constitution is clear about Congress’ wartime role: Congress may declare war.  It may choose whether or not to fund a war.  But it may not conduct war.  That is left to the Commander-in-Chief.

Nonetheless, this spending bill attempts to micromanage the war by setting arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq.  We all want our troops to come home, but we want them to win first, and then come home.  By setting arbitrary withdrawal dates, this bill tells our enemy exactly how long they have to fight in order to achieve victory.

Ironically, these timetables, designed to pander to the Democrats left-wing base, caused many of the most anti-war House Democrats to oppose the bill.  They will settle for nothing less than immediate withdrawal.

With their most liberal members walking away from the bill, Democrat leaders risked not being able to deliver the votes necessary to pass it. 

That’s when the fiscal concerns came into play.

With votes lacking, Democrat leaders proceeded to pressure reluctant members into voting for the bill by tacking on billions of dollars in non-emergency pork-barrel spending.

According to reports published in the Washington Post, members began finding pork projects for their districts that they hadn’t even requested.  This included such “emergency” spending as $25 million in spinach subsidies, $120 million for the shrimp industry, $35 million for NASA, and $74 million for peanut storage programs, just to name a few.  In all, the bill included more than $20 billion in unrelated, non-emergency spending.

While the bill had ample room for funding pork, some of our most urgent combat needs were left unmet.  The bill cut $155 million for efforts to disarm Iraq’s violent militias.  Funding for systems that protect our troops from lethal IEDs was cut by more than $13 million.

When carefully examined, it’s clear why this bill became a controversy.  Insisting that Congress can do better, House Republicans, myself included, were nearly unanimous in their opposition to this fiscally irresponsible and constitutionally flawed legislation. 

But we weren’t alone.  The editorial boards of major newspapers across the nation shared similar concerns. 

The Washington Post said, “House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates.”  USA Today blasted Democrat “vote-buying” and the LA Times called the plan “an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics.”

Despite what some on the other side of the aisle are suggesting, those of us who voted against this legislation do not wish to withhold resources from our troops.  On the contrary, we think they should be fully provided for and not hamstrung by armchair generals in Congress.

We are simply saying that Congress should be capable of simultaneously upholding the Constitution, supporting our troops and spending the people’s money responsibly.

###