Next year, the Bush Administration will propose legislation for
a supplemental appropriation to fund the war on terrorism and
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rumored to request
around $160 billion, it could very well end up being one of the
largest supplemental bills ever passed. Congress should neither
rubber stamp the bill nor use it to debate war strategy. Instead,
Congress should carefully scrutinize the request to ensure that it
only contains funding for warfighting. At the same time, Congress
should not include spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in
regular defense spending. Doing so would constrain regular
defense spending and tighten funds available for modernization,
procurement, personnel, and other anticipated expenses.
Blank Checks and Broken Budgets
Ongoing missions that serve our nation's vital national
interests, such as the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
require the use of supplemental appropriations because they cannot
be accommodated within the annual federal budget. Using these
requests to fund Congressional pet projects, or to make up for
chronic budget shortfalls, is inappropriate. Such practices waste
scarce tax dollars and may provide cover for some politicians who
want to avoid the hard choices required to limit federal
spending.
According to press reports, an October 25 Pentagon memo signed
by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England allowed each military
service to include requests for costs associated with the broader
war on terrorism. Predictably, these requests went beyond spending
for Iraq and Afghanistan by requesting money not only to cover the
direct costs of warfighting, but also to repair and replace
equipment and force structure. While whether the military has
enough money to remain trained and ready must be addressed, the
regular authorization and appropriations process should provide
those funds.
A Hamstrung Congress
After several years and numerous requests, the Department of
Defense has yet to provide Congress with the individual cost of
each operation it intends to fund. Without a budget breakdown for
each conflict, Members of Congress vote to approve funds without a
complete picture of the costs. Without that background, the ability
of Congress to provide the necessary oversight of these large
emergency spending bills is limited. Additionally, the warfighting
supplemental bills have entirely removed the input of the defense
authorizing committees regarding this critical funding, even though
these committees are charged with approving the annual Pentagon
budget.
A Guide for Action
Congress should:
- Approve only emergency funding for operational war-related
needs and pass a bill free of earmarks or non-emergency spending.
The President should veto a spending bill that contains funds for
projects other than those urgently needed by the military.
- Not use the approval of the supplemental to debate war
strategy. Delaying the approval of supplemental funding disrupts
programs and undercuts readiness because it forces the military to
pay for operational missions by diverting funds from regular
appropriations. Congress should act fast.
- Ensure that adequate annual defense appropriations in the
regular defense budget maintain a trained and ready force and
prepare the military for the future. Annual defense expenditures
should total around 4 percent of gross domestic product.
Congress should provide our armed forces in the field with the
support they need to do their job while being a good steward of tax
dollars and providing appropriate oversight of federal programs.
The supplemental will be the first test of the how the 110th
Congress intends to address these tasks.
James
Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow for National
Security and Homeland Security, Mackenzie
M. Eaglen is Senior Policy Analyst for National Security, and
Baker
Spring is F. M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security
Policy, in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis
Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage
Foundation.