An Eye on War Spending

President Bush is running into more opposition than he bargained for -- not only in Iraq, but in Congress. Former federal prosecutor Miguel Estrada’s nomination to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals is stalled in the Senate. Bush’s new round of tax cuts is being pared back by lawmakers frightened at the prospect of trillions in budget deficits. Now Congress is rapidly altering the administration’s requested $74.7-billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq and anti-terrorism measures.

On Tuesday, the House and Senate appropriations committees voted to increase funding to almost $80 billion for the war and security efforts -- and, what’s important, to restrict administration flexibility in how to spend it. Does this spell a full-scale rebellion? Hardly. Congress acquiesced in October to the administration’s push for war, and it’s not going to put up serious roadblocks now that conflict has begun. But lawmakers are right to defend Congress’ power to control spending.

The ground portion of the 1991 Gulf War was over almost as soon as it started, and coalition partners paid a hefty share of the cost. The last time Congress engaged in serious debate about paying for a war was Vietnam.

As the initially popular war in Vietnam turned into a quagmire, lawmakers tried to brandish the power of the purse. In 1970, for instance, then-Sen. Charles Goodell (R-N.Y.) proposed a resolution to cut off funding for combat forces by December. The 1972 “Christmas bombing” of Hanoi prompted similar calls in the Senate. Even though funds weren’t stopped, President Nixon felt pressure to end the war.

Now, just less than two weeks into the Iraq conflict, Congress is very slightly flexing its muscles. The Bush plan called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to have discretionary authority over $59.9 billion; the House plan slashes that authority to cover only $27.7 billion, and Bush would have to notify Congress at least seven days before spending it. The Bush plan for spending huge sums without any congressional controls, the House committee wrote, “creates an unwieldy financial behemoth” that frustrates oversight. Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young (R-Fla.), chairman of the panel, protested what he called “huge slush funds.”

That’s a far cry from using the budget as a protest tool, but oversight will be critical in coming weeks and months. With the course of the war and its costs unclear, Congress is right to try to gain some control over how spending is accounted for.