Democrats, Rumsfeld tangle over emergency powers

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected lawmakers' assertions Wednesday that his use of emergency powers to adjust military force levels and pay for troop increases constitutes an attempt to sidestep congressional oversight.

During hearings held by the Senate and House Armed Services committees, Democratic lawmakers pounded Rumsfeld's plan to use wartime supplemental requests to pay for temporary force-level increases and other costs associated with ongoing stability operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I have no doubt that if our troops need the money, Congress will provide it," said Armed Services ranking member Carl Levin, D-Mich. "However, it should have been part of the budget before us, not left to a supplemental and therefore not part of the projected deficit."

But Rumsfeld pointed to congressional insistence that wartime costs be paid for using supplemental spending. Rumsfeld was referring to a fiscal 2003 defense budget proposal, in which the Pentagon asked for authority to spend a discretionary pot of $10 billion for anticipated costs associated with the war on terrorism.

Lawmakers zeroed the request because it lacked details as to how the money would be spent, and most costs associated with ongoing military operations have been funded through emergency supplementals ever since. He also cited his authority, granted two years ago by Congress, to manipulate force-levels without seeking statutory action.

"The purpose of passing emergency authorities and passing supplementals is because Congress, in its wisdom, decided that's the way they wanted to do it," Rumsfeld said. But Rumsfeld's deft use of authorities lawmakers had bestowed on him may return to haunt him as lawmakers deliberate the Pentagon's fiscal 2005 budget request.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., who introduced legislation last year to temporarily increase congressionally mandated, end-strength levels over a five-year period, said Rumsfeld is using his emergency powers to duck hard choices in the annual budget. "It forces us to ask some tough questions," she said. "Do we want to have a $9 billion missile defense program?"