Splitting Military, Reconstruction Budgets Protects Troops & Fiscal Responsibility

A Nebraskan’s View by U.S. Senator Ben Nelson

Some decisions, like opening a fire hydrant to put out a fire, are easy to make. Other decisions, like deciding how to best distribute a drought-limited water supply among urban, rural and recreational uses, require careful deliberation.

The Department of Defense recently asked Congress for $87 billion for the next year to cover the ongoing costs of the war in Iraq and reconstruction of the country’s critical infrastructure. The supplemental funding request seeks $65.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and $21.1 billion for reconstruction costs. Broken down by country, a total of $71 billion is dedicated for Iraq ($51 billion for military operations and $20 billion for reconstruction) and a total of $11.8 billion is dedicated for Afghanistan ($11 billion for military operations and $800 million for reconstruction).

This request should be considered by the Senate as two separate requests, one for military operations and one for reconstruction. The military operations request should be passed swiftly to protect and provide for the soldiers currently in harm’s way. I am wary of controversies over reconstruction potentially delaying the funds that our military needs to operate. It is also important that we fulfill our obligation to the American people to carefully consider the expenditure of taxpayer money.

Considering reconstruction costs separately avoids putting our troops in danger and also allows for responsible inquiry into how the reconstruction funds will be allocated.

Some have claimed that examining the reconstruction funds separately will damage our efforts to establish working democracies in these nations. The greatest harm, however, would come from simply throwing money at the problem of reconstruction without a careful consideration of how to use those funds most effectively.

Iraq needs electricity, water, schools, roads, medical clinics and many other basics. It is Congress’ duty to determine what our priorities should be among these many needs and to ensure that those spending the money will be responsible for the results. It would be irresponsible to write a $21 billion blank check for reconstruction.

Devoting time to the consideration of the reconstruction cost will also give the administration more time to make good on its promise to seek greater support from the international community and to determine what costs others might be willing to bear. If taking time to consider the reconstruction funding separately can reduce the burden it places on the American taxpayer then any slight delay will be well worth it.

No part of this proposal, however, should be construed as an attempt to dodge America’s responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rebuilding and strengthening the infrastructure in these countries will support the democratic institutions that are developing. A democratic and stable Iraq and Afghanistan are essential to our broader efforts make no place safe for terrorists and to win the War on Terrorism.

Our national security and the safety of our troops require that we act quickly, put out the fire, and fund our military’s operations budget. Fiscal responsibility requires that we think through the reconstruction process.

-30-

###



	Column	September 30, 2003
Splitting Military, Reconstruction Budgets Protects Troops & Fiscal Responsibility A Nebraskan’s View by U.S. Senator Ben Nelson Some decisions, like opening a fire hydrant to put out a fire, are easy to make. Other decisions, like deciding how to best distribute a drought-limited water supply among urban, rural and recreational uses, require careful deliberation. The Department of Defense recently asked Congress for $87 billion for the next year to cover the ongoing costs of the war in Iraq and reconstruction of the country’s critical infrastructure. The supplemental funding request seeks $65.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and $21.1 billion for reconstruction costs. Broken down by country, a total of $71 billion is dedicated for Iraq ($51 billion for military operations and $20 billion for reconstruction) and a total of $11.8 billion is dedicated for Afghanistan ($11 billion for military operations and $800 million for reconstruction). This request should be considered by the Senate as two separate requests, one for military operations and one for reconstruction. The military operations request should be passed swiftly to protect and provide for the soldiers currently in harm’s way. I am wary of controversies over reconstruction potentially delaying the funds that our military needs to operate. It is also important that we fulfill our obligation to the American people to carefully consider the expenditure of taxpayer money. Considering reconstruction costs separately avoids putting our troops in danger and also allows for responsible inquiry into how the reconstruction funds will be allocated. Some have claimed that examining the reconstruction funds separately will damage our efforts to establish working democracies in these nations. The greatest harm, however, would come from simply throwing money at the problem of reconstruction without a careful consideration of how to use those funds most effectively. Iraq needs electricity, water, schools, roads, medical clinics and many other basics. It is Congress’ duty to determine what our priorities should be among these many needs and to ensure that those spending the money will be responsible for the results. It would be irresponsible to write a $21 billion blank check for reconstruction. Devoting time to the consideration of the reconstruction cost will also give the administration more time to make good on its promise to seek greater support from the international community and to determine what costs others might be willing to bear. If taking time to consider the reconstruction funding separately can reduce the burden it places on the American taxpayer then any slight delay will be well worth it. No part of this proposal, however, should be construed as an attempt to dodge America’s responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rebuilding and strengthening the infrastructure in these countries will support the democratic institutions that are developing. A democratic and stable Iraq and Afghanistan are essential to our broader efforts make no place safe for terrorists and to win the War on Terrorism. Our national security and the safety of our troops require that we act quickly, put out the fire, and fund our military’s operations budget. Fiscal responsibility requires that we think through the reconstruction process. -30- ###