National Security

Editor's Note: Congressman John Kline (R-MN) had a distinguished 25 year career in the Marines before he won his first election to the House of Representatives in 2002. Kline was a Vietnam helicopter pilot, later assigned to Washington DC where he had budgetary and planning responsibilities for the Marine Corps. He served Presidents Carter and Reagan as a personal advisor, and was selected to pilot the President’s helicopter, Marine One. Also, Kline was responsible for carrying the “nuclear football”- the plans for nuclear war and strike options in case of an emergency during the Cold War. Kline’s only son is an Army helicopter pilot and recently served a tour of duty in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Kline immediately established himself as an expert on military affairs in Congress, but far more as well. A Line of Sight is privileged to have Congressmen Kline offer his unique perspective on the current war funding battle on Capitol Hill, and the inner workings his personal efforts to resolve the problem. Be certain to read not only his editorial but also his impressive biography.

In what has become an altogether too familiar sight, members of the House of Representatives this past week voted on another emergency supplemental bill that fails to support our troops in the field yet still manages to send billions of dollars in pork back to Congressional districts. Though pegged as a compromise by Democrats because it did not contain timelines for defeat and withdrawal, the supplemental was just as disturbing due to its complete disconnect with reality. The Democrat leadership, unable to tie the hands of military commanders in the field with their last attempt, have now seized on the illogical idea of rationing funding for combat operations.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Jack Murtha envision forcing the Pentagon to come up to the Hill every two months to beg for funds to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan supplied and equipped. The emergency supplemental passed this last week by the Democrat majority in the House proposed just that, by extending funding only through July. Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) summed up this “strategy” best when he declared that the Democrat leadership "should not treat our men and women in uniform like they are children who are getting a monthly allowance."

Though none of the overly-hyped legislation has actually been signed into law, Democrats revel in the passage of their vaunted "100-Hour Agenda" at the beginning of the 110th Congress. Sadly, this week will mark 100 days since the President first asked Congress for an emergency troop funding bill. With the passage of the latest emergency funding bill -- described aptly by some as "veto-bait" -- we are no closer to adequately funding our troops. Since the President’s initial request, we have instead seen the Democrat leadership propose legislation full of pork barrel projects, restrictions placed on military commanders as to how they can utilize their troops, and timetables for withdrawal. We have a responsibility to prioritize and pass an emergency troop funding bill. It is a responsibility that the Democrat leadership has thus far shirked.

Passage of "clean" supplemental funding bill would be quick. A simple bill that merely provides funds as requested by the military and thoroughly vetted by Congress would sail through both the House and Senate – if only the leadership of both bodies would allow it. This past week, I introduced an amendment to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585) to do just that. My amendment called for approving a “clean” supplemental funding bill and preventing Congress from cutting off or restricting funding for deployed troops. Democrats on the Armed Services Committee were appalled that I would offer up an amendment that would deny them the opportunity to further hold troop funding hostage to the Democrat leadership's agenda.

The poor quality of the debate that ensued showed just how bankrupt that agenda truly is. One after another, Democrats complained of the "process" I had used to introduce the amendment and of the "secrecy" surrounding this amendment that prevented them from giving it thoughtful consideration. As one of my Republicans noted, "the Democrat majority argued they did not have time to read it, yet the Chairman of the Committee would not recognize a legitimate motion from one of his own Democrat members (and seconded by a Republican member) to adjourn until 1 AM to read and consider the amendment." Democrat committee staffers rushed to find a way out of forcing a straight up-or-down vote. In the end, the committee chairman used a procedural tactic to offer a rushed, handwritten amendment to deny members a vote on my amendment.

Though this latest attempt in the House Armed Services Committee failed to garner a vote, it has forced the Democrat majority to acknowledge the growing desire to simply fund an emergency troop funding bill without the anti-war baggage to accompany it. In recent weeks, we have seen a renewed interest in a bill introduced by Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX), who was a prisoner in Vietnam for seven years, to fully fund all troops in harm’s way. I and fellow Vietnam veteran Members of Congress also sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi urging Democrat leaders to introduce a clean emergency defense bill without additional spending not requested by the Department of Defense. And just this past week, Republican leaders accepted a petition from nearly 3,000 American troops calling on Congress "to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat."

With each threat of a veto and through the overwhelming desire by Americans to support our troops, pressure on the Democrat leadership builds. Republicans in Congress and across the country must continue to hold firm to our principles and actively seek opportunities to declare our support for a fiscally-responsible, strong national security.