The United States Constitution grants more separate powers to the Congress in order to provide for the common defense than any other purpose—six of the 17 in Article One, Section Eight. This makes sense since the responsibility of protecting Americans is mandatory and not permissive like so many other powers handed down by the Founders.

This is one reason why Congress alone can declare war and provide appropriations of funds for the US military. Many are familiar with Congress’ immense duty of cutting the checks to raise armies and maintain navies.

More often overlooked is Congress’ job to establish the rules and regulations for the operation of American military forces. The scope of power granted to Congress to “prescribe the rules for the governance of the military is broad and subject to great deference by the Judiciary.” 

Indeed, the Supreme Court notes that “Congress is permitted to legislate both with greater breadth and with greater flexibility when prescribing the rules by which [military society] shall be governed than it is when prescribing rules for [civilian society].”

This is one reason why Congress has two committees of jurisdiction covering the Defense Department—one to cut the checks and another to conduct oversight, including of issues ranging from determining compensation, endstrength totals, promotion of officers, mobilization of civil society, and even age of qualifying service.

It is against this backdrop that the Pentagon political leadership’s continued pushback against providing Capitol Hill the military’s so-called “unfunded priorities” as part of annual defense budget requests is even more egregious. Characterizing the process as “ineffective,” a Pentagon spokesman said that having multiple individuals submit ideas for additional funds should cease.

The primary rationale by political leaders of the Defense Department is that they weigh the “costs and benefits” of “top joint priorities” across the enterprise within the entire president’s budget and make “difficult, but responsible” tradeoffs and choices. In a letter to Congress, the Pentagon comptroller noted that the Secretary of Defense does not want the legislative branch to fund items off the wish lists particularly if they come at the expense of higher priorities within the White House’s request.

This assumes there are no errors or mistakes within the president’s budget request and therefore no corrections are necessary.

But Congress gets the last word. The ultimate choices to move money around, reduce funds, or add additional defense dollars—should elected officials decide to make them available to the armed forces—rest with Capitol Hill.

Thank goodness!

Recent history is littered with examples of Pentagon leaders rejecting direction or money for something forced upon them by Congress that was not only right but important. Examples include:

• passing the Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act;
• establishment of Special Operations Command;
• forcing the Air Force to keep buying the F-117;
• prohibition against retiring B-52s;
• continuation of the V-22 program;
• purchasing of small satellites;
• demanding an alternate space launch provider beyond prime contractors;
• buying the Predator drone (initially a Congressional earmark, no less);
• creation of an independent US Space Force;
• upgrades to the Abrams tank;
• advancing the Tomahawk cruise missile (a “weapon of choice”);
• forcing the Pentagon to adopt commercial data analytics as part of its SOP; and,
• building a nuclear armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N).

Regardless of party, commanders-in-chief often wind up touting the very capabilities Congress saved over the objections of the Defense Department political appointees once hostilities start. Turns out that commanders like more options, not fewer, when confronted with problems or crises.

The bottom line is that Congress also regularly weighs “costs and benefits” of “top joint priorities,” in addition to Pentagon leaders. While the leg branch hasn’t always picked its fights wisely, far more often than not, Congress is an ally in helping the Pentagon not commit “acquisition infanticide.”

Pentagon leaders should treat Capitol Hill as an ally and partner; not just the resident ATM. Precisely because these are taxpayer funds, elected officials should get the final say in how the money is allocated—including the extremely reasonable request from commands and offices for ideas where to invest should members of Congress decide to make changes.

The post Congress Gets A Lot Right When Forcing the Pentagon to ‘Buy Things It Doesn’t Need’ appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.