Republican Congress Tightens Purse Strings

Democratic gains in the congressional elections of 1974, after Nixon's resignation, swept reformers into power and began a period of activism that produced investigations of the intelligence community, payoffs to foreign governments by international oil companies and other targets.

In 1982, Republicans who controlled the Senate played a pivotal role in seeking to limit the Reagan administration's covert operations against the communist government in Nicaragua, activities that had not been disclosed to Congress. The administration's subsequent attempts to skirt those provisions by diverting private funds to the anti-communist forces blew up into the Iran-contra scandal and a full congressional investigation.

In Waxman's view, the passivity of the GOP-controlled Congress contrasts dramatically with its aggressiveness during the Clinton administration. "There wasn't anything too small for them to have hearings, issue subpoenas and make wild accusations," he said. "In this administration, there isn't a scandal big enough for them to even ask questions. Their strategy is that Republicans protect Republicans."

Congress, however, has recently showed renewed assertiveness in the area where its constitutional prerogatives are most clear: in controlling the purse strings.

Within days of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on Washington and New York, a stunned Congress passed emergency legislation giving Bush a free hand to spend $10 billion to aid victims and bolster national defense.

Congress subsequently approved at least $185 billion to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, often giving the administration unprecedented flexibility to move billions of dollars from several special funds, including a Defense Emergency Response Fund and an Iraqi Freedom Fund, without the usual prior approval from Congress.

But beneath the facade of wartime support for the president, lawmakers in both parties chafed at the lack of accountability, and refused to give the White House the free hand it sought in the use of tens of billions of additional dollars.

Less than two months after the 2001 attacks, House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) complained in writing to the White House that the administration was not complying with statutory requirements to report on the use of funds.

Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), a strong pro-defense Democrat, said recently that the Pentagon may have observed the letter of the law but still "abused the trust of Congress."

In 2002, GOP lawmakers learned that the Pentagon was diverting millions of dollars of operating funds to build a network of military facilities in the Persian Gulf region without advising Congress.

The upshot was an unusual provision written into a 2003 spending bill with the support of Republicans and Democrats in Congress. It limited the amount the Pentagon could divert to the construction projects to $150 million a year.

"Funds for these projects have been expended without providing notice to Congress despite repeated requests for information by both House and Senate Appropriations Committees and House and Senate Armed Services Committees, and as required by law," an accompanying report said.

In the latest rebuff to the White House, the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee earlier this month rejected an administration request for an open-ended allocation of $25 billion for the war in Iraq, and spelled out in detail how 96 percent of the money would be used.

The panel also required the administration to report to Congress on costs incurred for military activities and reconstruction of Iraq; the management of prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere, and the extent to which members of the selected reserve and National Guard are being "involuntarily ordered to active duty."

In its version of the $25 billion Iraq war fund, the Senate gave the administration a free hand to spend only $2.5 billion of the total.

"This is a new approach," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Appropriations Committee and one of the administration's strongest backers. "This is much different than in the past. We have got a lot of controls."

Researcher Madonna A. Lebling contributed to this article.