This Thanksgiving, Peter Roskam is very concerned about the safety of air travel. So concerned that he has sent a letter to the FAA, questioning whether some recent near misses involving air traffic controllers at Aurora were the result of controllers being stretched too thin by reduced staffing levels. But voters should realize just how unconcerned Peter was back in September when he voted against H.R. 2881: FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007.

In addition to funding the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through 2011, including funding for the modernization of the air traffic control system, H.R. 2881 provided for the following:

• An increase in the number of aviation safety inspectors in the Flight Standards Service
• An assessment of training programs for FAA air traffic controllers
• Requirement that air carriers formulate plans as to how they will provide food, water, and medical treatment to passengers “stuck on the tarmac” for extended periods of time.
• Hikes aviation fuel taxes a few cents per gallon with the increase dedicated to air traffic control modernization

Frankly, I don’t understand how to explain Peter’s vote on this bill except as another “rubber stamp” approval of White House policy. President Bush was opposed to the bill and threatened to veto it due to its failure to embrace his preferred system of user fees for funding the FAA. Other White House objections were related to a requirement for a Consumer Complaint Hotline and the requirement that airlines submit plans regarding caring for passengers stuck on grounded aircraft. The plan for FAA funding favored by Roskam and Bush is that favored by large commercial airlines. It seems to me that their position on H.R. 2881 is best seen as just another example of their support for the interests of large corporations over those of consumers.

Photo by Tobi Elder, courtesy of U.S. Army

In an op-ed on his Congressional web site dated November 21, Peter Roskam attempts to defend his votes regarding services for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The piece of legislation that Roskam refers to in his article is H.R. 2642, FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. As Roskam notes, the bill would have provided, among other items, the following spending for veterans:

• $4.1 billion to improve VA facilities, hospitals and clinics
• $600 million for PTSD and traumatic brain injury research and care
• $2.9 billion for general mental health care and substance abuse treatment
• $480 million for prosthetic research

In addition, the bill would have provided, according to Roskam, $21.4 billion for facilities to house and train active duty military personnel abroad and at home.

The history of the bill is pretty hard to follow at least for an amateur like me, but it at some point became combined into a larger spending bill, as Roskam states. This was H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, which has been referred to in a previous post on this site. 3043 was sent to the President and was vetoed and Congress failed to override that veto. It is not entirely clear to me from the reading I have done whether, the provisions of 2642 were included in that veto but I think not. I think they were pulled out before the bill went to the President.

Roskam asserts his support for the original spending measure but his objection to its incorporation into the latter bill, calling it “a massive spending bill filled with unnecessary pork.”

Ok. So we have Representative Roskam and President Bush saying that they will support funding for these services for veterans, but only on their own terms. And they accuse Democrats of holding up funding by refusing to accede to their wishes for a bill without unrelated earmarks.

I have a problem with this explanation.

It seems that the Republican party has very suddenly found religion on earmarks since the Democrats came into the majority. The last few years under a Republican majority has been a virtual orgy of pork. Take for example the 2005 highway bill which was, according to the Boston Globe, at $286.4 billion, the most expensive piece of public works legislation in U.S. history. It included funding for snowmobile trails in Vermont, horse facilities in Virginia, the National Packard Museum in Ohio, and, notably $231 million for the infamous “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska. This was approved by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bush. And this is just a single example. Federal spending, under President Bush and a Republican Congress, adjusted for inflation grew at a faster rate than under any President since LBJ - increasing an average of 5.3% per year during Bush’s first 6 years in office, all while they were making huge irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy.

Earmark reform legislation introduced by Senator McCain with bipartisan co-sponsorship died in the Republican dominated 109th Congress. This is not the party of fiscal prudence that Bush and Roskam purport it to be and their arguments to this effect should not be taken seriously. Earmarks were just fine when the Republicans were in charge. Now they are using earmarks as an excuse to obstruct Democratic progress and holding funding for veterans hostage in the process.

If President Bush and Peter Roskam want to maintain the occupation of Iraq, in defiance of the will of the American people, and to maintain the steady stream of veterans returning home with serious physical and mental health problems or to jobs that have disappeared, then they need to provide services for those veterans and they don’t get to dictate the terms.

If Peter Roskam is serious about increasing transparency and controlling earmarks and wants to introduce meaningful legislation to that effect, I’m all for it. In the meantime, he and the President need to stop holding up funding for Veterans.