The beauty of Murtha's plan is that rather than cutting funds, he is actually demanding the president spend more money on the troops. He's just adding some conditions to the funding.

Murtha wants a strict accounting of where the money Congress has already appropriated for spending on the troops went.

For fiscally conservative Republicans it shouldn't be unreasonable to ask where $18 billion of what Congress already appropriated went before we get into evaluating where future spending should go.

Murtha asserts war profiteers like Halliburton should be held accountable, possibly with their executives fined, indicted, tried and banned from future contracts.

He wants to use the powers granted by the Constitution to Congress:

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever , over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; --And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Through control of appropriations Murtha can exercise Congressional authority over the budget and reference its authority over tribunals including military commissions, Congressional authority to define and punish offenses, to Declare War, authorize the use of force, make rules, raise and support armies and navies, make rules for the government, and the land and naval forces, provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the troops, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

He can use his control of appropriations to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the troops by allocating money for body armour as a first priority and taking it out of the money set aside for building new attack subs.

Every dollar the Pentagon asks for can be evaluated in terms of how does it accomplish the mission the American People have given the Congress of bringing the troops home?

We the People have established the mission. Its the job of Congress to see it gets accomplished by giving direction to the Commander in Chief, the Defense Department and the Pentagon using appropriations and rules to steer with.

By Anne Flaherty

ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:06 p.m. February 15, 2007 WASHINGTON – Rep. John Murtha is quickly emerging as one of President Bush's most formidable foes on the Iraq war debate. Many Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, match Murtha's fiery opposition to Bush's policies. But the Marine combat veteran's prowess on military matters, strong relationships with Republicans and – most importantly – control of the Pentagon's spending bills has put him at the forefront of the debate. The Pennyslvania Democrat is leading the charge among members of his party to end the war by limiting funding. That fight, which will probably be waged next month, is expected to overshadow this week's battle over a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's troop buildup. Part kindly Irish Catholic grandfather and part political pit bull with two Purple Hearts in his pocket, Murtha seems the Democrats' best chance of using the budget to curtail the war without appearing to be leaving troops in the lurch. "Many of the roads (in Congress) lead through Murtha," said Darrell West, a political science professor at Brown University. "So Bush has to deal with him ." Murtha retains clout among his Democratic colleagues, especially on defense issues, despite losing a post-election challenge to Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., to become majority leader. Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, C-Calif, have tapped Murtha to address caucus meetings on the issue of the war and used him to assure the more liberal members of their base that Democrats will do everything they can to bring troops home. So far, Democrats and Republicans alike are listening closely. "Do most people have enormous respect for Mr. Murtha? Oh yes," said Pelosi. By mid-March, Murtha will unveil legislation that he says would set such stringent rules on combat deployments that Bush would have no choice but to begin bringing troops home. His legislation would dictate how long troops can stay, the equipment they use and whether any money could be spent to expand military operations into Iran. Murtha says few units could meet the high standards he envisions, meaning Bush's plan to keep some 160,000 troops in Iraq for months on end would be thwarted. Under his plan, he says, Democrats would be helping and not hurting troops by making sure they have what they need before being thrown into combat. "This vote will be the most important vote in changing the direction of the war," Murtha, D-Pa., told an anti-war group in an interview broadcast on the Internet Thursday. "The president could veto it, but then he wouldn't have any money," he later said.

...

Bush this week seemed keenly aware of Murtha's political momentum. In recent days, the president shrugged off the significance of House vote Friday on a symbolic resolution stating opposition to his war plans. Instead, the president has focused his sights on the upcoming war supplemental. Bush says he needs another $93 billion to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30; the military is expected to run out of money by May , making passage of the bill critical. "We have a responsibility, Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need to do their job and the flexibility they need to prevail," Bush told reporters.

When Murtha first talked about redeploying the troops out of harms way few realized that the real impact was on a clause of the War Powers Act of 1973.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. REPORTING

Sec. 4. (a)

In the absence of a declaration of war , in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1)

into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2)

into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3)

(A)

the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B)

the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C)

the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Sec. 4. (b)

The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

Sec. 4. (c)

Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION SEC. 5. (a)

Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section. SEC. 5. (b)

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. SEC. 5. (c)

Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

A concurrent resolution is defined as a non binding resolution passed by both House and Senate: