Bush plan on rebuilding Iraq nears final Hill OK
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Both houses of Congress yesterday backed President Bush's rebuilding effort in Iraq, as each turned back efforts to make the administration change its policy in exchange for Iraq-reconstruction money.
The Senate, on a 57-42 vote, defeated an amendment that would have required the president to meet benchmarks for international cooperation and come back to Congress with reports on progress before receiving half of the rebuilding funds that the administration has requested.
Meanwhile, a similar attempt in the House fell on parliamentary-procedure grounds.
Still to come was a vote in the Senate on whether to make the reconstruction money a loan to Iraq, rather than a grant, as the administration and Republican leaders want.
Passage of the $87 billion Iraq spending bill, which replenishes military supplies, funds the global war on terror and spends about $20 billion to rebuild Iraq, is assured. Both Republican and Democrat leaders expect a sizable vote in both the Senate and House in favor of the bill.
Instead, the question facing members is the form the bill will take — particularly the $20 billion designated for rebuilding Iraq.
The House was expected to take a final vote overnight on the bill, while the Senate planned either an overnight vote or a vote today.
Yesterday, though, both chambers rejected efforts to force Mr. Bush to change his policy and turn over rebuilding tasks to other nations.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, proposed releasing $10.1 billion in reconstruction funds now, and requiring the president to come back in six months to receive the other $10.2 billion for rebuilding. In particular, Mr. Bush would have had to show he had obtained more international help.
Mr. Byrd said the six-month check would allow Congress to make "a midcourse correction" if U.S. efforts in Iraq were going poorly, and Mr. Kennedy said failing to change policy would give Mr. Bush too much of a free hand.
"I am not prepared to give a blank check. I think this [bill] is a blank check to the administration," Mr. Kennedy said. "This is putting Iraqi policy on a glide path over the next year, because there are sufficient funds in here to carry all the way through next year, and the Congress will not have a voice or an opportunity to affect that decision."
But the proposal failed 57-42, with six Democrats joining all of the chamber's Republicans in opposing it.
Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska Republican and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said to force a change of policy now would derail progress in Iraq by tying the president's hands.
"What I fear most is the loss of momentum in the program that's being pursued," Mr. Stevens said.
In the House, Rep. David R. Obey, Wisconsin Democrat, offered a similar amendment to internationalize the rebuilding effort and pay for U.S. involvement through a tax increase on the top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers. The amendment was ruled out of order.
That left many Democrats saying they would vote against the overall bill, arguing that they could support the troops while opposing the president's request.
But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, said that "isn't going to cut it this time."
"If you support the war, and you support the troops, you must vote for this bill," he said. "A 'no' vote on this bill is a 'no' vote on the war on terror and will serve to undermine our coalition. If you oppose the war, feel free to vote 'no,' but at that moment, the American people will know for sure who is working to win the war on terror."
The House also was denied an opportunity to vote on a Republican-sponsored plan to make half the reconstruction money a no-interest, long-term loan to Iraq, rather than a grant. |
