Bush Gets Package Largely as Requested

The Senate gave final congressional approval yesterday to an $87.5 billion spending package for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, giving President Bush nearly all he wanted despite some lawmakers' earlier demands for changes.

The bill, one of the largest military and foreign aid spending measures in U.S. history, will go to the president for his signature. The House had approved it, 298 to 121, early Friday.

The spending package had stirred spirited debates on whether Iraq should be forced to repay some of the money -- a notion the Senate embraced last month, only to have a House-Senate conference strike it. The measure won final passage yesterday on a rather anticlimactic voice vote, with few senators present and without the usual roll call that puts each lawmaker on record as supporting or opposing a measure.

The decision to skip a recorded vote underscored the political dilemma for many senators who want to support U.S. troops but have strong misgivings about Bush's postwar policies in Iraq.

Senate passage came a day after U.S. forces suffered their worst postwar casualties in Iraq. Nineteen Americans were killed Sunday, including 16 troops who died when a missile hit a transport helicopter west of Baghdad.

Some senators cited the mounting casualties as evidence of the failure of current policies and the need for more international support. Others contended the dangers reinforced the need for a sustained effort to bring stability to Iraq.

The bill, largely following the contours of Bush's request in early September, provides $64.7 billion for military operations in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Of that total, $51 billion would go to support operations in Iraq and $10 billion for Afghanistan.

In its major departure from Bush's request, the legislation provides $18.6 billion -- or $1.7 billion less than he requested -- for rebuilding efforts in Iraq, including health facilities, power and water supplies, and police training. Another $1.2 billion is set aside for reconstruction in Afghanistan, along with additional amounts for Pakistan, Jordan and other supportive countries in the region.

Lawmakers dropped several of Bush's requests for Iraq rebuilding that they regarded as unnecessary, including funds for Zip codes, telephone area codes, trash trucks, housing projects and two $50,000-a-bed prisons.

Bush won his biggest victory when Senate negotiators agreed with their House counterparts last week to drop a Senate-approved provision that would have required half of the reconstruction money to be loans rather than grants. The White House had threatened a veto if the loan provision were included in the final bill. The bill now provides all the money in grants that do not need to be repaid.

The president said in a statement: "I commend Congress for providing vital funds to support our mission and our troops deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. These resources, coupled with the growing assistance of international donors, will provide essential support to make Iraq more secure and to help the Iraqi people transition to self-government. The funds will also enable us to continue our efforts to help Afghanistan become a peaceful, democratic, and prosperous nation that contributes to regional stability."

Most of the legislation's money would be spent during the current fiscal year, which ends next September, although some is to be spread out over a longer period.

It is the second major special funding bill for Iraq that Congress has passed at Bush's request this year. Lawmakers in April approved a $79 billion package that included $62 billion for the war, which had just begun against Saddam Hussein's government.

The Senate set aside most of the day for debate on the measure, but relatively few senators spoke. Their speeches generally echoed arguments made earlier about the postwar operations and the legislation to fund it.

"As the president has said time and time again, we will not walk away from Iraq . . . and create a vacuum for terrorists to fill," said Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). "This appropriations bill will enable us to fulfill our responsibilities to our men and women in uniform and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), ranking minority member of the appropriations panel, disagreed. The bill "and the policy which it supports, unfortunately may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory for the Bush administration," he said. Byrd called it "a flawed agreement that was produced by political imperative, not by reasoned policy considerations."

Some senators continued to complain that Iraq will not have to pay back any reconstruction costs, especially in light of U.S. budget deficits. "Instead of asking Iraq to borrow against its bountiful oil reserves, we are asking our children and grandchildren to continue to borrow to build Iraq," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

Byrd was the only senator who could be heard saying "no" when the vote was called.

The bill will expand health care coverage, which now is available to the regular armed forces, so that it includes members of the National Guard and reserves who lack such coverage in civilian life. But it dropped a Senate proposal to increase funding for veterans' health care.

It includes several provisions aimed at assuring that the funds are spent properly, including creation of the post of inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which is overseeing the occupation of Iraq. But it does not include a proposal to require the new official to testify before Congress.

It includes provisions aimed at encouraging competitive bidding for reconstruction contracts in Iraq, but not a Senate proposal that would have imposed criminal penalties for profiteering.

In addition to the military and foreign aid funding, the legislation includes $500 million to replenish federal coffers for unanticipated domestic costs, including the government's response to the California wildfires, Hurricane Isabel and other disasters.

---

Direct Link:
--http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59669-2003Nov3.html

---