|
No blank check for war funding { May 13 2004 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2568368http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2568368
May 13, 2004, 8:50PM
No `blank check' on war funding
Administration gives in to Congress, permits oversight on latest request
By GEBE MARTINEZ
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- After senators from both parties objected to signing a "blank check," Bush administration officials agreed Thursday to allow Congress some oversight for its latest, $25 billion funding request for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Continued funding for the wars is not considered to be in jeopardy on Capitol Hill. But there is a backlash from lawmakers after reports that the White House used emergency funds for the Afghanistan war to prepare for the Iraq war without informing Congress.
During a spirited debate of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which met to consider the $25 billion request on top of the $163 billion already approved, senators rejected the White House attempt to have unlimited flexibility for how this money would be spent.
"The administration has acted too unilaterally in many ways in the Iraq war. (They seem to want) what amounts to a blank check for the supplemental costs," said U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the committee. "Congress should write a check ... but not a blank check."
Republicans who have avidly supported the war also agreed Congress should not give up authority to oversee war operations.
"I am very troubled because I have never seen a request that basically outlines some priorities and then states that it can be used for any fund," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
"I'll give $50 billion, I'll give $100 billion," McCain added. "But it seems to me ... we do have an oversight responsibility as to where this money is spent. I don't think that all of that money has been well spent in the past."
A day earlier, key House members said they also would press for more accountability as the $25 billion "reserve" fund request winds through Congress.
The new money would be used in an emergency to meet expenses through the end of the year, administration officials said. Early next year, the White House will ask for at least another $50 billion, officials told the Senate panel.
The lawmakers' anger stems from the White House's resistance to informing Congress on war spending issues, as required by law.
"From the beginning, we had rosy estimates that were detached from reality," said Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for foreign policy and defense studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.
Lawmakers also were rankled by a White House shift that would weaken their review.
Instead of submitting a formal "supplemental appropriations" request, which would require the White House to give details on where the money would go, the administration decided in an unusual move to call this an "emergency reserve" fund with discretion on how to spend it.
Congress also had pressed the White House to request at least $50 billion to cover expenses through next spring. The administration balked, preferring to wait until after the November election, then reversed course and asked for an immediate $25 billion.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz explained that the administration would not know until next year how much more money or troops would be needed for the wars.
"This is a war. It's a war in Iraq. It's a war in Afghanistan. War is, unfortunately, a very unpredictable operation," Wolfowitz said. "We're not looking for a blank check, we are looking for the kind of flexibility that will make sure that when a need arises we can allocate funds to where that need exists."
But Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., noted that the issue is before Congress at a time when the White House's credibility is damaged.
Committee member John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said Congress is obliged to make sure taxpayers' money is spent wisely, but "as we carry out this war on terror, we can't let this issue be taken over by politics; it's too important for our troops in the field."
A national security analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington said concerns on both sides are valid.
The more formal "supplemental" funding process takes longer and is less efficient if there may only be a short-term need to make sure the bills get paid, said James Carafano, but Congress has a right to demand details.
"If the White House gives Congress everything it wants, you have nothing to negotiate with. So you negotiate and then you end up with something you can live with."
|
|
