Follow the Money

Senators, both Democrat and Republican, are right to ask how the Bush administration plans to spend the $87 billion it has recently requested to rebuild Iraq. Their list of questions is long and grows with close scrutiny of the spending request. While it is easy to quibble over the price tag of new garbage trucks ($50,000 apiece) or wireless Internet service ($19 million), these details should not distract lawmakers from the larger questions that remain unanswered.

First, where will the money come from? The United States is already running record deficits and handing out $350 billion in tax cuts, so the federal treasury will be hard pressed to absorb such a huge expenditure. Sen. Susan Collins has suggested that the $15 million earmarked to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure should be in the form of loans that could be repaid once Iraq’s oil fields are producing revenue.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week, Sen. Collins asked Ambassador Paul Bremer, the administration’s envoy to Iraq, whether France, Germany and Russia, which are owed money by Iraq and refused to assist in the effort to oust Mr. Hussein, should be repaid while the United States invests billions in the country. Mr. Bremer said this should not happen in the short-term. Sen. Collins’ proposal seeks to ensure it doesn’t happen in the long-term. Another option is to cover the rebuilding cost through the sale of bonds.

Another important question is why the United States should bear the full cost of reconstruction. To date, the Bush administration has refused to include more countries in this effort by stubbornly retaining full oversight of rebuilding. Other nations have said they will contribute if the United Nations is given more control.

The biggest unanswered question is how much more money will be needed for security and reconstruction in Iraq in the future. Does the $87 billion cover most of the cost, half? The administration refused to say. Until lawmakers know, they will have a hard time committing to the current request.

Another important measure put forward by Sens. Collins and Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, would block any new Iraqi reconstruction contracts if they are not awarded through a full and open process, unless the Defense Department publicly justifies closed-bid or sole-source contracts. The amendment would also ensure that Congress has oversight of the contracts that come with the current $87 billion package. The “Sunshine on Iraq Contracts” amendment is needed to ensure that a company like Halliburton Co., which was formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney and was granted rebuilding contracts immediately after the war in Iraq, does not end up with all the work.

While they’re asking questions about Iraq, senators should join with their House colleagues in scrutinizing U.S. pre-war intelligence on Mr. Hussein and his weapons capabilities. As The Washington Post reported Sunday, leaders of the House intelligence committee found the intelligence to be outdated and riddled with “too many uncertainties.” The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence spent four months reviewing 19 volumes of classified materials which the Bush administration used to justify its attack on Iraq. In a letter to CIA Director George Tenet, Reps. Porter Goss, a Florida Republican who is a former CIA agent, and Jane Harman, a California Democrat, wrote that they found “significant deficiencies” in fresh intelligence and that some assessments dated to 1998 when United Nations weapons inspectors left the country.

In responding to queries about the quality of intelligence, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said there had been “enrichment of intelligence” since 1998. It is too late to undo the damage done by the U.S. attacks, whether they were based on faulty intelligence or not. But, going forward, questions of who is being enriched by work in Iraq must be answered before the United States can commit to sending $87 billion to Baghdad.