WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- The outlines of a congressional debate next week on a resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq became clearer Thursday, with a White House-backed version clearing the House International Relations Committee with divided support from Democrats and the Senate overwhelmingly voting to begin debate on what may end up as several different resolutions -- one echoing the language preferred by the White House and passed to the House floor.
The senate vote did not set a schedule for how the debate would be conducted, although the leaders of both parties expressed preferences for how amendments and procedural votes would be handled.
"In consultation with the distinguished Republican leader, I hope to have a prompt debate," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
"This resolution cannot be endlessly amended, as that would turn into a filibuster by amendment (to kill the measure)," Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said.
The final vote in the House International Relations Committee was 31-11 in favor of the White House-backed resolution, which gives the president broad authority to use military force against Iraq to defend the national security interests of the United States, with or without a U.N. mandate. The resolution will now move to a debate on the floor -- probably Tuesday -- which should finish before the end of the week, committee press secretary Sam Stratman said.
During the all-day debate, the majority of Democrats on the committee, with some Republicans supporting them, had touted alternative language that limited the circumstances under which President George W. Bush's could order a military strike.
Other proposed additions to the White House draft -- such as a guarantee that the United States will help Iraq rebuild and become democratic -- also gained limited support.
But in the end, the alternatives were outweighed by the efforts of a Democratic committee leader strongly in favor of the President's resolution, and the nearly-unified Republican members.
"This train is now on its way," said the committee's minority leader Tom Lantos, D-Cal. "We are really not here to argue. If we were near the beginning of the process, we might be able to negotiate a blending of these resolutions. But this is not the case. We will not now unravel a agreement which will be the vehicle of debate," he said.
Lantos' comments reveal the dynamic at work on House side of the debate over the Iraq resolution, where moving the proposal through quickly has become a priority for the House Democratic leadership, reportedly keen to move the pre-election political agenda back to issues they see as working better for them with voters, such as the economy. Strong support by House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo. played a critical role in cementing a compromise resolution with President George W. Bush Wednesday that gives Bush considerable latitude.
In the Senate, the situation is more complex, with Daschle juggling several different versions that he said would all receive votes, either as amendments to the resolution or as alternatives to it.
"I would expect that there will be at least three votes on amendments, but I am not willing to propound that schedule at this time," he said.
Most Republicans and some Democrats plan to support the House version, which has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and several other members of both parties. This proposal authorizes President George W. Bush to use force to "defend the national security interests of the United States," and to "enforce all relevant United Nations resolutions." This version clearly allows the president to engage Iraq unilaterally should the United Nations fail to agree on a military option.
In the Lieberman and House versions, if approved, Bush does not have to ask Congress for any further authority. He must notify Congress that he has taken military action within 48 hours and then send to Congress a progress report every 60 days.
Another bipartisan resolution that will be considered -- sponsored by Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind. -- is much more limited in scope, emphasizing the removal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the goal of any military action.
And on Thursday, Sen. Armed Forces Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., introduced language that would limit action to that authorized by a U.N. resolution.
Levin said that he introduced an alternative to the White House-backed plan because that option fails to address acting within the confines of U.N. action and it goes beyond the scope of removing Iraq's suspected nuclear and chemical-biological weapons programs.
"Whether or not we commit our armed forces to attack Iraq will have immense implications for us and the region," Levin told reporters. "(This is) how I think most Americans would want us to proceed."
Several sources familiar with the discussions on how to handle the senate debate said that Daschle would likely offer each senator a full hour of debate on the issue, ensuring a minimum of 100 hours of debate total for the Senate on this issue, but even without the cloture vote to start the final phase of discussions, at least one senator was expressing doubts about the entire process.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., condemned the speed by which the Senate is being pressured to discuss and pass a resolution that he says represents the first time in American history that the nation would invade another without military provocation.
"We are rushing into war, without much discussion of why we are going to war," Byrd said. "Congress has the responsibility to exercise extreme discretion to declare war. This is not a decision to be entered into in haste and we are being stampeded in haste by the White House."
In the House, the unwillingness of the international relations committee's leaders to consider amendments disturbed the proposal's opponents.
"This is not between us and the president. This is between us and our constituents, some of whom will have to go to fight," said Rep. Jim Davis, D-Fl. "I think we would be remiss to have a fresh look. We are not debating the size of a tax cut. We are debating among the most fundamental obligations we face," he said.
Davis offered an alternate version of the resolution -- mirroring that offered in the Senate by Biden and Lugar. That language would have tightly linked any use of force to Saddam Hussein's continued possession of weapons of mass destruction. It would have also required the president to notify key congressman before any military strike. It failed 26-16.
