Congress OKs $87B Iraq, Afghanistan Bill

AP ^ | 10/17/03 | Jim abrams

[finnman69]

WASHINGTON - In quick succession, the House and Senate voted Friday to spend some $87 billion that President Bush (news - web sites) said was needed to finish a mission of securing peace and eliminating terrorist threats in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Strong votes in both houses left little doubt that Congress, despite questions about the president's postwar policies, agreed there could be no turning back in the Iraqi operation.

An 87-12 vote in the Senate came after the House approved its $87 billion package by a 303-125 vote.

"I believe in this president. I believe in this military," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. "Those who vote against this bill will be voting against supporting our men and women in the field. They're still in harm's way."

The Senate bill also settled around $87 billion after some last-minute tinkering — deleting nearly $1.9 billion that Bush wanted for such projects as creating Iraqi ZIP codes and adding $1.3 billion for veterans' health care.

A final version of the bill could be on the president's desk by late next week.

Both houses generally acceded to the White House's spending blueprint with one major exception: The Senate on Thursday defied strong administration pressure and voted to require Iraq to eventually repay half the money set aside for its reconstruction. The House, in a similar vote, narrowly sided with the administration on the loan issue.

House GOP leaders pushed the measure to a final vote Friday over the objections of Democrats who said they still had more than 100 amendments they wanted to offer.

"This is the exactly the moment when this House should step forward, when the country should step forward to show we have a commitment that will not stop," House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said. Democrats, while supportive of the $66 billion in the package to pay for American military operations, took issue with the $18.6 billion in the House bill for restoring economic stability to Iraq.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., said that amounted to $872 for every person in Iraq, an investment that deserved more debate. "What a lousy example you are setting for the Iraqis," he said to Republicans.

The House earlier Friday accepted an amendment by Reps. Jim Ramstad, R-Minn., and Dennis Moore, D-Kan., shifting $98 million from Iraq reconstruction to help troops on leave pay for their trips home.

For the first time since the Vietnam War, the military is giving service members with 12 months in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan a 15-day home leave. But after flying into the port of entry in this country, they must pay for the rest of their trip out of their own pockets and are "too often stranded at the airport, no where near their homes or families," Ramstad said. The Senate approved similar language early in its debate.

The president and his top aides, including Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), pressed lawmakers to make all reconstruction money grants rather than loans. They argued that loans would worsen Iraq's foreign debt and undermine efforts to get other nations to forgive their outstanding loans to Iraq.

"Iraq is burdened by past debts," Deputy State Department Spokesman Adam Ereli said Friday. "Now is not the time to add the burden of new debts."

"There was just some very sharp elbows thrown by administration officials" on the loan issue, said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who unsuccessfully tried to move a loan amendment in the House.

But the administration was confronted by lawmakers who said constituents were disturbed by the idea that the United States, while racking up record federal deficits, was giving billions in aid to a nation sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world.

"It was very difficult to stop this train because it made so much sense," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, one of eight Republicans who voted for the loan amendment, which passed 51-47 Thursday.

Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said the vote sent a strong message to the Bush administration that "it must do more to ensure that America's troops and taxpayers don't have to go on shouldering this costly burden virtually alone."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., promised to work hard to remove the loan provision when House and Senate negotiators meet, probably next week, to decide on the final version they will send to the president.

The goal is to get the bill on the president's desk before next week's conference of donor nations in Madrid, Spain.

But Frist acknowledged that "back home, people were asking for loans. ... It was very divided, very close, and that probably reflects feelings around the country."

There was little controversy over the bulk of the emergency spending package, $66 billion to sustain U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Debate centered on the money to restore economic and political stability in Iraq, which in the House bill included $793 million for health care programs and $217 million for border security.

Under the Senate loan amendment, the $10 billion in loans would be transformed into a grant if other countries agreed to forgive at least 90 percent of the debt they were owed by Iraq.

___

The House bill is H.R. 3289. The Senate bill is S. 1689.

On the NET:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

[finnman69]

Traitors Voting in the Negative: Boxer, Byrd, Edwards, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy and Sarbanes.

[proud American in Canada]

thanks for posting this! I don't get news like this up here. :)

[mass55th]

"But the administration was confronted by lawmakers who said constituents were disturbed by the idea that the United States, while racking up record federal deficits, was giving billions in aid to a nation sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world. "

Probably the same whiners who claimed that the war was just for oil.

[Isolationist]

Just what we need another welfare state to support.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thanks, finnman69.

"I believe in this president. I believe in this military," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. "Those who vote against this bill will be voting against supporting our men and women in the field. They're still in harm's way."

Our elder statesman's a war cowboy.

 Thanks, Tonkin!

If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).

[FairOpinion]

Those who voted against it should think about the cost of rebuilding the US, if we have a terrorist attack.

The War on Terror and rebuilding of Iraq is nothing in comparison to the cost in human lives, the economy and actual rebuilding costs, if we have an attack in the US. We can spend the money on fighting terrorism, rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, OR we can spend the money rebuilding the US after a terrorist attack. I think the choice is simple, once you put it in perspective.

I personally would rather spend the money rebuilding Iraq, to make sure they won't harbor terrorists and make WMD.

APEC Weighs Economic Costs of Fighting Terrorism (and cost of NOT fighting it!)

"If you don't deal with terrorism," said Mr. Downer, "the economic consequences, including for our region, are going to be catastrophic; the decline in investment that will flow from a failure to deal with terrorism; the decline in trade, the increase in unemployment."

[FairOpinion]

"Unlike it did during World War II and the Korean War, Congress has failed to cut non-defense discretionary spending during the War on Terrorism. The choices are clear. Should Congress spend $1 million for oyster recovery in South Carolina, or marsh restoration in New Hampshire, or the Bering Sea crab in Alaska, or brown tree snakes in Hawaii? Or should that same $1 million be used to buy one Tomahawk cruise missile to begin replacing the thousands that are being used in Iraq? The American people know the answer, but apparently Congress has yet to get the message.

This year's total reveals that Congress porked out at record levels. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2003 was $22.5 billion, or 12 percent more than last year's total of $20.1 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 22 percent since fiscal 2001.

Total pork identified by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) since 1991 adds up to $162 billion.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2003

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[finnman69]

Pardon my french, but you are an idiot.

Perhaps your name should be "isolationsit with my head lodged so far up you know where" that I rather not spend a fraction to safeguard a potential area of terrorist activity instead of spending more thana trillion dollars to deal with attacks worse than 9/11.

[NormsRevenge]

Thu Oct 16, 3:15 PM ET

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. meets with reporters on Capitol Hill Thursday, Oct. 16, 2003 after giving a speech on Iraq (news - web sites) onthe floor of the Senate. In the speech Kennedy said he will vote against the $87 billion bill to fund the war in Iraq because the administration does not have a realistic plan to stabilize the country and bring the troops home. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

[NormsRevenge]

The lopsided votes — 303-125 by the House, 87-12 in the Senate — underlined the bipartisan, wartime support that exists for the lion's share of the legislation: nearly $66 billion to finance U.S. military operations over the next year in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[woofie]

I saw some homeless sick alcoholics in Paris this summer who look better than Teddy

[blackie]

Bump!

[windchime]

Bump!

[Isolationist]

finnman69 your reply is a typical socialist answer.

Let me ask you a question: Why should I as an AMERICAN TAX PAYER pay the bill to reconstruct a foreign nation when that foreign nation is sitting on TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of dollars worth of oil? Why not LOAN them the money instead of a grant?

But of course as a socialist you don’t mind giving foreign nations free money and busting the US bank with irresponsible spending measures while our own infrastructure rots as long as it suits your political agenda.

If this had been a Democrat asking for outrageous loan amount - I bet your answer would be different – but of course it’s a lot easier to follow than to lead or ask why.

At least the Senate had enough sense to make a portion of this a loan.

[finnman69]

You confuse political agenda with national security.

[Isolationist]

And you avoid answering the hard question posed to you.

[finnman69]

Until the economy of Iraq is up and running and security there is established via a local goverment, it willr equire US protection. As we all knew, the war was not about oil, but about achiveing a strategic island of democracy in the middle of the mid East. By defeating Hussein, the threat to Saudi Arabia and mroe importantly Israel disappears. This allows fof the removal of US bases from sensitive areas that the Islamist jihadist are so iritated by.

Iraq's oil is as good as nothing if you can't get it out. Their oil infrastructure was run into the ground by Saddam and needs repair. With the repair will come revenue and eventually self sufficiency.

I am not a socialist and I recognize the need for stability in this part of the world. You would choose to cut and run and let the chips fall. You choose to create fertile groudns for more 9/11's. Do the math. 9/11 costs totalled around a trillion dollars in damage. I am willing to spend 1/10th of that amount to make progress in eliminating future threats. You should feel at home with the real Socialists who voted against funding our troops. Boxer, Byrd, Edwards, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy and Sarbanes.

I was wrong, "Isolationist-with-my-head-lodged-so-far-up-you-know-where" is not a better name for you. A better name for you, and the RATS listed above is "Yellow Socialist".

[Isolationist]

Maybe 3rd time you might actually answer the tough question: Why not LOAN them the money instead of a grant?

Of the $87 billion - $18.6 billion of that bill was a grant for various Iraqi relief and reconstruction Fund. This includes $5.6 billion dollars for the electric sector, $4.3 billion for water resources and sanitation, $3.2 billion for security and law enforcement, and $1.9 billion for oil infrastructure, $500 million for transportation and telecommunications, $370 million for housing and construction, $793 million for health, $153 million for private sector development, and $280 million for refugees, human rights, democracy and civil society.

Then there is the $66 billion for Department of Defense and Classified Activities. This money doesn’t only go into defending US interest – but also in defending and providing security for Iraqi as well. And shouldn’t Iraqi pay for say 25% of this bill when it comes to providing security and defending their own country?

With all this money going into Iraq building roads and homes, paying for health care and food, installing a functional telecommunications and electrical grid, and providing security for their nation – Why should I as the American Tax Payer pay 100% of this bill and the Iraqis pay 0 – especially since they are sitting upon trillion and trillions of dollars worth of oil? When does Iraq become responsible for Iraq? – in your world I would guess after we poured in $100’s of billions of dollars.

And before you go into a straw man argument of “they don’t have the infrastructure yet so how can they pay us back” it’s call a LOAN. And guess what on loans you can make payments and to keep it simple for you it would be “you can have the money now but when your country is up and running then you have to begin to pay us back”.

Yes I do understand that they can’t pay the full amount either today or tomorrow or next year – but what about say 5 or 10 or 15 years from now when their country is established. Did you ever think about long term or are you just stuck thinking about tomorrow and you can't comprehend that far into the future. How about selling us oil say $5 or $10 less a barrel when they get their oil infrastructure up again as a way of repayment?

But of course these questions may be to tough for you to answer and I fully expect you to come back with some more school ground name calling because my guess is that is the limit of your ability to debate the issue.

Oh and just a side a note if you care to debate the issues instead of name calling that $10 billion loan provision never made it to the White House and the full $18.6 billion is a grant.

[finnman69]

I thought Bush and Republicans were very clear on why it is a grant and not a loan. Mitch McConnell said it well.

"The country is flat on its back, with its infrastructure destroyed, and we want to go in there and charge them for liberating their country?" said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip.

Iraq's fragile economy would never grow under the debt of a loan and if you pegged it to oil shipments or discounted oil, the US is immediately labeled as an evil conqueror.