GOP signals Iraq money may be structured as loan

AP ^ | 10/1/03 | AP

[Mark Felton]

WASHINGTON - Republicans muscled President Bush's $87 billion plan for Iraq and Afghanistan through a Senate committee Tuesday but signaled they may ultimately defy the White House and structure some of the aid as a loan.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the bill 29-0, with Democrats reluctant to oppose a bill dominated by funds for U.S. troops. But the unanimous tally belied sharp partisan divisions over $20.3 billion included for Iraqi reconstruction.

With even GOP senators flashing signs of unease over the Iraq rebuilding money, the panel's chairman said a bipartisan compromise was being explored to provide some of the rebuilding assistance as loans that Iraq would eventually have to repay.

Some in GOP want payback

A compromise might be included when Congress considers the bill in coming weeks. It would envision that "part of it should be considered repayable when oil comes out of the ground" in Iraq, said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

Administration officials have strongly opposed transforming the reconstruction spending into loans. They say it would make it harder for Iraq's economy to grow and would fuel Arab arguments that the United States is interested chiefly in Iraqi oil.

The willingness of some GOP lawmakers to strike a deal, however, underscores how effectively Democrats have turned the plan's $20.3 billion for Iraqi reconstruction into a political issue.

"We oughtn't be too fast to give away $20 billion if we can find a way not to," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who is up for re-election next year.

Democrats have built their political case, in part, by arguing that with record federal deficits and a weak domestic economy, Americans should not foot the entire cost of rebuilding a country with the world's second-largest oil reserves.

"Shovel money into the hole"

"The president squandered the good will of our allies after Sept. 11, and now he is asking Congress to shovel money into the hole he has dug for himself in the international community," said Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the Appropriations panel's top Democrat.

By a party-line 15-14 vote, the committee rejected an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to remove the reconstruction money from the bill.

Dorgan's measure would have used Iraq's potential future oil revenues to leverage loans and other investments it could have used for rebuilding in place of the $20.3 billion.

The panel also voted 15-14 against a Byrd amendment that would have split the rebuilding funds into a separate bill. With support questionable for that portion of Bush's request, the maneuver could have dealt a fatal blow to the money.

By the same margin, the committee killed a proposal by Byrd to erase provisions giving Bush flexibility on precisely how the $20.3 billion - and other portions of the bill - would be spent.

In one of the few Democratic wins, the panel accepted an amendment by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and others creating criminal penalties for war profiteering in Iraq.

[Fledermaus]

The White House would have been stupid trying to treat the $20 billion for next year as a loan when, at the same time, we are trying to get France, Germany, Russia and others to forgo their Iraqi debts owed to them.

Mostly because those debts were incurred by Saddam to buy products and services then considered illegal by the UN. More hypocrisy that isn't reported or concentrated on since that is worse than "unilateral" occupation by the US.

I see Putin on a seesaw. If he was really smart he'd hitch the Russian wagon onto ours and give up on the EU. And we in the US need to dismantle the current NATO structure and change the alliance to the ex-Soviet states, Great Britain, Australia and maybe Italy.

If Putin joined us we'd have the troops we needed that are easily trained into our military superior structure and he could buffer China as we force them to get with the program. China isn't immune to terror and they are dying to make face in the 21st century and not be considered a 19th century power.

They are going to put men in space, build more satellites, etc. I don't want to have to catch up with Chinese efforts in space that could harm our satellite technology. All the GPS targeting, instant communication, etc. that defines and awes us all is worthless if the Chinese are going to take out our satellites in space.

The United States has got to get serious. This constant attention and resources paid to our social existence is getting out of hand when no government from federal to local is being held accountable for our tax dollars or their stupid ideas.

We waste more money on programs that don't work, government bureaucracy, and outdated ideas like Social Security than we spend on defense. We spend billions on those that are here illegally because it's politcally correct. All while every professional politician, elephant or donkey, bends over backwards getting them to vote so they can get elected because they've successfully driven off half of the eligible voters away from the polls with their insane legislation.

If the GOP or the DNC could get as little as 10% of legal Americans that don't even bother to vote to register and cast a ballot, they could be elected God. But they give up on them and would rather just fight over the 1.5 million a year that cross over the southern border illegally and give them legal ID's all because they clip their hedges.

[BlackbirdSST]

How you going to react when this treasure get's sent to France/Germany/Russia to repay debt? Chalabbi (sp?), doesn't want loans, he wants grants. Why would anyone ask him? Blackbird.

[samtheman]

The willingness of some GOP lawmakers to strike a deal, however, underscores how effectively Democrats have turned the plan's $20.3 billion for Iraqi reconstruction into a political issue.

...underscores how easily the GOP rolls over and plays dead whenever the dimowits whine...

...very sad...

[fortaydoos]

A true conservative would just happily agree to send 100 billion (per year probably) to iraq to GIVE the iraqi government jobs and a modern electrical grid, while the US has a system that is clearly antiquated???

The point is that we are in national debt over here up to our eyeballs. Why is a half trillion dollar annual deficit for us just dandy, but national debt for Iraq is harmful (as colon powell said on tv this weekend )? Why must simply give this fantastically oil rich nation billions of free cash? I am tired of paying two bucks a gallon and d*mn sure don't need my tax dollars going to help an OPEC member get back on its feet.

[ijcr]

There has been no accounting of money recovered from the
Saddam Regime.There is no accounting for the money being collected from oil sales.There is no accounting for debt payments to France, Russia and the UN food for oil program.

It is one thing to support the President but in return, the administration can be held accountable for the fiscal structure of Iraq.Therefore,IMHO irrespective of party affiliation Congress is right on questioning this grant before giving the administration a $20 Billion blank cheque.

[WhiteGuy]

"part of it should be considered repayable when oil comes out of the ground" in Iraq,

Stop foreign welfare.

The taxpayers of the USA should have the legal rights to the oil.

[WhiteGuy]

Looted?

No, just covering our expenses. (Iraq is our enemy I'm told)

Funding socialism at home?

I wish I could argue against you on this one......

sadly, the great society has become the "great global society" thanks to 15 years of clintons and bushs in the white house.

[A. Pole]

We waste more money on programs that don't work, government bureaucracy, and outdated ideas like Social Security than we spend on defense.

So far a lot of money is paid for Social Security (mostly by poorer people) and part of it is spent on unrelated items like military.

[A. Pole]

This war is about freeing Iraqis. Hence the title, Iraqi Freedom. It isn't about selling them our services, and saddling them with debt they won't be able to repay.

How Americans can lend money when there is no real Iraqi government to sign the agreement?

If those money are "lent" and spent the way decided by the Americans, why the future government of Iraq would honor such "debt"?

[steve50]

If those money are "lent" and spent the way decided by the Americans, why the future government of Iraq would honor such "debt"?

I think the goal all along was to get the resources locked up in the IMF/WB fiat system. With most of the Islamic world working on a gold backed dinar for trade the fiat boys are scared, as they damn well should be.

Just wait till you see the currency/banking system this fraudster Chalibi sticks into the new constitution.

[jwalsh07]

Bad idea. The dims will be screaming about oil and you can't forcibly "lend" money to countries. The republicans are so easily manipulated it still amazes me.