Senate Defies Bush, Approves Iraqi Loans By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Senate defied President Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday and voted to convert half his $20.3 billion Iraqi rebuilding plan into a loan, dealing the White House an embarrassing foreign policy setback. Despite an administration lobbying blitz that in recent days involved Bush himself, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) and others, the Republican-run chamber voted 51-47 for a bipartisan proposal making $10 billion of the aid a loan. "They rolled out all the heavy artillery they could find," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a one-time Bush rival who sided with the White House. "Back home, people were asking for loans," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. in explaining the vote. But Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said the roll call was a slap at Bush's policies in Iraq (news - web sites). "The Senate sent a strong, bipartisan message to this administration: It must do more to ensure that America's troops and taxpayers don't have to go on shouldering this costly burden virtually alone," Daschle said. The loan proposal was the most dramatic change lawmakers have made in the mammoth spending package that the president proposed on Sept. 7. Its approval by the Senate marked the first congressional vote in opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq. It was also the latest of several setbacks that Congress has dealt him in recent months on issues including concentration of media ownership, new rules on overtime pay, and travel to Cuba. The administration argued that loans would worsen Iraq's foreign debt, slow its recovery and hand a propaganda victory to America's enemies. But the vote underscored that with presidential and congressional elections 13 months away, many lawmakers were more worried about vast new spending for foreign aid at a time of record federal deficits at home. "It's very hard for me to go home and explain that we have to give $20 billion to a country sitting on $1 trillion worth of oil," said one loan supporter, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The vote came as the House and Senate edged toward approval of similar $87 billion measures to finance American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites), as well as the reconstruction of both countries. The lion's share of both bills is about $66 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, funds over which there was little controversy. About two hours before the Senate roll call, the GOP-led House voted 226-200 to kill a similar loan proposal introduced by Democrats. The two chambers will have to negotiate compromise language before a final bill is sent to Bush for his signature — which congressional leaders hope to do before next week's conference of donor nations in Madrid, Spain. Frist and other GOP leaders said they would try to restore the grants in House-Senate bargaining. "They've counted him (Bush) down and out before. It's just another bump in the road," said Tom Korologos, a congressional lobbyist for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority now running Iraq. Eight Republicans abandoned Bush and voted to change his plan: Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John Ensign of Nevada, Graham of South Carolina, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Democrats who opposed the loan proposal were Joseph Biden of Delaware, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, and Zell Miller of Georgia. Under the bipartisan loan amendment, the money would be transformed into a grant if other countries agreed to forgive at least 90 percent of the debt they were owed by Iraq. That debt is usually estimated at between $90 billion and $127 billion. While the Senate bill provided the full $20.3 billion for rebuilding that Bush sought, the House measure chopped it down to $18.6 billion. It did so by erasing politically fragile proposals: funds for buying $50,000 garbage trucks, creating Iraqi ZIP codes and restoring the country's marshlands. The administration and its supporters wanted the rebuilding assistance to be entirely grants financed by U.S. taxpayers. They warned that loans would nurture Arab suspicions about the United States' true motivation in Iraq. "The battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is not over by a long shot," said McCain. He said the amendment "will send a clear signal that the United States is really, really there for the oil." Cheney called senators during the day hoping to block the loan plan, congressional aides said. And two senators — Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who had initially said they supported loans switched Thursday and said they had been persuaded to oppose them. But as the day wore on in the Senate, expressions of optimism by administration officials and GOP Senate aides faded. The White House budget office released a statement saying the administration strongly opposed loans. But the letter omitted any mention of a veto threat, which the office sometimes includes to send a strong message of opposition. The sponsors of the Senate loan amendment were Republicans Chambliss, Collins, Ensign, Graham, and Snowe and Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites) of New York, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., did not vote. After midnight, the Senate by voice vote gave final approval to an amendment by Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., to use $409 million in the bill to increase the Army's size by 10,000 troops. The proposal, opposed by the administration and GOP Senate leaders, had gotten preliminary approval Wednesday.
Based on all of the reporting, doesn't seem like us footing the entire bill is going to change anyone's mind about US intentions (was anyone expecting accolades if the whole package had passed as a grant instead of a loan?) Even once we're gone, and there's an independent, democratically elected government in Iraq, people will still question our motives. So as far as I'm concerned, this is more than fair. They will have freedom and constitution w/o a revolution, and we also foot the bill for half of the reconstruction.
First, I'd like to say that I wish the Texas State Republican Senators had listened to their "people back home" instead of letting themselves be railroaded by Tom DeLay and a handful of hacks in the leadership. But this is still good news. It shows that Congress is through bending over for Bush and will start acting more as an independent body, as it should. I also liked reading this: After midnight, the Senate by voice vote gave final approval to an amendment by Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., to use $409 million in the bill to increase the Army's size by 10,000 troops. The proposal, opposed by the administration and GOP Senate leaders, had gotten preliminary approval Wednesday. I support it and noticed that the Administration is against it. Why? No money?? If they took more than a little off the top of Bush's absurd tax cut frenzy, they could pay for this and much more, like assistance to the states who are all facing overwhelming budget crisis's and still be able to reduce the deficit.
I think it is good that some of that 87 billion was changed to loans, but I don't think they need to raise taxes by rescinding the tax cut. The amount of money we are talking about, with a budget unfortunately in the TRILLION range, is miniscule when compared to the billions we blow on entitlements.
Bama, We don't 'blow' that much money on entitlements. Especially not compared to a lot of European nations. Green, Our defense budget is that large because our military is better than anyone else's. combined. Plus I would bet that our budget is quite a bit larger than anyone else's.
We do blow that much on entitlements......or at least the guaranteed RAISING of entitlements. That being said. I am very happy that it is a loan...I think the whole thing should be a loan...... DD
Mediscare WIC Earned Income Credit Food stamps Medicaid Section 8 money But to be fair, we also need to cut out govt. funding of corporateR & D, as in the cases of alternative fuels, which should be funded privately.
This is fine. As long as the money is there, and as long as we aren't expecting quick repayment of the loans. Hopefully, they'll make the term open-ended, with no timetable on repayment, or at least one with a very long timetable, and low or no interest. The Iraqi economy will eventually be a powerhouse, but in the short run it will be shaky. No need to shake it up even more.
This would likely derail this thread, but do you believe there should be no entitlement programs? And that Gov should not fund any R & D, regardless of the impact on the Nation?
Why is every D&D thread an invitation to re-address every plank of the party platform? I don't think any of it should have been a loan. I know folks don't want to blow that kind of dough, but we should have all realized what we were getting into when we started this war. I think a complete grant would have carried a lot of symbolic power that would have been quite valuable in gaining trust and achieving stability.
I would just like them seriously reduced for right now and later on down the road see them phased out, with a corresponding reduction in tax rates. And as for making part of the 87 billion a loan, since we aren't getting much if any help from the folks (the Euros) would benefit the most from a stable Iraq beside the rest of the ME, I guess we should since they aren't willing to help us out except in a token, insulting way.
Agreed. While I think some portion of it should be loans, it should be open ended so that there is not a sense of resentment in th elong run from the Iraqi people. Don't need a repeat of this... World War I reparations The reparations were a series of payments the German state was forced to make following its defeat during World War I. These came in a variety of forms, including coal, steel and agricultural products. The impact of the reparations was widespread. The economic depression that they created in Germany helped to pave the way for Adolf Hitler. In Britain meanwhile the large amounts of free coal flooding the market, undercut the native coal industry. This also caused massive economic hardship, which was probably the principal cause of the 1926 General Strike.
In most instances I would tend to agree, but I see it helping. We're going to be seen in a bad light by many, don't think that footing the entire bill will gain us much at all. We're paying enough.
Cohen, I don't think they'll see it that way. It won't be, hey they've loaned us $10 billion and outright given us another $10 billion. It'll be, they're making us borrow money to rebuild stuff they blew up. I wouldn't want to allow any room for them to say that. And yes, we would continue to have a somewhat bad reputation in the area, but I think it would be a good strong gesture of our magnanimity to be able to say, don't sweat it, we're picking up the bill. And what have we saved really? Of the $87 billion we're spending on this endeavor, the country will be repaid 12% of it a decade or two from now?
Yep...all good points. You could be right. But I just don't see the return of goodwill from the ME if we pay for everything. But we're not the only responsible parties here. We can foot 90% of the bill and many American and British lives, but I think the Iraqis can handle 10% to pay for their freedom. Not like they'll be a dirt-poor third-world nation ... with their oil revenues. And FWIW, if the rest of the world is willing to help them relieve their debt, we apparently will go farther and forgive these loans. Still sounds fair to me. And JV, $10 billion is ..well... $10 billion.
12% of 87 billion is a hell of a lot of money. If you dont think so, I'd like a grant for my new golf swing research project....sounds like you may be able to offer me some assistance.
Of the $87 billion we're spending on this endeavor, the country will be repaid 12% of it a decade or two from now? I would to add at this point that the $10 billion "loan" is mythical until GWB signs the bill (after the House and Senate do the two step with the bill.) It is likely that the $10 billion loan will be be reduced if not dropped. But say that we do loan Iraq $10 billion, what mechanism exists to force Iraq to repay us at all. And we are in line behind the Kuwaitis and the Saudis who are stilling waiting for their Gulf War reparations. Thus, in all likely hood, Satan will be buying a parka before the US sees any money from Iraq for this "loan". IMO, this is just empty grandstanding from the Dems.
