It
might help to remember the vote today from Congress on the $87B request for
Iraq provides the administration with six months extra funds so that it won’t
have to return to Congress for more money, as expected, before Nov. 2004. That’s why this request is for $87 B,
not $50B, over 18 months, instead of 12 months.
There are
sufficient funds in place today through May 2004. See second
item below.
It is worth
repeating that House conservatives were the first to propose that these funds
be at least partly repaid as loans. Note what one of the Senate sponsors of
the loan amendment said:
Sen.
Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said in this
excerpt:“
no
amount of money is going to change the minds of those who believe the
administration invaded for Iraq's oil.
"I
don't want to give in to a great lie. You can't
buy your way out of this problem," said Graham, one of the five Republican
co-authors of the Senate's loan provision. "You can't take $10 billion of
taxpayer money, [while] people are losing their jobs, to buy your way out of a
great lie. It would be terrible if the people of this country who have
sacrificed so much wound up not getting a dime back."
This
vote cost the White House a lot of political capital it didn’t expect. It has encouraged moderates, and now
will harden its opponents drive. Voters flooded the offices of Congress
with apprehensive and protests. Congress also pays attention to what
their local media write “back home”.
Congress will be more nervous about their votes supporting the White
House from here on, given voter dissatisfaction. The Bush2 detour around the national
media is worthless and counterproductive, and shows that it still hasn’t
realized it has more than a communications problem, it has a policy
problem. - KWC
Key
excerpts:
Senate, House Pass $87 B bills for Iraq
and Afghanistan
Senate
Version Requires Iraqis to Repay Half of Reconstruction Funds
The Associated
Press, Friday, October 17, 2003; 5:22 PM
In
quick succession, the House and Senate voted Friday to spend some $87 billion
that President Bush said was needed to finish a mission of securing peace and
eliminating terrorist threats in Iraq and Afghanistan. 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.
…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.
…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.
…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
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."…By
a mostly
party-line 55-44
vote Friday, the Senate rejected an amendment by Daschle, D-S.D., barring
future U.S. aid to Iraq -- beyond the money in the current bill --
unless
Bush certifies
that foreign countries' contributions equal
those by the United States
…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. (end of excerpts)
October
16, 2003 |
Daily Mislead
Archive
Additional Money for Iraq Not
Needed Until Spring, According to New Study
As
Congress is preparing to vote on the administration's emergency $87 billion
request, a new study is challenging the immediate need for the funding.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld asserted two weeks ago that "the funds the
president requested are vital to our success in the global war on terror and
to our ability to finish the job in Iraq."1
But that position is being undermined by a
Congressional
Research Service (CRS)
study
that has found that Iraq military operations have sufficient funds until May
of next year.
The CRS study released yesterday suggests that the
recently-passed $368.2 billion 2004 Defense funding bill plus the emergency
funding Congress passed at the start of the war provides the Army alone with
$37 billion in funding for personnel
and operations and maintenance,
enough
to fund operations through early May.2
President Bush requested the money in September, saying, "We have
conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in
Iraq."3
But even prior to the CRS survey's conclusions,
Republican
aides
said
that the administration inflated its budget request in part to avoid having to
ask for additional funds the following year -- during the election
season.4
Bush continues to lobby members personally for passage of the request
as it was submitted. Pressure from Congress to scale back or convert portions
of the request from a grant to a loan have been met with anger. "I'm not here
to debate you," Bush said, in cutting off a Republican senator during a recent
meeting to discuss the issue.5
Sources:
1. Defense Department Briefing, Federal News
Service,10/2/03.
2.
"Availability of Army Funds Without Immediate Supplemental
Appropriations,"
Congressional Research Service, 10/15/03.
3.
Presidential Speech, 9/7/03.
4.
"In
GOP, Concern Over Iraq Price Tag; Some Doubt Need For $20.3 Billion For
Rebuilding," Washington Post, 9/26/03, p. A01.
5.
"Campaign on Iraq Aid Heats Up", Los
Angeles Times, 10/16/03.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
