Jim Kolbe: “as we come to the end of this debate, as the gentleman from Florida pointed out, we have debated this issue many times.…”

“as we come to the end of this debate, as the gentleman from Florida pointed out, we have debated this issue many times. Let me, once more, reiterate why this is a bad idea to do this through a motion to recommit. First of all, there are, of course, the technical reasons. The amendment states that 50 percent of the obligations from the Iraq reconstruction funds must go in the form of loans, but there is no authority to provide those loans. There is an implication, but there is no actual authority provided in this recommittal motion. It is not clear whether the amendment intends the loans to be guaranteed, whether it is mixed financing, what form of loans they would be in. The terms of the loans are not at all clear. Are we talking about no interest for 50 years? Are we talking about repayment over 25 years? How would they be repaid? There are a lot of the questions that remain on the technical issues. It puts a lot of faith, frankly, Mr. Speaker, in the Office of Management and Budget and the President to interpret what the Congress would do here with this very simple, very broad loan authority and to make a determination as to what that actually means.”