RE: [Futurework] Separating the wheat from the chaff

[Karen Watters Cole]

See this link to NewsHour duet with Wm.Safire and Mark Shields on the vote in Congress.   Safire thinks the Senate will prevail in Conference and Shields disagrees. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec03/ss_10-17.html     Bill wrote: What is interesting is that it would cost Iraqis themselves 10-20% of what it will cost Halliburton and Bechtel to rebuild Iraq with the $20 billion. In other words, we want to stick the Iraqis with at least half of the $20 billion when the value of the work to be done is maybe $2-4 billion. This sounds like a pyramid scheme to me.   On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:24:50 -0700 "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 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.   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>