October 22, 2003 - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: 'Sticker shock,' lack of briefing motivated Petri's vote against Iraq bill

Peace Corps Online: Peace Corps News: Headlines: Peace Corps Headlines - 2003: October 2003 Peace Corps Headlines: October 22, 2003 - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: 'Sticker shock,' lack of briefing motivated Petri's vote against Iraq bill

By Admin1 (admin) (pool-151-196-13-23.balt.east.verizon.net - 151.196.13.23) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 10:10 am: Edit Post

'Sticker shock,' lack of briefing motivated Petri's vote against Iraq bill





Rep. Petri (right) joined with RPCV Congressmen Rep. Mike Honda, Rep. Jim Walsh, and Rep. Chris Shays for a Peace Corps recruitment meeting with young congressional staffers. Rep. Petri served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Somalia.

Read and comment on this story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on RPCV Congressman Tom Petri who was one of only six House Republicans who voted against last week's $87 billion spending package for Iraq. Petri said his experience as a Peace Corps volunteer and aid consultant in Somalia in the 1960s makes him especially leery about how effectively the U.S. can spend the money. "Who's going to own it and manage it?" Petri said of the rebuilt infrastructure in Iraq. He said his fear is that "if it's not well thought through, it's basically frittered away, and then (will be) serving as another argument for, 'We should throw even more money at the problem.' " Read the story at:

'Sticker shock,' lack of briefing motivated Petri's vote against Iraq bill*

* This link was active on the date it was posted. PCOL is not responsible for broken links which may have changed.



'Sticker shock,' lack of briefing motivated Petri's vote against Iraq bill

By CRAIG GILBERT

cgilbert@journalsentinel.com

Last Updated: Oct. 22, 2003

Washington - When he voted against last week's $87 billion spending package for Iraq, Wisconsin's Tom Petri was one of only six House Republicans to oppose President Bush on the issue.

While it was obvious that the price tag caused heartburn on both sides of the aisle, most Republicans voted to give the White House almost all it asked for.

Final approval came on a 303-125 vote in the House.

Among GOP members, the margin was 220 to 6, with Petri the most senior dissenter.

In an interview Tuesday, the 13-term lawmaker said he had grave misgivings about the money involved and the way it would be spent.

"This is a thousand dollars per family in my district," said Petri, a GOP moderate from Fond du Lac. Most of the $87 billion will go to the U.S. military; about $19 billion - the source of controversy - will go toward Iraqi reconstruction and aid.

Petri noted that the reconstruction financing is a large fraction of Iraq's entire gross domestic product, which is listed in the CIA World Factbook as $58 billion in 2002.

"There is no way that much money can be absorbed in Iraq's economy, in my opinion," Petri said.

"I'm still suffering from sticker shock" over the amount, he said.
Lack of information

Petri also expressed exasperation over what he said was a lack of information from the administration about how the aid would be structured, including ownership and authority over the infrastructure that will be rebuilt with U.S. money.

"I asked to be briefed by OMB (Office of Management and Budget) on how this was going to be structured. They said, 'We don't want to get into that. Please just support the program.' I think I'm supposed to ask a few questions in this world," he said.

Petri said his experience as a Peace Corps volunteer and aid consultant in Somalia in the 1960s makes him especially leery about how effectively the U.S. can spend the money.

"Who's going to own it and manage it?" Petri said of the rebuilt infrastructure in Iraq. He said his fear is that "if it's not well thought through, it's basically frittered away, and then (will be) serving as another argument for, 'We should throw even more money at the problem.' "
Voted to amend package

Petri also voted for a series of losing amendments to the package that drew overwhelming support from Democrats but only a handful of GOP votes. One was Wausau Democrat Dave Obey's attempt to convert a portion of the $20 billion reconstruction package into a loan, not a grant.

Another was La Crosse Democrat Ron Kind's attempt to cut the size of the reconstruction package in half.

Though only six House Republicans voted against passage, Petri said, "I would guess there's a silent majority in Congress along the lines I've expressed."

Indeed, the House on Tuesday took a non-binding vote that expressed a preference for putting some of the aid in loan form. The resolution, which also backed improved benefits for veterans and reservists, drew 84 Republican and 192 Democratic votes.

Many of last week's votes on the issue were sharply partisan. Petri was the only Republican in the state delegation to vote against passage of the plan. Ron Kind of La Crosse was the only House Democrat from Wisconsin to vote for final passage, though Kind voted with Democrats in an attempt to alter the package and treat some of the aid as loan.

In voting for passage, Kind cited his recent trip to Iraq, saying, "We must give our troops the tools and resources to carry out their mission safely and effectively so they can return home soon."

House Republican Mark Green of Green Bay also is traveling to Iraq this week with other members of the International Relations Committee.

In the Senate, Wisconsin Democrats Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold both voted to provide the military and reconstruction spending, even though Feingold opposed the war.

Feingold restated his objections to U.S. policy in Iraq and called the $87 billion package "very problematic," but said that to "pull the plug on reconstruction, to leave Iraq to the disorder that filled the vacuum left by the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, would make us less safe, less secure."
Senate bill includes loans

Unlike the House version, the aid package passed by the Senate requires Iraq to pay back about half the aid funds.

The Bush White House threatened Tuesday to veto any such language, and the loan provision is expected to be dropped by House-Senate negotiators when they settle on a final version.

Speaking more broadly about the postwar picture in Iraq, Petri said Tuesday:

"My biggest concern is we're operating in another country. I think people in a basic way are pretty territorial creatures. It's their country. We need to get as low a profile as quickly as possible."


From the Oct. 22, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel



October 17, 2003 - Congressman Thomas Petri explains why he opposed Iraq spending bill



Congressman Thomas Petri explains why he opposed Iraq spending bill

Too many questions on $87 billion package

Congressman explains why he opposed Iraq spending bill


Quote:

President Bush asked for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, but when the bill reached the floor of the House, I voted "no." It passed anyway, by a vote of 303 to 125, but I was one of only six Republicans to vote against it. Why?

Of the $87 billion, $65.5 billion is for military operations. I support our troops and think they should get everything they need. I expect that there is the usual waste in that $65.5 billion dollars, but I'm not interested in delaying funds for our forces in the field.

It's the remaining $21.4 billion for "reconstruction" (mostly in Iraq, some in Afghanistan) that I'm concerned about. We have the obligation to re-establish order and basic services, but we need to do it right and avoid simply throwing money at problems.

In the 1960s I served in Somalia both as a Peace Corps volunteer and with the Agency for International Development. I became convinced that an awful lot of our foreign aid activities are ill-conceived, wasteful, and even counterproductive.

$21.4 billion is a lot of money, and by some estimates, another $35 billion will be needed from the U.S. and other countries to bring Iraqi infrastructure up to the standards that somebody (I'm not sure who) seems to think is necessary. Before committing to that, I'd like to be convinced that we have an actual plan for success rather than an assortment of expensive quick fixes.

Before the war we were told that Iraq is a rich country and would be able to pay for its recovery with oil revenues. After all, it has $7 trillion in oil reserves. But now that we are there and theoretically in charge, the rhetoric has shifted to highlight Iraq's massive outstanding debts to France, Germany, Russia and other countries; to the decrepit condition of its oil industry which, apparently, needs massive infusions of cash before it can get at those oil reserves; and to the horrendous condition of its schools, hospitals, roads, electricity and water supplies, and on and on.

We are asked to provide aid for "reconstruction," but in fact, the damage from the war was minimal. What we are really dealing with is 20 years of neglect due to the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the war and economic sanctions which followed that invasion, and the regime's insistence on spending its money on weapons and palaces for Saddam Hussein and his sons rather than on the needs of its people.

The President's initial request included $9 million to rebuild Iraq's postal service (including establishing a zip- code system), $99 million for new jails, $100 million for dam repairs, $5.65 billion to restore the electric power system, and $290 million to construct fire stations and train firefighters. Some of these items have been cut as a result of the publicity they have received, but I would like to have more study and debate about more complicated provisions.

What, for instance, is the most sensible, cost- effective way to finance oil industry repairs? Should we just fix everything so it's better than new, and then simply give it back to the Iraqis free of charge? What about all these contracts that we are signing with various businesses to bring things up to snuff? What kind of oversight are they getting?

I understand the Administration's urgent need to prove to the Iraqi people and the world in general that we intend to leave Iraq better off than we found it, but I am reluctant to vote for big spending bills before being assured that they've been properly thought through.




October 10, 2003 - RPCV Sam Farr votes against Iraq aid





Read and comment on this story from California Online on RPCV Congressman Sam Farr who was among 14 Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday who voted against a bill approving nearly $87 billion for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The Administration's attempt to rebuild Iraq ... has been failing because it has not concentrated on building capacity in Iraq," Farr said. "Rather, this bill awards contracts to companies politically friendly to the president, and fails to insist on full disclosure of how that money is being spent."
Read the story at:

Farr votes against Iraq aid*

* This link was active on the date it was posted. PCOL is not responsible for broken links which may have changed.



Farr votes against Iraq aid

House panel OKs bill

Staff and wire reports

U.S. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, was among 14 Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday who voted against a bill approving nearly $87 billion for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Republican-led committee approved the legislation by 47-14, paving the way to likely approval by the full House next Wednesday or Thursday. All 14 "no" votes were from Democrats, but 15 Democratic members voted for the measure.

"The Administration's attempt to rebuild Iraq ... has been failing because it has not concentrated on building capacity in Iraq," Farr said. "Rather, this bill awards contracts to companies politically friendly to the president, and fails to insist on full disclosure of how that money is being spent."

The bill has about $65.3 billion for U.S. military expenses in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and $21.6 billion to rebuild those two nations and aid other countries including Liberia. Most of the money from both categories is for Iraq.

The split among Democrats underscored uncertainty within the party over the legislation.

Some say the wisest course is to support robust reconstruction efforts as the best way to extricate U.S. troops. But others have focused on the spending package as a proxy for challenging Bush's overall policy in Iraq.

"The administration has also been insensitive to the Middle East culture, and has not invested nearly enough in education and training for Iraqis," Farr said.

Congressional GOP leaders hope to have a final version of the bill on Bush's desk by the time potential donor nations hold a conference in Madrid, Spain, on Oct. 23 and 24.

In the latest sign of global antipathy to U.S. Iraq policy, the White House moved quickly Thursday to squelch speculation that the meeting would be postponed.

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the meeting, "will take place as scheduled." But European officials fear the conference could be a disaster if a new U.S.-sponsored United Nations resolution encouraging international aid to Iraq is not passed first.

Californian staff writer ANNE RILEY-KATZ and THE ASSOCIATED PRESS contributed to this report.

Originally published Friday, October 10, 2003



October 8, 2003 - RPCV James Walsh has concerns over Bush request for Iraqi, Afghan funds





Read and comment on this story from Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau that RPCV Congressman James Walsh, considered one of the most influential members of Congress, has concerns over Bush's request for Iraqi, Afghan funds:
"There have been so many instances where the money has been misspent," said Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y., a member of the Appropriations Committee. "We have to keep our hands as deep in this as possible, and that means having strict oversight, because when the stories about $500 hammers come out, I am going to be the one who is going to get hell to pay for it" from constituents.
Read the story at:

House committee to vote on Bush request for Iraqi, Afghan funds*

* This link was active on the date it was posted. PCOL is not responsible for broken links which may have changed.



House committee to vote on Bush request for Iraqi, Afghan funds

By Sumana Chatterjee

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The House Appropriations Committee is set to vote Thursday on a freshly scrubbed version of the Bush administration's controversial request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Top House Republicans on the committee cut $1.62 billion from President Bush's request for $20.3 billion for Iraq's reconstruction, including $9 million to develop Iraqi ZIP codes and $153 million for garbage trucks. But they added $251 million for stronger flak jackets and other equipment to reduce U.S. troop casualties.

Many lawmakers in both parties worry that in an era of soaring U.S. budget deficits, American taxpayers will object to giving Iraq billions of dollars for reconstruction instead of lending the money, to be repaid once the country resumes oil sales.

"The Bush administration's plan would provide approximately $872 per person for the entire population of Iraq. The U.S. foreign debt was expected to exceed $2.7 trillion this year, and that means the average American would be shouldering more foreign debt than the average Iraqi," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

Some lawmakers also want to keep tabs on the money because they fear it could be misused.

"There have been so many instances where the money has been misspent," said Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y., a member of the Appropriations Committee. "We have to keep our hands as deep in this as possible, and that means having strict oversight, because when the stories about $500 hammers come out, I am going to be the one who is going to get hell to pay for it" from constituents.

Walsh joined 16 other lawmakers on a trip to Iraq, where they heard that soldiers were paying up to $650 out of their own pockets to upgrade the Vietnam-era flak jackets. The troops also said they wanted equipment that would help reduce casualties, such as portable devices to stop terrorists from detonating explosives by remote control.

The Defense Department did not equip soldiers properly, the panel's leaders concluded, so they added $251 million for body armor and other special devices. Congress has to make up for the Defense Department's "lack of planning," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash. "They just didn't have enough of them, but they should have."

Republicans on the Appropriations Committee also cut funding for programs they feared would be long-term drains on the U.S. budget, including $150 million for a children's hospital in Basra. Still, $793 million is slated for health clinics and hospitals in Iraq.

They also slashed $253 million from water and sanitation projects, cut money for such cosmetic improvements as airport parking lots, and eliminated $10 million to modernize business practices of the Iraqi television and radio industry.

The bill would provide $3.2 billion for Iraqi police and security forces, but lawmakers cut $50 million that the administration sought for buildings, vehicles and equipment for police. They also rejected $400 million to build two prisons at $50,000 per bed.

House appropriators did not eliminate all of the bill's contentious items. The measure would still grant $14.8 million for psychological programs to sway Iraqi public opinion in favor of the American occupation, and it would provide $19 million to develop wireless Internet systems.

It also would allocate $100 million for a witness protection program.




Some postings on Peace Corps Online are provided to the individual members of this group without permission of the copyright owner for the non-profit purposes of criticism, comment, education, scholarship, and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. Government copyright laws and they may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner. Peace Corps Online does not vouch for the accuracy of the content of the postings, which is the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.

This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; COS - Somalia; Congress; Iraq; Speaking Out

PCOL8307
11

.

By robert paul (160.133.220.46) on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 10:09 am: Edit Post

I was a PCV in Kenya from 87-90. I later obtained a degree in urban planning and work as a reserve soldier for the u.s. army.

I recently returned from Baghdad and can understand the concerns on how the money is spent. I also see the need to encourage this economy and the infrastructure definitely needs to be rebuilt.

Strangely enough, i expected to be repairing structures that we blew up during the war. This was not the case. It was merely mismanagment and absolutely no maintenance plans.

Just my opinion


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: