Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=09/23/03

TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT

TITLE=DEMOCRATS / IRAQ SPENDING

NUMBER=5-54324

BYLINE=DAN ROBINSON

DATELINE=CAPITOL HILL

CONTENT=

VOICED AT:

INTRO: Democrats in Congress are making clear they intend to subject President Bush's request for 87-billion dollars in new money for Iraq to extensive scrutiny. As administration officials explain what they say is their clear plan for stabilizing Iraq, Democrats are expressing concern that the U-S involvement in Iraq may be longer and more expensive than the administration expects. V-O-A's Dan Robinson is following developments on Capitol Hill and has this report:

TEXT: John Spratt, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, says by the end of the current fiscal year on September 30th costs associated with Iraq will be about 56-billion dollars. That's based on President Bush's first war-time budget request approved by Congress earlier this year.

Congressman Spratt says that of the current 87-billion dollar request, and leaving out money earmarked for Afghanistan, another 71-billion dollars would go to Iraq, raising the total figure to about 128-billion by the end of the 2004 fiscal year.

However, he says estimates must also take into account interest likely to accrue in the next ten years. This, he says, will add another 50-billion dollars, effectively boosting costs to about 178-billion dollars by the end of 2004.

All of this assumes the United States is able to substantially reduce its troop presence in Iraq or withdraw completely by next year.

Much more likely, Democrats say, is that U-S forces will remain much longer. In that case, Congressman Spratt says, costs could escalate to 238-billion dollars in 2006, 309-billion dollars by 2008. However, he says there is an even worse scenario in which U-S forces become "mired down" in Iraq until 2010:

/// SPRATT ACT ///

Since we are there longer, that's the assumption, it's reasonable to assume we will probably have to pump more money into the economy, do more to get the economy up on its feet and stabilized, in that event there will be more money for reconstruction costs, we're assuming here we pick up almost 70 percent of the total reconstruction costs. In all of those worst-case assumptions, when all those are combined the total cost would come, with interest over the next ten years, to 418-billion dollars.

/// END ACT ///

After President Bush's speech (Tuesday) to the United Nations, Republican leaders in the House and Senate lined up behind the president.

House speaker (Republican) Dennis Hastert said Mr. Bush did in Iraq what the United Nations couldn't do enforce 17 U-N resolutions "casually disregarded" by Saddam Hussein.

/// OPT /// Henry Hyde, Republican chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said Mr. Bush, in his words, gave governments of many nations "the means to redeem their pledges to fight terrorism and promote global security." /// END OPT ///

Democrats say they won't oppose money needed to support U-S troops in Iraq, or Afghanistan. But they are busy preparing hard questions for key administration officials.

Senate minority leader Tom Daschle signals that opposition is likely to center on the 21-billion dollars or so the president has requested for Iraqi reconstruction and security:

/// DASCHLE ACT ///

We just turned down 292-million dollars for Indian health care in this country. We were told we can't afford it, we don't have the resources. And yet he is now asking for health care for the Iraqi people. He's asking for education for the Iraqi children. He's asking for money for Iraqi highway construction. Yet, in all those cases, he's telling the American people there isn't enough money for education, there isn't enough money for highway bills, there isn't enough money for health care.

/// END ACT ///

/// OPT /// Mr. Daschle, and another Senate Democrat, Byron Dorgan, say the administration is not doing enough to make Iraqi oil reserves and future production help pay for reconstruction and debts Iraq owes to Russia, France, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries. Here is Mr. Dorgan:

/// DORGAN ACT ///

Money that has been requested is necessary. But I believe the construct of the reconstruction in Iraq, and the payment for that reconstruction should not be a burden on the shoulders of the American taxpayer. /// OPT /// Not taxpayers who are paying more than double the rate the top taxpayers in Iraq will be asked to bear, and not taxpayers who should pay taxes so that Iraqi oil wells can pump oil to send money to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. What a perverse result that would be!

/// END ACT /// END OPT ///

The chief U-S administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has told lawmakers this week it is vital that Congress approve all of the money President Bush requested, saying failure to do so would risk Iraq becoming a haven for terrorists.

However, a number of House lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require President Bush to give Congress more detailed plans for Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, and impose more stringent requirements before new funds are approved. (SIGNED)

NEB/DAR/KL