The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Congress strips profiteering penalties from $87.5 billion Iraqi occupation bill

A study in political cowardice:
Congress strips profiteering penalties from $87.5 billion Iraqi occupation
By Jamie Chapman
13 November 2003
The United States Senate's "stealth vote" giving final approval to the $87.5
billion emergency appropriation bill for the occupation of Iraq and
Afghanistan-with only six senators present, and by voice vote rather than
roll call-provides an object lesson in the degenerate state of the US
political system.

The final measure enacted into law was approved only after being stripped of
measures aimed at curtailing profiteering by politically connected
corporations. Such firms, including Halliburton and Bechtel, have already
reaped windfall profits off taxpayer money used to finance the Iraqi

The $87.5 billion is the largest supplemental appropriation in US history.
It follows on the $79 billion passed as a down payment last April. This
latest amount exceeds the total annual budgets of seven different cabinet
agencies, and would cover the cost of paying unemployment benefits to all
eligible American workers for two years.

The Senate leadership's bipartisan agreement to hold a voice vote on the
measure constituted a cowardly maneuver to allow individual senators to
conceal their support for the occupation. There is good reason for them to
want to do so.

Ever since President Bush requested the funds in a televised address to the
nation on September 7, opinion polls have shown a solid majority of
Americans opposed to the new spending by as much as 60 percent. Opposition
to the funding coincides with growing disillusionment with the Iraqi war
itself, as the failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction and the
increasing attacks on the coalition troops expose two of the lies on which
the invasion was based-that Saddam Hussein's regime represented a threat to
the American people, and that the US occupiers would be welcomed as

In addition to the human cost in both American and Iraqi lives, there is a
growing anger over the economic cost of the occupation. This latest spending
bill will push the federal budget deficit well past the $500 billion mark.

In spite of broad popular opposition to appropriating the money Bush
requested, leading congressional Democrats immediately made it clear that
they would not block passage. Whatever tactical differences the Democrats
may have with Bush's Iraq policy-centered on the failure to line up enough
international support for an unprovoked war of aggression-they do not carry
over to cutting off funding for the policy. With the lone exception of the
octogenarian Robert Byrd of West Virginia, whose voice was the only one
calling out "no" on the vote, the Democratic senators fell back on the
shop-worn claim that paying to keep soldiers in Iraq to kill and be killed
constitutes "supporting our troops."

The final bill gave the administration virtually everything it asked for. It
provides $64.7 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as well as $19.8 billion in "reconstruction" aid, the vast
majority of which will go toward rebuilding Iraq's oil industry and paying
for the training of an Iraqi police apparatus-both critical elements of the
US effort to control the country's oil wealth.

The only reduction Congress made to the original request was to cut $1.7
billion from the "reconstruction" aid for projects it deemed inessential,
such as setting up a ZIP code system in Iraq and purchasing garbage trucks
for $50,000 each. No doubt, the Bush administration already had several of
its corporate cronies lined up to be awarded the contracts for these

Besides the sheer magnitude of the funding, in the final bill Congress
ditched the few mild restrictions on Pentagon spending authority that had
been incorporated in the original version passed by the Senate. Most media
attention has focused on the dropping of a reactionary provision that would
require the Iraqi government to accept $10 billion of the "reconstruction"
aid as a loan that they would have to pay back, further adding to the
country's already massive debt load. For political reasons in part related
to ongoing attempts to get foreign governments to help foot the occupation's
bill-without expecting repayment themselves-Bush threatened to veto any
legislation that included the loan provision.

Along with that provision, House and Senate conferees charged with
reconciling differences in the versions of the bill passed by their
respective bodies also cut out anti-profiteering and oversight provisions
added in the original Senate debate. One amendment would have imposed jail
terms of up to 20 years and heavy fines on anyone found defrauding either
the US or Iraq.

That provision was added in the context of numerous reports of price gouging
on contracts for government work in Iraq. Most notably, it was recently
documented that Halliburton-the company that Richard Cheney headed for five
years, which gave him a $33 million payout when he left to run for vice
president, and which still pays him $180,000 a year-was charging the US Army
$2.65 a gallon for gasoline imports, which would cost them only $0.90 a
gallon to purchase in neighboring Kuwait.

According to a recent NBC News report, another politically connected
Pentagon contractor, DynCorp, is hiring senior people to train Iraqi police
at a cost to American taxpayers of some $400,000 a year per trainer,
counting living expenses and tax liability reimbursements. Worth about $50
million so far, the contract-which had only one other bidder-is expected to
generate $800 million in revenue to DynCorp over the next two years.

Another provision stripped from the bill in conference would have required
that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), now former
ambassador Paul Bremer-in charge of managing tens of billions of dollars-be
subject to confirmation by the Senate. The bill added an inspector general
internal watchdog position for the CPA, but, like Bremer, the new position
is not subject to Senate confirmation. Indeed, under the final version of
the legislation, the inspector general may not be required to testify before
Congress, nor can Congress insist on seeing the results of the inspector
general's work.

Finally, another provision would have required the General Accounting
Office, a Congressional watchdog agency, to conduct regular audits of how
Iraqi reconstruction aid was being spent. The Senate had approved the
provision 97-0 in its original debate on the bill before it was excised in

Senator Byrd, in a speech on the Senate floor before Monday's vote, aptly
described the workings of the House/Senate conference committee as "little
more than a shadow play, choreographed to stifle dissent and rubber stamp
the President's request."

It is obvious that the Bush administration will not allow the constitutional
process of "checks and balances" to interfere with the price gouging and
profiteering by its corporate friends, which is already well under way. The
last thing it wants to see is the flow of ill-gotten profits interrupted by
making future spending subject to any form of congressional review.

As the House and Senate conferees were ensuring that Bush would get his
funding bill with no strings attached, Halliburton announced its overall
revenues jumped 39 percent in the third quarter to $4.1 billion. Revenues
for its Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) subsidiary, which handles the company's
major military contracts, surged a whopping 80 percent in the quarter to
$2.3 billion, of which $900 million came from Iraq. Profits at KBR increased
four times to $49 million, of which Iraqi contracts generated $34 million.

A number of prominent Democrats made public statements critical of the
dropping of the anti-profiteering amendment, including its co-sponsors
Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Diane Feinstein of California, as well as
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, but not one of them dared demand a
roll-call vote on the final bill, which would have put their votes on

Coming only a day after 16 American soldiers were killed and 20 more wounded
when Iraqi resistance forces downed a US helicopter, the White House seized
upon the passage of the supplemental appropriation in an effort to divert
attention from the disaster on the ground. It issued a statement that read,
"The strong bipartisan show of support for this bill underscores that
America and the world are united to prevail in the central front in the war
on terror..."

Then, at a signing ceremony last Thursday, flanked by Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell along with congressional
Republican leaders, Bush used the occasion to rattle some more sabers,
saying, "With this act of Congress, no enemy or friend can doubt that
America has the resources and the will to see this war through to victory."

The Democrats' shamefaced support for the Iraqi occupation and their
acceptance of a regime that will allow unrestrained profiteering by
politically connected corporations is only one more indication that this
party represents the same essential interests of the corporate elite as the

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]