Congress approves 10 billion dollars for recovery.

news.yahoo.com...

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration intends to seek more than $10 billion to cover immediate relief needs in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, congressional officials said Thursday, and lawmakers made plans to approve the request by the weekend.

Several officials said $10 billion would cover immediate costs for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the government's front-line responder in cases of natural disasters. Several hundred million dollars would also be provided to fund the Pentagon's disaster relief efforts, congressional aides said.

FEMA is spending more than $500 million a day as it struggles to respond to devastating flooding in New Orleans and severe destruction that spans the length of the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Florida.

That requires an immediate infusion of cash, said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., with at least two subsequent bills to follow. He said a second bill would be needed in two or three weeks at current spending rates, with another bill to follow that one after better damage estimates are in hand.

"We can expect three separate appropriations bills as we go through this recovery process," Cochran said. "Over half a billion dollars a day is being spent by FEMA."

It is not necessary for all members of Congress to interrupt their vacations to return to Washington to approve the funding. Several aides indicated the money would likely be approved without a roll call vote, a so-called "voice vote" practice often used when there is no dissent about a piece of legislation.

only 10 billion!!!!!! u know the insurers say somthing like 25 billion. should spend about 30 to 40 billion to pay for recovery as well as new equipment to handle the next disaster. kind of like the Netherlands have to protect their country from the so call the coming of the Perfect Storm.



[edit on 1-9-2005 by deltaboy]

FEMA is spending more than $500 million a day as it struggles to respond to devastating flooding in New Orleans and severe destruction that spans the length of the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Florida.

Does it really seem like they are spending this much? It must be behind the scenes.....I'm not so sure I see that kind of layout in what I'm seeing on the news. Where and what is it going for, exactly??

Sorry - there is a War going on, and Pentagon has the priority over the Money.

Originally posted by Souljah
Sorry - there is a War going on, and Pentagon has the priority over the Money.

excuse me? i thought it was Congress? u sure Pentagon makes all the decisions where the money goes? maybe i was wrong.

Originally posted by deltaboy


excuse me? i thought it was Congress? u sure Pentagon makes all the decisions where the money goes? maybe i was wrong.

Congress will rubberstamp the contribution, however inadequate
The Pentagon and in particular Rumsfeld will have decided the sum and also the speed or lack of it in supplying aid and rescue
Also Rumsfeld's Pentagon will have been instrumental in providing providing the technology, whether HAARP or Scalar - if there's much difference, to create this situation
And furthermore, Rumsfeld's Pentagon will have been instrumental in Bush's cutting of the Army Corp's budget, responsible for maintenance and improving of the levees and flood defence, I believe to the tune of $71 million over the last 18 months
The criminals in Washington and in their security operations are entirely responsible for this disaster and have proven their criminal ineptitude, or rather intent, in its aftermath



Edited for typos and other errors

[edit on 1-9-2005 by dh]

[edit on 1-9-2005 by dh]

dh, thank you for your opinions they are quality contributions to this thread.

Now back to reality, I think they will approve of the 10B, but more will be needed in the weeks and months to come.

only 10 billion!!!!!!

For now, yes 10 billion.

Then if you contiue to read the article you see little clues....words like

said $10 billion would cover immediate costs

kinda leads you to think there will be more at a later date.

Then you see...

He said a second bill would be needed in two or three weeks at current spending rates, with another bill to follow that one after better damage estimates are in hand.

So what exactly is the problem? 10 billion now, and much more when they figure out what they need. Give them a chance to do damage assements before going off about the govenment not spending enough in aid. The Gulf Coast will get the money they need when they need it, don't expect the feds to sign a blank check to the area without a clue as to how much is needed.

u know the insurers say somthing like 25 billion.should spend about 30 to 40 billion to pay for recovery as well as new equipment to handle the next disaster.

I'm confident enough to say that by the time all things are said and done congress will have spent much more than that.

Actually funds will be appropriated from many areas, including services.

My husband predicted that it will come mostly from defense budget, and many of the defense budget contracts will suffer with cuts and that will affect the soldiers in Iraq.

That is the rumor circulating where he works at, many are worry if the defense contracts are cut.

We can spend 80 Billion at the drop of a hat over nd over again to fight a war based on lies. No one with eyes and ears can refute that. No WMD's and No Bin Laden connection. That has been proven.

WE CAN'T SPEND MORE THAN 10 BILLION on the protection, relocation, recovery, and distribution of food, water, and necessities to its own people.

It is a DARK DAY in America!!!

[edit on 1-9-2005 by GTWill]

Wow, some people still manage to trash a thread and still play partisan and political games when we should unite as Americans for the common good of our Country.

It is a dark day in America indeed.

I think 10 billion is fine for the moment. Remember, many places are still inaccessible. Once they have an overall picture of how much is needed, I'm sure more money will be forthcoming.

FEMA will be giving money to the displaced families. These folks are not only homeless but are also now unemployed. Some of the money will go to food, water and supplies once they can get into the areas affected.

Yes, 10 billion will be a good start.

Or. . . they are waiting on the generosity of the American people to kick in.

It is something that Americans have plenty is generosity and the willingness to help their fellow Americans.

I am so proud of my nation.

Playing partisan or political games? I am stating fact and fact alone. There is nothing about my statements that were untrue. If anyone can prove me wrong I challenge you. 10 billion dollars is pocket change compared to the cost of the Iraq war. Why can't we spend more money to work on America at a time of need? Why not give the oil companies tax cuts if they drastically drop their oil prices to keep America rolling? This is going to be more costly nationwide if more isn't done.

This is already costly nationwide. I lived through a few rough hurricanes during the Vietnam war. The money will come: Through the government, insurance, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, private donations, and money raised by different organizations. It will not be enough and many people will suffer.

But that is the way it is done. Most folks know this. Some people will rebuild while others will start over elsewhere. Until you have lost everything, you can't understand the mindset of the survivors.

What have they done so far for the people in those areas so far nothing!!!
Outragious it is, they had 3 days to prepare for the storm hit, and its now 3 days further and still nothing.

If a Blowjob fits the criteria for impeachment than this should be jailtime imho:

"No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming"

By Sidney Blumenthal

09/01/05 "Der Spiegel" -- -- In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

Biblical in its uncontrolled rage and scope, Hurricane Katrina has left millions of Americans to scavenge for food and shelter and hundreds to thousands reportedly dead. With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico. But the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature.

A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a series on the federal funding problem, and whose presses are now underwater, reported online: "No one can say they didn't see it coming ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

The Bush administration's policy of turning over wetlands to developers almost certainly also contributed to the heightened level of the storm surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands surrounding New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush had promised "no net loss" of wetlands, a policy launched by his father's administration and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed his approach in 2003, unleashing the developers. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency then announced they could no longer protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce.

In response to this potential crisis, four leading environmental groups conducted a joint expert study, concluding in 2004 that without wetlands protection New Orleans could be devastated by an ordinary, much less a Category 4 or 5, hurricane. "There's no way to describe how mindless a policy that is when it comes to wetlands protection," said one of the report's authors. The chairman of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality dismissed the study as "highly questionable," and boasted, "Everybody loves what we're doing."

"My administration's climate change policy will be science based," President Bush declared in June 2001. But in 2002, when the Environmental Protection Agency submitted a study on global warming to the United Nations reflecting its expert research, Bush derided it as "a report put out by a bureaucracy," and excised the climate change assessment from the agency's annual report. The next year, when the EPA issued its first comprehensive "Report on the Environment," stating, "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment," the White House simply demanded removal of the line and all similar conclusions. At the G-8 meeting in Scotland this year, Bush successfully stymied any common action on global warming. Scientists, meanwhile, have continued to accumulate impressive data on the rising temperature of the oceans, which has produced more severe hurricanes.

In February 2004, 60 of the nation's leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, warned in a statement, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking": "Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy ... Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle ... The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease." Bush completely ignored this statement.

In the two weeks preceding the storm in the Gulf, the trumping of science by ideology and expertise by special interests accelerated. The Federal Drug Administration announced that it was postponing sale of the morning-after contraceptive pill, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its safety and its approval by the FDA's scientific advisory board. The United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa accused the Bush administration of responsibility for a condom shortage in Uganda -- the result of the administration's evangelical Christian agenda of "abstinence." When the chief of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Justice Department was ordered by the White House to delete its study that African-Americans and other minorities are subject to racial profiling in police traffic stops and he refused to buckle under, he was forced out of his job. When the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting oversight analyst objected to a $7 billion no-bid contract awarded for work in Iraq to Halliburton (the firm at which Vice President Cheney was formerly CEO), she was demoted despite her superior professional ratings. At the National Park Service, a former Cheney aide, a political appointee lacking professional background, drew up a plan to overturn past environmental practices and prohibit any mention of evolution while allowing sale of religious materials through the Park Service.

On the day the levees burst in New Orleans, Bush delivered a speech in Colorado comparing the Iraq war to World War II and himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt: "And he knew that the best way to bring peace and stability to the region was by bringing freedom to Japan." Bush had boarded his very own "Streetcar Named Desire."

Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior advisor to President Clinton and the author of "The Clinton Wars," is writing a column for Salon and the Guardian of London.

Originally posted by GTWill
Playing partisan or political games? I am stating fact and fact alone. There is nothing about my statements that were untrue. If anyone can prove me wrong I challenge you. 10 billion dollars is pocket change compared to the cost of the Iraq war. Why can't we spend more money to work on America at a time of need? Why not give the oil companies tax cuts if they drastically drop their oil prices to keep America rolling? This is going to be more costly nationwide if more isn't done.

You seem to fail to realize that this 10 billion is an initial amount don't you?
There will be other bills passed allocating more money as it is needed. They still need to make a thorough assessment of the damage and find out what is needed before they write more checks. 10B will last a week or two and there will be further money appropriated then.

If you have watched the news...10 Billion Dollars won't even dent the area affected by Katrina. 10 Billion Dollars should have been alloted on Monday morning just to get started not Thursday. Today we should have been sending a lot more.

They would of paid more but they ran out after they gave it all to Israel to move out of Gaza.



The only way FEMA could be spending anywhere close to 500 million a day is if they are giving people the money for the property they lost so they could relocate.

Else the GAO audit agency needs to take a close look at FEMA and where they are siphoning all the money too.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by YaYo]

motionknight
What have they done so far for the people in those areas so far nothing!!!

huh?

Have you not seen any news? First of all you HAVE to remember that 90% of the news is "left" biased. and they like to make things sounds as bad as can be to put blame on the Pres. People are actually blaming the Hurricane on Bush. Saying that there are more Hurricanes because of Global Warming, and he didn't sign the kyoto protocol. As if Global Warming had anything to do with this.

anyway.....the amount givin was 10.5 billion, which is pretty good just for starters. and have you not seen the Coast Gaurd / Army / Navy helicopters that have rescued several thousands of people? Or that 30,000 National Gaurd members will be deployed to that area, severl thousand are there now, with thousands more showing up in the coming weeks.

Navy ships are pretty slow, and take time top get there, but several are on the way...one being a hospital only ship, and another is a carrier which will take around 4-5 days to get there. The coast gaurd alone said that they have over 50 helicopters in New orleans.

Try different channels...they report some of the same, but some are very biased.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by Murcielago]

You have voted Murcielago for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Couldn't have said it better myself.