Information Security & US & Life & Love & Fashion & Hacking & Passion

U.S. automakers drew fresh skepticism from lawmakers Thursday in a rocky confrontation over their pleas for an expanded $34 billion rescue package they say they need to survive. Congressional analysts said one bailout plan under consideration would fall short of what the carmakers want.

With time on the current Congress running out, opposition to the bailout appeared to be as strong as last week - before Detroit's Big Three auto chiefs returned to Capitol Hill with more detailed plans on how they would spend the money.

Several lawmakers in both parties are pressing the automakers to consider a so-called "pre-packaged" bankruptcy in which they would negotiate with creditors in advance and downsize, then file for Chapter 11 protection in hopes of emerging quickly as stronger companies. The Big Three have publicly shunned the notion, saying it would kill sales by destroying customers' confidence - but executives have indicated in recent days that it might ultimately be necessary.

The executives all agreed in Thursday's hearing that a multibillion-dollar bailout deal would include a supervisory government board that could order major restructuring of the companies if deemed necessary for survival - similar to the results in many reorganizing efforts under bankruptcy law.

United Auto Worker union President Ron Gettelfinger, aligned with the industry in pressing for the aid, told senators at a Banking Committee hearing that any kind of bankruptcy, even a pre-packaged one, was not "a viable option." Gettelfinger said consumers would not buy autos from bankrupt companies, no matter the terms of the arrangement.

He also warned that in the absence of action by Congress: "I believe we could lose General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) by the end of this month." He said the situation was dire and time was of the essence.

The Big Three CEOs told the senators they hoped to make amends for past blunders. "We made mistakes, which we're learning from," General Motors chief executive Rick Wagoner said. Ford CEO Alan Mulally also acknowledged big mistakes, saying his company's approach once was "You build it, they will come."

BAGHDAD, Oct. 17 -- Iraq's political leaders on Friday began studying a draft agreement to extend the U.S. military presence here beyond 2008, but some lawmakers predicted the proposal would face a tough fight in parliament.

The accord was expected to face its first test Friday night, as President Jalal Talabani scheduled a meeting of the 23-member Political Council for National Security to discuss it. The advisory body includes political, legislative and judicial leaders.

If approved, the document would then be sent to the Cabinet, and then to parliament.

The U.S. government needs new legal authority to keep its approximately 155,000 troops in Iraq beyond Dec. 31, when a United Nations mandate expires. The new draft accord requires U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities by mid-2009, and to leave the country by the end of 2011.

The months-long negotiations over the pact had broken down over the sensitive issue of whether U.S. soldiers would be tried in Iraqi courts if they violate the law.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Friday that new compromise language in the agreement would permit the U.S. to maintain legal jurisdiction over its forces when they were on their bases or outside them on a mission.

If a soldier commits a crime outside a base while off-duty, a decision on jurisdiction "needs to be made jointly by a subcommittee," Zebari told the Post. But he indicated the U.S. would have the last word. "If the crime is very grave or serious, the U.S. may waive its jurisdiction," he said.

U.S. soldiers rarely leave their bases while off duty.

The U.S. Defense Department, which insists on jurisdiction over its forces stationed around the world, supports the compromise, according to Pentagon officials. But it was unclear whether it would satisfy Iraqi politicians, who have complained bitterly about what they view as abuses committed by U.S. troops and contractors since the 2003 invasion.

In Najaf, the religious capital of Iraq's Shiite majority, a leading cleric blasted the idea of giving U.S. forces immunity from Iraqi law.

"We consider this a basic point because it represents sovereignty," said Sadir Addin al-Qobanchi, in his sermon at Friday prayers at the city's grand mosque. "If someone commits a hostile act against your house and family and you say it is fine and don't hold him responsible, it means that you don't have dignity or sovereignty."

U.S. military and political officials have expressed concern that the agreement may not make it through Iraq's slow-moving political process by year's end. In that case, American forces would have no legal grounds to stay. U.S. officials have begun exploring other options, such as an extension of the U.N. mandate, but that could be politically and legally complicated.