NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is scheduled to appear before both houses of Congress this week to discuss the sluggish economy and answer questions -- lots and lots of questions.

In his semi-annual appearance before Congress, due to start Tuesday at 10 a.m. ET before the Senate Banking Committee, the central bank chief will start by delivering prepared remarks about the state of the economy and the likely course of monetary policy.

Unless Greenspan has undergone a dramatic personality change since his last public appearance, these remarks will be as pulse-pounding as drying paint and are likely to be riddled with the "Greenspan-speak" Wall Street has come to know and love. Still, they will be as short, sweet and to the point as Greenspan is able to make them.

Then, the legislators will be unleashed.

Lawmakers typically keep Greenspan glued to his chair while they grandstand and occasionally ask questions -- often the same ones some of their colleagues have already asked. By the time Greenspan has survived the attentions of the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, many hours will have passed and hundreds of questions will have been asked. [For more on the Greenspan grilling, click here]

To help you sift through the mountain of words to get to the gems, here are three key questions Greenspan will almost certainly have to answer.

To be sure, Greenspan will probably repeat the mantra he and other central bankers have been chanting for months -- the economy is in a soft patch, but with interest rates at 40-year lows and productivity growth at 52-year highs, the "fundamentals" are sound. And he'll probably pin the blame for the economy's recent run of weakness -- including little or no job growth -- on fears about the possible U.S.-led war against Iraq.

Since last September, the Fed has talked consistently about "geopolitical uncertainty" in its closely watched interest-rate decisions. In September, Fed policy-makers said the economy's weakness was "in part" due to that uncertainty. In its most recent monetary policy statement in January, the Fed pinned every bit of the economy's problems on Iraq.

"Oil price premiums and other aspects of geopolitical risks have reportedly fostered continued restraint on spending and hiring by businesses," the statement from the central bank said.

Most economists agree that uncertainty about Iraq is keeping businesses on the sidelines, afraid of the potential impact of a war on oil prices and consumer demand. Corporate reluctance to invest and hire has kept the economy weak and unemployment lines long, according to this view.

A small group of economists, however, say the economy's problems run much deeper. [For more on this debate, click here]

"If the economy and equity markets ... remain weak post-Iraq, the Fed will be forced to cut rates further, but that's not something [Greenspan] will be keen to chat about," said Rory Robertson, interest-rate strategist at Macquarie Equities (USA). "The Fed clearly feels that part of its job is to whistle a happy tune."

If the economy's only problem is Iraq, it seems natural to wonder if the $674 billion "economic stimulus" package recently proposed by President Bush is even necessary. Trust some Democrat to ask the question. Trust Greenspan to duck and dodge.

Related stories Greenspan under fire? Jobless rate slides Labor market not out of the woods Back to the '80s Bush budget forecasts optimistic Weak growth could hound US

"He might say there's plenty of stimulus in the system already, but he will say he supports programs that will encourage investment -- he's going to straddle the fence on this issue," said Allen Jacobson, political analyst at Washington Analysis. "I don't think Democrats will come away feeling like they snookered him, but the Republicans won't feel like they got a home run.'

Though Greenspan, a former compadre of conservative icon Ayn Rand, probably likes some aspects of the Bush plan, especially the proposal to eliminate taxes on most dividend income, he'll probably try to avoid giving either side ammunition to use in their ongoing trench warfare about that and other fiscal issues.

"Deep down, he would probably go along with [the dividend tax cut] 100 percent, but, realistically, he knows that's not his bailiwick," said Jacobson. [For more on the tax-cut debate, click here]

Another subject certain to come up early and often is the U.S. budget, which in just two short years has swung from generating big surpluses to bringing back the days of big deficits.

The White House recently projected that 2003 and 2004 would bring the biggest budget deficits in U.S. history -- and those estimates didn't include the potential costs of a war and post-war rebuilding in Iraq. The last time the government was running budget deficits, Greenspan warned they could dampen economic growth by pushing interest rates higher.

"Lower budget deficits are the surest and most direct way to increase national saving. Higher national saving would help to lower real interest rates, spurring spending on capital goods so as to put cutting-edge technology in the hands of more American workers," Greenspan said in his July 1996 testimony.

And Greenspan cheered the budget surpluses of 1998-2001:

"[S]urpluses have kept real interest rates at levels lower than they would have been otherwise," he said in his July 2000 testimony. "This development has helped foster the investment boom that in recent years has contributed greatly to the strengthening of U.S. productivity and economic growth."

But in early 2001, when Bush was pushing for a tax cut, Greenspan told Congress he was worried about the potential repercussions of the government running surpluses for too long. Once the federal debt was paid off, he warned, the government would be accumulating assets instead of giving them back to the private sector, where they could be put to better use.

With that apparent support, the Bush tax cut was passed in 2001, cutting future surplus projections, but not apparently sinking the budget. Now those days are long gone, and the budget picture has worsened considerably. Will Greenspan go back to being a deficit hawk, to the chagrin of Republicans?

"He will make the point that, if tax breaks go through, they need to be accompanied by firm discipline on the spending side," said former Fed Governor Lyle Gramley, now an economist with Schwab Washington Research. "He's not going to actively oppose [Bush's] proposals -- that would be uncharacteristic."