Press Conference with Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV); Charles Schumer (D-NY); Steny Hoyer (D-MD); Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on Hidden Costs of Iraq War
Interview
Press Conference with Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV); Charles Schumer (D-NY); Steny Hoyer (D-MD); Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on Hidden Costs of Iraq War
Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, thank you, Steny, and I want to thank our leader, Senator Reid, for being here, as well as you and my vice chair and co-partner -- or partner in the Joint Economic Committee, Carolyn Maloney, who actually suggested that we do this report. I also want to thank the staff of the Joint Economic Committee. They labored long and hard, and thank you, gentlemen and ladies, for the good job that you have done.
We know that the immense federal budget costs for the war are putting us more and more into debt, and that's financed by borrowing. The hidden costs of the Iraq war take into account the full cost stemming from that excessive borrowing, the instability in world oil markets, the future care of injured veterans, the necessary retooling of our military and other factors. The back-breaking cost of this war to American families, the federal budget and the entire economy are beyond measure in many ways. The cost of the war is becoming the $800 billion gorilla in the room when it comes to opposition to the war. It is becoming the first thing that people mention after the loss of life when they're opposed to this war, and the people who mention it, many of them are not people who were against the war in the past.
While we in Congress have been fighting for a significant change of course in the president's policy, the JEC report estimates the total economic costs double what the administration has spent on Iraq alone in direct dollars.
That is nearly $1.3 trillion. And of course when you add in Afghanistan, it gets very close to $1.6 trillion.
Even if we assume that the -- as the Congressional Budget Office did, that our troop strength in Iraq is cut by two-thirds over the next five years, the economic costs for this war could still top 3.5 trillion (dollars) for Iraq and Afghanistan combined. That's 1 trillion (dollars) more than the recent CBO estimate, which counted only for direct spending and interest paid on war-related debt.
Had the administration paid for the war in Iraq instead of borrowing, these costs would be significantly lower. Instead the administration has created mountains of interest for taxpayers as far as the eye can see. We of the baby boom generation and our children and grandchildren will be paying for this war for a very long time to come.
What this report makes crystal-clear is that the cost to our country in lives lost and dollars spent is tragically unacceptable.
Now, the report looks at a handful of key economic costs, and I want to stress how conservative the estimates are. The obvious one, the direct appropriations you see there, that's the 1.3 (trillion dollars). And this chart is just Iraq.
The interest costs -- indisputable, and we estimate at a rather low interest rate. One-point-one trillion (dollars) are for interest costs.
Then there is the oil costs. Now, it's hard to estimate oil costs, so we were very conservative. We estimate that of the $60-a- barrel run-up since the Iraq war began, less than 10 percent, $5 a barrel, is because of the loss of production in Iraq and the general instability in the region. So that's a very conservative estimate. It's hard to believe that if the Iraq war weren't going on, and Iraq were at full production, and there wasn't the instability, that the costs of oil wouldn't still be -- wouldn't be $5 lower from the $100, $95 it is now.
And finally, the obvious cost of veterans care for those who have served and those who are wounded, of refurbishing the military, and other costs.
So those are the basic costs here and again astoundingly enough they're double what we are spending directly in Iraq. For every dollar we spend directly in Iraq, we're going to pay another dollar for the indirect but immediate costs of the war.
So Chuck Hagel said that, quote, "The president has said precious little about post-Saddam Iraq, which could prove costly in both American blood and American treasure." Chuck Hagel's right. The cost of this war to our soldiers, our military families, our budget, our economy and our reputation abroad are unsustainable. And this administration hasn't done nearly enough to change this deadly, costly course. This week, we will be trying in the House and Senate to do just that.
Carolyn.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
SEN. REID: We'll be happy to take questions.
Q Leader Reid, the -- (off mike) -- timetable. Will the Senate follow through with that?
SEN. REID: Yes.
Q And will you do it before the recess?
SEN. REID: We're going to do our very best to do it before the recess. We expect to get the legislation on Wednesday. And with all of our rules, sometimes we can't move things very quickly, but it's our goal to access our timeline, (fix/fixed ?) timeline, is to finish it before we leave for Thanksgiving.
I've -- we had a leadership meeting this morning. I'd explained in detail what our alternatives are. I've spoken to Leader Hoyer in my office earlier today.
I've spoken to the speaker on many occasions. The last time was Friday night.
The answer is yes, we hope the House will get that to us as quickly as possible, and we're going to take it up as soon as we can.
Q Senator, do you have expectations that you'll be able to get 60 votes?
SEN. REID: I always have expectations to get 60 votes. (Laughter.) We've never been able to do it, and I would think after what we've been able to show, that this war is -- and so devastating to the American people. We talk here today on a number of cases about the death of American soldiers. We're quickly approaching 4,000. But we tend not to talk about the people's lives who have been so damaged as a result of being wounded. That number is now unknown, but it's approach 35,000, a third of them critically wounded, losing their eyesight, paralysis. The number of double amputees now is approaching 3,000.
So I would hope that the Republicans have gotten the message the American people have had enough of this war, and we've got to bring our troops home. Bringing our troops home will be good for our military, but it'll also be good for the American taxpayer. We cannot afford this war -- $12 billion a month? We just can't continue.
REP. HOYER: Can I say something on that? You asked the question about the Senate, obviously. Let me say from the House perspective we would very sincerely hope that Senator McConnell and the Republicans in the United States Senate would allow the will of the American people to be reflected on the floor of the United States Senate. We believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe we need to change policy.
We believe the majority of the United States Senate believes we ought to change policy. And we would hope that Senator McConnell would let that view be reflected in a democratic way on the floor of the United States Senate.
(Cross talk.)
Q You mentioned a fixed timetable. Is it no longer a goal, and you have shifted to something fixed?
SEN. REID: It's a goal.
Q It's a goal.
(Off mike) -- 60 votes?
REP. HOYER: Well, there's not much the House can do.
SEN. REID: What can the House do?
REP. HOYER: We're going to pass the legislation; we're going to send it to the Senate. That's the process that is set up under our Constitution, and we're hopeful that the Senate will send that matter to the president for his action.
SEN. REID: Steny, and I think before there are a lot of crocodile tears spilled, the president signed, just before vetoing Labor, HHS, signed a Defense appropriation conference report for $470 billion. I think they can get by for a little while.
(Cross talk.)
Q Will refusing to send forward war supplementals remain --
SEN. REID: I'm sorry, start over again.
Q Will refusal to send forward war supplementals remain off the table for you? And if so, does that mean the president will be able to pursue his Iraq policy as long as his term lasts?
SEN. REID: That's the good news. That term is coming to a close. We're going to have a presidential election in less than a year. We are going to continue, until the course is changed, to change course in Iraq for the military and for the American taxpayer. So the president, I would hope, as Congressman Hoyer said, that the Republicans in the Senate will democratically allow us to move forward. If they don't it's not us taking away the bridge fund. It's their taking away the bridge fund.
This bill has $50 billion in it. If the president is not willing to take that with some conditions on it, namely that there should be a beginning of redeployment in 30 days, that we have a goal of having all of our troops out of there by the end of this year, actually December 15th, and there are a few other strings on it, then the president won't get his 50 billion. That's pretty clear.
Q (Off mike) -- have to get the money out of the Defense appropriations bill in order to continue the war?
SEN. REID: That's right.
Q Senator Reid, you have until February 1st then, correct, to allow the Pentagon to move the money around in the accounts? Is it your intention then --
SEN. REID: I don't know why the February 1st is a magic date. There's been a number of reports indicating that the military can do just fine until some time in April, but we will see. Of course, the president manipulates those numbers like he does everything else.
We will have to see how the military can respond. We would hope that that's not necessary. We would hope there would be a bridge fund of $50 billion that would run, according to the calculations I have, sometime around the 1st of February, and that we will be happy when we come back the first of the year and make a decision as to what other monies need to be given to the troops in Iraq.
SEN. SCHUMER: Just one other point: I mean, as Senator Reid said, we hope that they'll let us go forward and vote, and the president will approve it.
But if not, it'll be the first time the Iraq war is actually paid for if he has to take the money out of the Defense appropriations bill.
Q Mr. Reid, it's not clear yet that the Democrats in the House have the votes to have these conditions. If the House were to approve a clean $50 billion, would you promise to take that up too this week?
SEN. REID: Mr. Rogers, not promising anything at this time. We'll have to see what they do. I feel confident they will send us a bill with the strings on it. If they don't, we'll take a look at whatever -- whatever the House sends us. I have great respect for the House of Representatives, having served there, and we will take up whatever they send us on the Iraq war or anything else and do our best to move it down the road.
Thank you very much everybody.
Source