Press Conference with Rep. David Obey (D-WI); Rep. John Murtha (D-PA); Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) Subject: Defense Appropriations
Press Conference with Rep. David Obey (D-WI); Rep. John Murtha (D-PA); Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Subject: Defense Appropriations
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.
REP. OBEY: Good morning, everybody. Okay, good morning.
We're here for two reasons this morning, first, because we are tired of the drift represented by the president's speech to the nation after General Petraeus' statement last week. The policy outlined by the president is being sold to the country as a plan to reduce our troop levels in Iraq, but it's quite the opposite. It's a plan intended to guarantee that we will have a troop heavy presence there for a decade.
When you strip away the fog, it's simply a plan to get us back six months from now to the same place we were six months ago before the surge began. It is not being undertaken with any new determination to reduce troop levels. It's simply recognizing that we do not have enough troops to sustain the surge level. It is a confession that the president has not a clue about how to get us out of that civil war. It is simply a plan to punt the problem to his successor, ruining two administrations, rather than just one.
If supported by the Congress, it's a recipe for keeping us tied down in the Middle East in an occupation for years; destroying what little goodwill we have left in the nation. It's also a plan for draining the Treasury dry of funds that we desperately need to invest in crucial initiatives here at home in order to build a stronger country and a more family-friendly country.
In addition to the regular defense appropriation request of over $460 billion, the president is asking Congress to appropriate an additional supplemental request of almost $200 billion, a blank check to finance U.S. activities in Iraq and he clearly expects that request to be repeated for years to come.
I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the president's request if that request was made in support of a change in policy that would do three things, first, establishes a goal, the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009, second, ensure that troops would have adequate home time between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments, and third, as part of a determination to engage in an intensive, broad-scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in that region, but this policy does not do that; it simply borrows almost $200 billion to give to the Departments of State, Defense, Energy and Justice with no change in sight.
As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of committee any time this session any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo. I also have no intention of acquiescing in a policy that will result in draining the Treasury so dry that it will result in the systematic disinvestments in America's future.
That brings me to the second reason we're here. The president is objecting to the fact that we are trying to depart from his domestic budget request by some $22 billion, an amount about one-tenth as large as the amount the president wants to spend again this year in Iraq.
In Iraq, we are spending over $10 billion per month. In the half hour that this press conference will take, we will have spent almost $8 million. The result is that there is no sense of shared sacrifice in this country on this war. The only families being asked to sacrifice are military families and they're being asked to sacrifice again and again and again. Meanwhile, even the most fortunate of the rest of us are being asked to make no sacrifice whatsoever. Those Americans who make more than a million dollars a year instead of being asked to sacrifice, are being asked to accept a $50 billion tax cut again this year all paid for with borrowed money. That simply sends the bill to our kids.
We need to stop pretending that this war doesn't cost anything. The war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we're shoving off on them and it will cost them because it is devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities, expand their job opportunities, attack our long-term energy problems and build stronger communities.
If the president is really concerned about stopping red ink, we are prepared to introduce legislation that will provide for a war surtax for that portion of the military costs related to our military action in Iraq. We are choosing not to offset costs associated with our efforts in Afghanistan because we believe that those are legitimate, because our Afghanistan effort is aimed at eliminating the Taliban and will give shelter to al Qaeda and that action will benefit future generations, but those future generations should not be saddled with paying for an ill-advised war in Iraq that seems to be never ending.
If this war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for it.
Now, I don't expect either our leadership or perhaps our caucus at this point to rush to endorse what we're suggesting here today, but we raise it simply to call the president's bluff on the issue of fiscal responsibility and I would hope that it would be understood in those terms.
If such a proposal is not passed and the war continues, one of two things will happen: We will either run up insurmountable debts or it'll drain the Treasury dry of funds that are essential to make the domestic investments in education, health, medical research, science, law enforcement that are crucial to creating a stronger country and more prosperous families.
It's time for the president and the Congress to face up to some really hard choices. It's time for all of us to face up to the consequences of the president's actions.
Now, I would ask Chairman Murtha, chairman of the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee for his statement.
REP. MURTHA: This is no longer President Bush's war; it's a Republican war. It's the Republicans in Congress who continue to hand this president a blank check with no policy restrictions for the war in Iraq. This is their war.
In one year alone, the American taxpayer will contribute over $1 trillion in defense spending. By the end of this year, we will have spent $750 billion for this war, while we continue to spend at this colossal rate in Iraq with questionable results, our military chiefs advise that as a nation we must be concerned about the eroding strength of our military. They estimate it will take hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild our capability to deter and prevail in future conflicts.
Here's what Admiral Mullen said, the new chief of the Joint Chiefs. You're going to see a breath of fresh air with Admiral Mullen and with Secretary Gates. "I worry about the toll of this pace of operations it's taking on the troops.
Our equipment and our ability to respond to other crises and continuances," unquote. General Casey said, "The Army is out of balance and the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for any potential continuances."
The commander of the U.S. forces in Japan said, "While the U.S. has been tied up in Iraq, China has been modernizing its military, its air defense and are now nearly impenetrable to all but the newest American fighter," in other words, the F-22 is the only one that can penetrate their air defenses according to what the military is telling me.
Last week, General Mattis, he's been selected to be the head of the Joint Forces Command, said, "The U.S. ground units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are arriving ready to fight, but just barely. Non-deployed units are challenged in their readiness by equipment needs, rotation of manpower and time to train."
Last week, General Blum, Lieutenant General Blum who is the head of the National Guard bureau, said, "At home, we have about half the equipment I need, in some cases, 33 percent to respond to domestic continuances."
The Department of Defense spent more than $598 billion, more than $598 billion in fiscal '07 than it did in the costliest year of the Vietnam and/or Korean War and we had 500,000 troops at one time in the Vietnam War. The war in Iraq alone is well on its way of becoming the most costly undeclared war in American history.
For an American soldier that dies, nine are wounded, many with catastrophic trauma with long-term affects.
I don't know if you read the article by Mrs. Dozier the other day and I talked to her; she came in to see me. She had catastrophic wounds and they saved her, but what she's going through and what her pain that she's going through, I see all the time.
Some of you have been to the hospital; you know what I'm talking about. So there are nine times as many wounded as there are killed and it will cost, we estimate, from $350 billion to $700 billion. Now, I voted against every tax cut, every tax cut the Republicans offered, I voted against it, even Charlie Rangel offered tax cuts, in a recommital I voted against it because I knew we weren't paying for this war.
U.S. Africa event, General Jones told me and (inaudible) said the same thing in NATO, the Chinese are all over Africa because of the resources. We cannot find an African country that will take American headquarters. I called the other day and talked to the people at NATO and I said, what are you doing putting the headquarters in Germany? It'll never get it out of there. They said we can't find a place to put it in Africa; nobody will accept it.
Now, imagine that. Chinese all over Africa and we can't find anybody that will take an American headquarters.
Fifteen hundred Americans die every day of cancer, and yet we spend only $5.5 billion a year on cancer research. This is equivalent to two and a half weeks of the war. The president is threatening to veto the bipartisan S-CHIP bill reauthorization. Today's poll shows that seven out of ten supports that bill, $35 billion spending increase, which is equivalent of less than four months of spending in Iraq.
The Republican war in Iraq is starving essential domestic programs, and while many Iraqis consider us an occupying force, it's also true that Iraq is occupying us.
REP. OBEY: Congressman McGovern.
REP. MCGOVERN: Its been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That pretty much sums up the Bush administration's approach to Iraq. The president has made it clear that he intends to continue this war through the last day of his term. That is not acceptable. This war started on George W. Bush's watch and it needs to end on his watch.
It would be a terrible mistake for this Congress to give the president additional billions in war funding without demanding a dramatically new direction in our policy. It is time to draw a meaningful line in the sand.
Any additional funding must be directly tied to a real plan that brings our troops home before President Bush leaves office. It should be tied to a real process of reconciliation in Iraq and it should be paid for.
There is time for the president to work with us to end this war, and I hope that he will do that, if not, Congress will have to exercise its constitutional power of the purse to change this policy. Some of us as Mr. Obey has said will be introducing legislation to begin paying for this war through an additional surtax on all Americans. No matter what you think of this war, and I believe it has been a terrible, terrible tragedy, we must not pass the cost onto our children and our grandchildren.
The war in Iraq has been this generation's mistake. It should not be the next generation's burden.
The president talks a lot about sacrifice. On July 4th, he compared the Iraq war to the Revolutionary War and he called for more patience, more courage and more sacrifice. The problem is the only ones doing any sacrificing are the members of our military and their families. No one else, certainly not Washington politicians are doing much sacrificing.
We could begin to change that by stopping this practice of borrowing and piling the costs of the war onto the national debt. We have the opportunity to end the president's policy of debt and denial. We must seize that opportunity, and I look forward to working with Mr. Obey and Mr. Murtha on this critical issue.
Q Mr. Obey, there's a triad of bills that the Speaker is moving on the floor this week that -- (off mike) -- tried to move legislation -- (off mike) -- on these types of proposals when it comes to fiscal issues?
REP. OBEY: No. Look, there are a lot of things wrong here I can't control. There's one thing that I can control and that is reporting out of my committee, that supplemental. That's one thing that is in my jurisdiction and so that's why I wanted to emphasize today that I have no intention of reporting out a $200 billion supplemental that will simply, in effect, be the equivalent of a blank check for the White House on this war.
It isn't just the money. It is the fact that this is a dead end policy with a dead end approach and it will leave us tied down there for years. We desperately need to force the White House to do new thinking to come up with a different approach. This does not call for precipitous pullout. Does anybody really believe that it's in the interest of this country to still be in a combat situation under the next administration? I would hope not.
Q Mr. Obey, when the defense bill comes into conference, do you intend to limit the ability of the president to transfer that money to the war?
REP. OBEY: I don't have direct control over what happens with the defense bill. I do have control over what happens to the supplemental. The president, sooner or later, is going to need that supplemental and sooner or later, we need a different policy out of the president.
Q So are you saying that if the president vetoes the supplemental containing this withdrawal date, that you won't send him another one?
REP. OBEY: The president isn't going to get a supplemental this year. I'm not going to report a supplemental out.
Q I understand that, but next year, there's going to be a need for a supplemental, right? And --
REP. OBEY: There will also be a need for a new policy.
Q Right.
REP. OBEY: With the two article inside.
Q You're talking about a withdrawal date, and I'm curious if you ultimately send him legislation with a withdrawal date and he vetoes it, will you not send him another one?
REP. OBEY: I'm not going to do what the president does, which is to constantly say I will veto, I will veto. I'm not laying down an all or nothing proposition. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat. There are a lot of different approaches that can take all of which will lead to a better result than the existing policy. So I'm flexible as to what that policy is so long as it represents real change rather than camouflage, and as far as I'm concerned, the president speaks to the country -- two weeks ago was pure camouflage. It pretended to be part of a plan to draw down troops in reality. It was a declaration that he intends to be there forever.
Q Is your past proposal real? I mean -- (off mike) -- have you introduced it rather than to weaken it?
REP. OBEY: We're putting it together right now and we will introduce it. We're simply working out the details.
Q (Off mike.)
REP. OBEY: It will be a war surtax ranging from two percent on low and middle-income people, ranging up to between 12 and 15 percent. It depends on how we get it costed out. It will raise about $145 billion to $150 billion, which is the annual cost of the war in Iraq, and so we're trying to separate the Afghanistan effort from the misbegotten and misguided attack on Iraq.
Q (Off mike.) A tax on income?
REP. OBEY: It will be a war surtax. It's a percentage of your tax bill and if you don't like the costs, then shut down the war.
REP. MCGOVERN: And soldiers who are serving in Iraq and their families will be exempt from any tax.
Q Just like what they did in Vietnam?
REP. MCGOVERN: Yeah, it was similar to what they did in Vietnam. We also had a surtax during World War II as well.
Q $500 in taxes --
REP. OBEY: This is the first time in American history that when a president has taken a country to war and said to everybody, by the way, folks, you're going to have to sacrifice by cutting your taxes. It makes no sense and the American people know that.
Q If you owe $100 in taxes right now, you pay an extra $2 if you're low income and up to $12 if you're high income? Is that the math of it?
REP. OBEY: Around $12, that isn't exactly worked out yet because we're still trying to get the exact numbers.
Q That's the tax that you pay on top, not 12 percent of your income.
REP. OBEY: That's right.
Q But is that going to generate enough money to do what you want, as well as this military buildup that Congressman Murtha was talking about?
REP. OBEY: What we are doing is focusing on the cost of the war in Iraq. Period.
Q But Congressman Murtha was talking about a military buildup --
REP. OBEY: I understand that, but that is not the purpose of the surtax. That is an intelligent -- what Jack is talking about, there's an intelligent use of resources to strengthen this country long-term. What's going on in Iraq is not an intelligent use of resources and so we are focusing on paying for that misguided effort.
Q But how do we pay for the buildup, we don't have the resources now --
REP. OBEY: It would be good if the president got together with the Congress to work that out.
Q Mr. Obey -- (off mike) -- the president has not shown any willingness to change and you're going to sit on a supplemental. They're also not changing policy -- (off mike) -- you don't control that --
REP. OBEY: All we can do is what we can do. In the end, it won't work out until the president changes his policies.
REP. MURTHA: Let me tell you something, it's changing, folks. When the military says what its been saying, it's going to change because then the people who have voted the way they've been voting won't be able to vote that way. I said today this is a Republican war now, not just Bush's war. The military is speaking out about the problems we have, the very problem we talked about reinstating our forces to the level they should be.
So you're going to see a change. It's coming and it's just a matter of time. That's all.
Q Mr. Murtha, you're going to come in for criticism as soon as you walk out of this room about cutting off funding for troops in the field. At some point, you're going to need the money.
REP. MURTHA: Here, let me explain exactly what's going to happen. I mean, if the Senate and I heard the staff say this, they've never said a word to me that there will be no transfer authority in the main bill, in the defense bill. Now, I don't know what the defense bill is going to look like, that's above my -- the overall defense bill with domestic policy. I don't know how that's going to work out, but the defense bill itself will provide for troops in the field until January, February, maybe even March, one way or the other, whether it's transfer authority or bridge funds, one way or the other.
Now, the reason I say that, the CR passed with a lot of Democrat votes and I didn't anticipate we'd get the Democrat votes we did, so this is a realistic approach to this thing, and the other thing we have to do is start to rebuild and that's what we're doing in the supplemental, spending an awful lot of money rebuilding the military and you see the defense bill starts to change the direction of the overall defense.
Q (Off mike.) Until January, February, maybe even March.
REP. MURTHA: They -- it depends on the expenditures, but as a whole, they can get by until we think March.
Q If you were to have a bridge fund -- (off mike).
REP. MURTHA: What's that, Dave?
Q If you were to have a bridge fund and -- (off mike) --
REP. MURTHA: Well, it would be whatever it would take to get them through until the chairman, whatever the chairman decides, whenever he says he's ready to take up the supplemental, we'll have a bridge fund or leave the defense so they can borrow the money out of the defense bill. One way or the other.
REP. OBEY: What we are trying to do is to do what's practical between now and February or March, without giving the president carte blanche to do whatever he wants in that war for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Q (Off mike.) The practical number I hear is $40 billion.
REP. MURTHA: Well, you may be right. We track it every day. First, I said a year ago, you couldn't sustain this deployment, and so we tracked every day what they're going to need. When the chairman decides how long he wants and the Senate decides it's not going to have transfer authority, we'll put a bridge fund in to take care of the troops. We're going to take care of the troops. Period.
We've been doing that all this time, but the thing that's held up the policy change is the Republicans in Congress are voting against any restrictions like fully equipped and fully trained, that's the thing that's holding this up, the Webb Amendment, any of those things can't be passed.
So that's our problem.
Q Mr. Obey, can you address the -- (off mike) -- out of the combat role --
REP. OBEY: We want any kind of a movement at this point from existing policy and what we're trying to do is to focus on aspects of the issue that we think can eventually get the most votes, and I think what you can get the most votes for eventually is something that ends America's combat role in the area.
Q You're not proposing attaching those strings to the supplemental bill? You're just saying no supplemental bill at all until you, Mr. President, come forward with -- policies.
REP. OBEY: I'm saying that I'm not going to report that supplemental if it is in simply in support of a $200 billion status quo operation.
Q But you're not advocating writing a supplemental that has your three conditions in it, correct?
REP. OBEY: No. I mean we're willing to sit down any time and talk to the White House about how to shape those conditions, but we think that the White House needs to recognize that we've had it with being maneuvered and jerked around on this issue.
Q Mr. Obey, aren't you likely -- isn't that all likely to crumble under the inevitable criticism the troops are going to run out of food and bullets?
REP. MURTHA: That's not going to happen. Period.
REP. MCGOVERN: Can I just say one thing? The president is being put on notice and what the chairman is expecting from the White House in terms of -- as a contingency to report the supplemental, I mean, the president has some time to work with Congress to try to work some of these things out. I hope he does and I hope that members of his own party will urge him to do so. If he doesn't, then it's going to be a very difficult moment come January or February, but the bottom line is the president is the one who is putting our troops in jeopardy to keep them in harm's way and the president knows right now what the sentiment of Congress is and where the sentiment of the American people are if you read The Washington Post poll today. They want this war over with. They want our troops out of Iraq by the time that this president leaves office.
Q Has the president always wanted this bill, even under President Clinton -- (off mike) --
REP. OBEY: Has he wanted them?
Q Hasn't he forced Congress like on the left --
REP. OBEY: I can't do anything about what's happened in the past. All I can do is what I can do at this point in the operation and I've told you what I'm going to do.
Q What indication do you have though that the outcome would be any different than it was on the battle over the last supplemental when the president essentially had his way?
REP. OBEY: I would always hope that the president would eventually find the path to sweet reason.
Q Do you have any indication that he's getting there?
REP. MURTHA: Well, look at what the military is saying? Look at what they're saying. Look about what they're saying about training and equipment. Look what they're saying about deployments, burnout. Over and over again, the military is what I've been saying for over a year, the military is now saying. They cannot resist that kind of pressure. It's no longer they can point to the military and say everything is all right because they're not saying it.
I told General Casey when I was in Iraq in January, I said, when you come home, general and he was there two and a half years, you're going to find a different world and he's been saying that. He's been saying the troops are worn out, burned out. They need all kinds of counseling, all kinds of help; we need to rebuild the Army.
So when the military starts saying that, you're going to see a change in direction in this Congress.
Q Mr. Obey, you did not specifically tie a war supplemental to getting what you want on domestic spending, that $22 billion. I'm wondering if you also think that you wouldn't give him a supplemental unless he came to some kind of compromise with you on the domestic side.
REP. OBEY: No. I said what I said today and I'm not taking it any further. We'll deal, we will deal with the domestic issues in other statements and other actions down the line, but I am trying to point out that there is a direct and hugely unacceptable cost to our ability to make the needed long-term investments this country needs to strengthen us across the board so long as this war goes on.
This war is draining the Treasury dry. It is destroying -- there's a huge opportunity cost that is being paid by the same younger generation that's going to be asked to pay the bill because the president is paying for this war on the --
Q Is the Speaker onboard with the strategy on the supplemental?
REP. OBEY: As I said in my statement, I don't expect to see the leadership jump to embrace our position on taxes at this point. As far as whether they're on board on this issue, you'll have to talk to them.
STAFF: Last question.
Q Is the Senate onboard? Is Mr. Inouye prepared to put in money onboard for the war?
REP. OBEY: We've simply talked about what we're doing on the supplemental and Jack can deal with the pleasures of the Senate on this bill.
STAFF: Thank you.
Source