Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-TX, of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released the following statement on the unclassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear program, released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence today:
Today’s National Intelligence Estimate on Iran reflects a remarkable shift in our Intelligence Community’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions.
Just two years ago, the Intelligence Community believed that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons. Today’s document indicates that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been halted since 2003 – although it continues to enrich uranium and may be keeping open the option of developing a nuclear weapon in the future.
This estimate indicates that Iran may be responsive to the international pressure it has received as a result of its flagrant refusal to adhere to Security Council resolutions. I strongly urge President Bush to pursue a clear-eyed, serious diplomatic effort, with both carrots and sticks, to prevent Iran from restarting its nuclear weapons program. We must not lose sight of this threat.
Stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon must be one of the highest priorities of the United States and the international community. Iran is the world’s preeminent state sponsor of terrorism, and there are indications that the Al Quds force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps has assisted insurgents in lethal activity against U.S. forces in Iraq.
In the coming days, the Intelligence Committee will be briefed on the full classified estimate. I will be asking several questions. First, I will want to be fully informed about the classified sources upon which this estimate is based. Second, I will want to review areas where certain agencies dissent. Third, I will seek to understand why Iran suspended its program and what can be done in the future to prevent Iran from restarting it.
Congressman Joe Sestak (PA-7), a member of the Armed Services Committee, delivered the Democratic Radio Address this morning. In his address, Congressman Sestak discusses the New Direction Congress’ efforts to care for our veterans, as our nation honors their sacrifices on Veterans Day on Sunday. Rep. Sestak states, “today, our troops serving overseas in two wars – and their families – represent less than one 1 percent of our nation’s 300 million citizens as they carry the burden of the current conflicts. It is therefore not only critical that Congress is working for a new direction in Iraq, but also that we recognize that the people in uniform today look to us to see how we relate to our veterans, which they will soon become. That is why the Democrats in Congress are working together with the President to see that veterans – aging and young – and their families receive the benefits they need and deserve.” Listen to the address>>
Full transcript:
“Good morning, I am Congressman Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania. I am a former three-star Admiral who was fortunate to have served this nation in the fury of war and the challenges of peace for 31 years in our Navy. I am also the son of a Navy Captain who fought in World War II.
“Today, I would like to talk to you about all of those who have worn the ‘cloth of this nation’ and the covenant that our country has to care for our veterans who have ensured that America would always remain worthy of its ideals.
“What has made our veterans’ profession so special is that it has the ‘dignity of danger’ in a common cause where there is a higher purpose to life than oneself. There is a painting that hangs in the Pentagon that depicts a serviceman with his family in church. Clearly, he is praying before a deployment and long separation. Below the painting is a quote from Isaiah in which God asks, ‘Whom shall I send; who will go for us?’ And Isaiah replies, ‘Here am I; send me.’ Every veteran has said, ‘Here am I, America, send me.’
“And in doing so, they have become part of a special brotherhood, where serving together forms a bond that stands the eternal test of time, with a memory that also finds the grandest sepulcher of all – a home in the hearts of brave men and women. But our solemn obligation to our veterans for the service they gave goes well beyond this memory.
“Today, Americans are fighting two wars with casualty rates far higher and tours of duty far longer than the planners of those conflicts ever estimated, and with our returning veterans facing increased challenges from health care and educational needs to job opportunities. At the same time, our World War II, Korean, Vietnam and first Gulf War veterans are faced with medical challenges and expenses that they could not have anticipated, and a new study out this week found that one in four of our nation’s homeless is a veteran.
“Tomorrow is Veterans Day, a special opportunity not only to reflect on the sacrifices of those who have served us nobly, but to ensure that our veterans are honored by action as well as remembrance for the freedoms they and their families have earned for us all.
“Today, our troops serving overseas in two wars – and their families – represent less than one 1 percent of our nation’s 300 million citizens as they carry the burden of the current conflicts. It is therefore not only critical that Congress is working for a new direction in Iraq, but also that we recognize that the people in uniform today look to us to see how we relate to our veterans, which they will soon become. That is why the Democrats in Congress are working together with the President to see that veterans – aging and young – and their families receive the benefits they need and deserve.
“The New Direction Congress has supported landmark legislation to increase the Veterans budget by $6.7 billion dollars – the largest single increase in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration. And there is a $4.4 billion dollar increase in Veterans medical care, including $600 million additional dollars for new initiatives for mental health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
“Each war is different: our World War II veterans were in combat on average for six months – in the most horrific of battles – with some dwell time in between for physical and mental rest. Today, our soldiers and Marines in Iraq go ‘outside the wire’ into combat every day for 15 straight months, with many returning for several tours. That is why 17 percent of service members returning from the war have experienced Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and over one third of returning veterans suffer from a mental health problem like depression or anxiety – and why Congress acted.
“Democrats have also expanded resources for traumatic brain injury and research and rehabilitation, while extending from two to four years, following discharge from the military, the eligibility period to receive medical care by the Veterans Administration. And we added thousands of VA case workers to reduce unconscionable delays in getting veterans the care they need.
“Our service members are a national treasure that stir our hearts and spur our conscious by their actions. And as veterans, this ‘band of brothers’ remains a national treasure, having put their lives and their faith in America. In return, we must continue to keep faith with them. That is why the Democratic Congress is keeping our covenant to care for our veterans and their families.
“I am Congressman Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District. Thank you very much for listening.”
Today at 10:00 a.m. the House Budget Committee is holding a hearing entitled, “The Growing Budgetary Costs of the Iraq War.” Dr. Peter Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, Amy Belasco, Congressional Research Service and Professor Linda Bilmes, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University will be testifying.
WASHINGTON — The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate scheduled for release Wednesday.
A previous CBO estimate put the wars’ costs at more than $1.6 trillion. This one adds $705 billion in interest, taking into account that the conflicts are being funded with borrowed money.
The new estimate also includes President Bush’s request Monday for another $46 billion in war funding, said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., budget committee chairman, who provided the CBO’s new numbers to USA TODAY.
Assuming that Iraq accounts for about 80% of that total, the Iraq war would cost $1.9 trillion, including $564 million in interest, said Thomas Kahn, Spratt’s staff director. The committee holds a hearing on war costs this morning.
“The number is so big, it boggles the mind,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.
Sean Kevelighan, a spokesman for the White House budget office, said, “Congress should stop playing politics with our troops by trying to artificially inflate war funding levels.” He declined to provide a White House estimate.
The CBO estimates assume that 75,000 troops will remain in both countries through 2017, including roughly 50,000 in Iraq. That is a “very speculative” projection, though it’s not entirely unreasonable, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the non-partisan Lexington Institute.
As of Sept. 30, the two wars have cost $604 billion, the CBO says. Adjusted for inflation, that is higher than the costs of the Korea and Vietnam conflicts, according to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Defense spending during those two wars accounted for a far larger share of the American economy.
In the months before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost no more than $50 billion.
$2.4 trillion is enough to:
· Provide every college freshman in the country with a free, four year education at a private college or university
· Provide health care coverage to every American for one year
· Pay off 26% of our current national debt
Chairman John Spratt gives opening remarks:
Chairman Spratt: “The cumulative cost by 2017 could be an astounding $1.7 trillion. While these costs are enormous, they omit any calculation of interest on the funding borrowed for war operations. And since the government has run substantial deficits from 2003 through 2007, and since future borrowing to some extent can be expected, interest needs to be imputed to the total cost of the war. This expense, as I said, has previously been omitted, but if included, according to CBO, interest cumulatively could be as much $705 billion by 2017. Added to direct costs… the total cost could reach $2.4 trillion by 2017.”
Chairman John Spratt questions CBO Director Dr. Peter Orszag on whether the Department of Defense has challenged the CBO’s calculations previously:
Chairman Spratt: “Have you, in the past when you’ve done this, received any criticism from the Department of Defense, or have there been specific objections made to specific forecasts that you’ve produced by DOD?” Orszag: “To my knowledge, there was one incident in which there was some criticism, but I believe that the facts have proven us to be correct, and that had to do with the size, and therefore the cost of the so-called surge that has occurred this year. We put out an analysis earlier this year trying to delineate the potential size of that given the number of brigades that the Administration had identified as being involved in it, and there was some Administration criticism of those figures. But as the facts have turned out, I believe our analysis has proven to be correct.”
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-25) questions the curious absence of Republican Members of Congress at the hearing:
Rep. Doggett: “I assume, by Mr. Ryan being here, that every member of this panel, including every Republican member on that side of the aisle where all the seats are vacant, received notice about this hearing about the cost of war in Iraq?” Chairman Spratt: “I’m sure they did.” Rep. Doggett: “And when was this notice of the hearing sent out?” Chairman Spratt: “Seven days ago, as required by the rules.”
Rep. Lloyd Doggett questions CBO Director Dr. Peter Orszag:
Rep. Doggett: “I’m sure you recall that when the President’s top economist, Lawrence Lindsey, suggested that perhaps the initial White House figure of $50 billion for the total cost over all time for the war in Iraq might be off a little bit, they found him another job outside the administration. If I understand the burn figures, as they’re referred to, presently, we currently spend in about four months in Iraq what the White House told the American people initially would be the cost of the total war. Is that about right?” Orszag:“We’re spending roughly… $11 billion a month” Rep. Doggett: “We had an estimate of $12 billion from witnesses this summer from the Pentagon, but perhaps five months, or almost five months…”
Rep. Dennis Moore (KS-03) questions CBO Director Dr. Peter Orszag on military readiness:
Rep. Moore: “But there are other costs to the states and the readiness potentially in the future, would that also be a fair statement?” Orszag:“And let me just hone in on readiness. There’s no question, the military has set a sort of norm that there should be two units at home for every unit deployed abroad for regular readiness purposes and training and what have you, and we are nowhere near that. We’re somewhere close to one for one, with ranges between .75 and 1.5 in terms of units at home relative to deployed abraod, and that is an unsustainable situation.”
Chairman Jerry Costello of the Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation and a senior member of the House Science and Technology and the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, today issued the following statement in response to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) refusal to release the data from a cancelled study of aviation safety:
“NASA’s stated reason for not releasing this survey – that it is protecting the financial interests of the commercial aviation industry – is outrageous and demands further explanation and an immediate release of the data. The study and NASA are funded by the American people, and I have often said that the safety of the traveling public must be our number one priority. I will be working closely with Chairmen Oberstar (D-MN), Gordon (D-TN) and Miller (D-NC) to get answers to the many questions raised by how NASA has handled this matter.”
An unprecedented national survey of pilots by the U.S. government has found that safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than previously recognized. But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits.
NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million federal safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since shutting down the project more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge its survey data publicly.
The House speaker’s Portland forum on global warming can only add to the momentum for change
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s stinging criticism of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies grabbed all the headlines, and rightly so, upon her quick visit to Portland this week.
But the secondary story, the global warming forum that brought her to Oregon, is noteworthy, too — not for any splashy pronouncements or revelations, but for what her visit meant for Oregonians and the nation as a whole.
First, and most obviously, her appearance provided an inescapable display of the newfound clout of Rep. Earl Blumenauer, the Democrat representing Portland’s 3rd Congressional District. After a decade serving in a Congress controlled by Republicans, Blumenauer showed Wednesday he now has what it takes to get the most powerful woman in Washington, D.C., to travel to Portland and listen attentively to what Oregonians are doing about global warming.
Appropriately, Rep. Darlene Hooley, D-Ore., participated in the forum, too, as a member of the House Energy-Commerce and Science-Technology committees. But Portland is Blumenauer’s turf, and he was clearly the ringmaster at the green-energy show put on for Pelosi.
The 10-term congresswoman from San Francisco identified Blumenauer years ago as a kindred spirit on many issues. And last winter, one of her first acts after being named speaker-designate was the appointment of Blumenauer to the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which has broad jurisdiction over tax and trade issues.
Later, she picked Blumenauer as one of nine Democrats on her new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Last May the two of them and other panel members traveled to Greenland, Germany and Belgium to talk with leaders and scientists about ways of cutting carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases.
So there she was Wednesday at the Oregon Convention Center for an hour of brief presentations by Portland-area politicians, developers, business executives, agency directors and environmental advocates. Pelosi nodded appreciatively as she heard about new Oregon laws calling for greater use of renewable energy, about the role of street cars in encouraging high-density development, about the city’s successful promotion of bicycle commuting and about Portland’s cutting-edge work on energy-efficient “green” construction.
Pelosi had been to Portland a number of times previously and had already seen the city’s developing transportation alternatives to the automobile, so there was no tour on Wednesday’s agenda. But her brief exposure to Oregonians who are actually getting the job done was a first for the House speaker.
“This is very invigorating to me,” Pelosi said, and quite convincingly, as the program ended.
Not bad words to hear from a leader who can actually help change this nation’s shortsighted energy policies.
Congressman Tom Lantos (CA-12), Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, delivered the Democratic Radio Address this morning.
In his address, Chairman Lantos discusses President Bush’s failed policies in Iraq and the need for a New Direction saying, “to win the war against international terrorism, we must stop frittering away our resources – military, diplomatic, and economic – on an endless religious war in Iraq. With its TV ads, the President’s address, and every other available means, the Administration is pulling out all the stops to make the case to ‘stay the course’ for an endless war in Iraq. We all heard the President on Thursday night. We can expect the Administration to continue asking for more money, more patience, and more sacrifices from our troops - all in the belief that our continued intervention in Iraq will eventually bear fruit. But this approach is not a strategy. And Americans’ patience with this war has run out…We need to get out of Iraq, for that country’s sake as well as our own.”
Listen:
Transcript:
Good morning. This is Congressman Tom Lantos of California, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Two of our nation’s most capable public servants came before Congress this week to report on the situation in Iraq. We assured them of our esteem for their professionalism. We emphasized that Americans admire the heroism of our men and women in uniform and the dedication of our diplomatic corps in Iraq, and we fully understand the terrible burden placed on their families.
But when the Administration sent them to speak with Congress, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were given an impossible task: to restore credibility to a discredited policy. We and the American people already know that the situation in Iraq is grim, and the growing majority of this Congress and of the American people want our troops out.
The Administration’s myopic policies in Iraq are deeply flawed. So is it any wonder that on the subject of Iraq, more and more Americans have little confidence in this Administration? We can no longer take their assertions on Iraq at face value. And their latest assessment of the situation there contrasts sharply with the deeply pessimistic reports of the non-partisan Government Accountability Office and the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq headed by retired Marine Corps General James Jones.
Strategically, the escalation has failed. It was intended to buy time for Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and the other Iraqi political leaders to find ways to move toward the one thing that may end this terrible civil conflict - a political settlement. As best we can see, that time has been utterly squandered. Prime Minister Maliki has not shown the slightest inclination to move in the direction of compromise.
Instead of working to build national institutions - a truly Iraqi army, a competent bureaucracy, a non-sectarian police force - Maliki has moved in the opposite direction. Instead of acting as a leader for Iraq as a whole, he has functioned as the front man for Shiite partisans. And he has presided over a Shiite coalition that includes some of the most notorious militias, death squads, and sectarian thugs in Iraq.
In Iraq today, we are ruining our military, forcing their families to suffer needlessly, and sacrificing the lives of American men and women in uniform. The enormous financial cost of this war is limiting our ability to address our global security interests, such as the unfinished hunt for the perpetrators of the attacks on our country six years ago.
To win the war against international terrorism, we must stop frittering away our resources – military, diplomatic, and economic – on an endless religious war in Iraq. With its TV ads, the President’s address, and every other available means, the Administration is pulling out all the stops to make the case to ‘stay the course’ for an endless war in Iraq.
The war is also forcing us to give short shrift to pressing domestic needs such as health care, crumbling infrastructure, and public education. These costs will be passed on to our grandchildren, and beyond.
We all heard the President on Thursday night. We can expect the Administration to continue asking for more money, more patience, and more sacrifices from our troops - all in the belief that our continued intervention in Iraq will eventually bear fruit. But this approach is not a strategy. And Americans’ patience with this war has run out.
The United States needs a new direction in its policy on Iraq. The situation calls for a change of course. We need to get out of Iraq, for that country’s sake as well as our own.
This is Congressman Tom Lantos. Thank you for listening.
Thursday, September 13th, 2007 by Office of the Speaker
U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), a former Army Ranger and a member of the Armed Services Committee, will give the official Democratic response of the House and Senate to President Bush’s address to the nation tonight on the war in Iraq.
Congressman Silvestre Reyes of Texas, a Vietnam combat veteran and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, will give the Spanish language response to President Bush’s speech.
WHO: Senator Jack Reed, Senior Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
WHEN: Today, Thursday, September 13, 2007, following the President’s remarks
President will pull out 30,000 troops, but Democrat scoffs
President Bush will tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer.
Bush will endorse the recommendations of his top general and top diplomat in Iraq, following their appearance at hearings in Congress.
The president will say he understands Americans’ deep concerns. Bush will continue by saying that, after hearing from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, he has decided to reduce the U.S. military presence but not abandon Iraq to chaos.
Bush will place more conditions on reductions than his general did, insisting that conditions on the ground must warrant cuts and that events could change the plan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Bush appears poised to bring the country back to where it was before the election that put Democrats in control of Congress — with 130,000 troops in Iraq. ”Please. It’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people that that is a new direction in Iraq,” she said.
In an exclusive interview, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sat down with “Good Morning America’s” Robin Roberts on Capitol Hill to discuss the war in Iraq, America’s shortcomings and what she plans to do to bring it all to a safe, swift end.
Pelosi stressed that a deployment of troops out of Iraq should happen as soon as possible.
“[The war] has been executed in a way that has not been worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform,” she said.
It’s time to bring them home because, if nothing else, it’s what the American people want, she said, and she is prepared to hold President Bush accountable on their behalf.
Pelosi met with the president following Gen. David Petraeus’ testimony on progress in Iraq, but they found little common ground.
“I am asking him to give an explanation to the American people as to why our country should be engaged in a war without end, at least a 10 year commitment in Iraq,” Pelosi said.
It’s an explanation, she said, the president owes the people as well as the government that follows him. “In terms of the war, it’s clear that this president is going to leave this war into the hands of a new president,” she said.
Pelosi’s plan to withdraw troops from Iraq is decidedly different from the suggestions outlined in Petraeus’ testimony regarding the end of the war.
“Gen. Petraeus made it clear the choice is for a responsible redeployment, drawing down of our forces out of Iraq in the near term for a 10-year or more commitment to a war without end. That’s where he is. We are someplace else,” Pelosi said.
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) scored some major wins in the final few weeks before the recess, including pushing through a major rewrite of congressional ethics and lobbying laws, legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations and an energy reform bill that includes new taxes on oil companies while giving tax breaks for renewable fuels and conservation. The House also adopted its version of all 12 annual spending bills, including the $459 billion Defense appropriations bill, which was approved late Saturday night by a 395-13 margin.”
“‘They can send their Members home crowing about their accomplishments, and they’ve done it in a bipartisan way, which is exactly what they promised to do,’ [Rep. Ray] LaHood (R-Ill) said.”
“Democrats who control Congress headed into a summer recess having passed several high-profile bills from raising the minimum wage to bolstering U.S. security and expanding children’s health care. Their top priority — ending the Iraq war — remains frustratingly unfulfilled. But the Democrats who took over in January were able to go home early on Sunday for a month-long break having won more support in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for bringing combat troops home by early next year, marking a significant turnaround from last year.”
“Some nonpartisan observers agreed Democrats had reason to boast. ‘Democrats have had a good run legislatively over the past few weeks and that does help them going into the recess,’ said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.”
“Congress’s Democratic majority made major strides toward implementing its domestic agenda before going home, but will face a large hurdle when lawmakers return at summer’s end: President Bush. Farm, lobbying reform, energy, education and child health insurance bills all advanced in a volatile 10-day march before the recess, establishing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a legislative player.”
“Besides their success on increasing the federal minimum wage, ethics and lobbying, and the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendations, Democrats have moved forward with initiatives to expand health insurance for children through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and to shift U.S. energy policy away from reliance on fossil fuels…they have helped focus the war debate on the question of when, not if, U.S. forces will begin pulling out.”
“I have long been and continue to be an advocate of congressional oversight as a fundamental element of our system of government. I also have publicly expressed my belief that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive, appropriate and necessary.”
“They did however chalk up a string of domestic goals, raising the minimum wage, enshrined into law the recommendations of the commission into the September 11 attacks in 2001, passed an ethics bill, improved healthcare for children and passed energy reforms.”
“… Pelosi outlined a domestic policy agenda so elegant in its symmetrical pursuit of both long-range change (an attack on global warming) and lunch-bucket progress (a bumper crop of ‘green-collar jobs’ to be created from investing in new energy technologies) that you begin to believe she is of a rare species among practiced Washington hands: That is, her political instincts come from somewhere well beyond the Beltway.”
Yesterday, Speaker Pelosi released the following statement on the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minnesota:
“The thoughts and prayers of all House members are with the families and friends of those lost in last evening’s tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis. While nothing can assuage their grief, I hope it is some comfort that so many are praying for them in this difficult time.
“I wish to express my appreciation for the work of the first responders who rushed to assist those injured in this catastrophe. With little thought of their own safety, these brave men and women acted quickly and effectively, as they always do, to rescue those injured and to prevent further loss of life. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their service.
“I want to thank Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar for his leadership in working to provide immediate assistance to the state of Minnesota in the wake of this disaster. This week, the House will pass his emergency legislation to provide emergency funds for the repair and replacement of the Interstate 35W bridge and to help the Twin Cities area cope with the loss of a major transportation route. The bill authorizes up to $250 million for this purpose.”
Today, the House will consider H.R. 3311, authorizing additional funds for emergency repairs and reconstruction of the Interstate I–35 bridge located in Minneapolis, waiving the $100,000,000 limitation on emergency relief funds for those emergency repairs and reconstruction.