[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24691-24695]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Musgrave). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Delahunt) is recognized for the remaining time until midnight as 
the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, before the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) leaves, I want to convey to him my own confidence 
that there will be many Democrats, his colleagues on this side of the 
aisle, that will support the common sense amendment, the Rohrabacher 
amendment, rather than a give-away of American tax dollars.
  There has to be an insistence that the funding provided in terms of 
the reconstruction phase is money that will be paid back with interest 
to the American people. Because he might be unaware, but this 
supplemental that is before us now, this $87 billion is not $87 
billion. That is the principal. $87 billion. And it has been calculated 
by respected authorities, it will cost each year the American taxpayer 
some $4 billion in interest. So add that on, add that on to the $87 
billion that we will be voting on tomorrow.
  Now, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has done some work. Just that $4 
billion, not the $87 billion that represents the principal, that means 
that, as I said, on a permanent basis we will be spending over $4 
billion a year just to cover the interest payments that this 
supplemental will be required of us and future generations.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a 
moment? I appreciate the expressions of support. And if we can help 
improve this even a little bit by that portion of the bill dealing with 
reconstruction, I think that it will at least make these a little bit 
better.
  I would hope that those people who are listening or reading this in 
the newspaper would be calling their Congressman and let the people 
know that the Rohrabacher amendment is something that we know is in the 
deep interest of the American people and that we need to stand up for 
the American people sometimes.

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I think it is so important to understand 
that it has bipartisan support, and that we are working here tonight in 
a bipartisan fashion to represent the best interests of the American 
people.
  The American people, as the gentleman has enumerated during the 
course of his remarks these past 45 minutes, are a generous people. But 
there comes a point in time, particularly as we look at a $500 billion 
deficit, that we have to say, enough is enough. Because generations of 
Americans will find that their economy will suffer because we know that 
the deficit and the debt becomes a drag on the economy. If there should 
be a recovery that is sustained, I fear that it will be short term.
  I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him tomorrow.
  That $4 billion a year, just on the interest payments, to put it in 
perspective, it is more than we currently spend each year on research 
for Alzheimer's disease, autism, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, 
prostate cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, 
multiple sclerosis, and all forms of kidney diseases combined. 
Combined.
  Where are our priorities? Where are our interests? What about those 
Americans that suffer from these dreadful, in some cases deadly, 
diseases?
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I think it is appropriate that the 
gentleman points out the neglect of the needs that are right here at 
home and the fact that the President frequently talks about forcing 
Congress to restrain spending, but yet he is so willing to ask us to 
spend so much in Iraq. And the gentleman mentioned all of these dreaded 
diseases, and that is appropriate; but I also think it is appropriate 
for American people to understand that when the VA/HUD appropriations 
bill was dealt with in this Chamber just a couple of weeks ago, that 
when we passed that bill, VA health care was underfunded by $1.8 
billion.
  Now, think of that. Compare underfunding VA health care by $1.8 
billion because the President and the leadership of this House says, 
well, we just simply cannot afford to provide this level of health care 
for our veterans, less than $2 billion. And yet they are so willing to 
come to this Chamber and to ask us to spend $87 billion in addition to 
the $65 billion that we have already appropriated for Iraq. That just 
seems incongruous to me that we would have that kind of leadership.
  Now, this past week I was in my home town of Portsmouth, Ohio, and I 
was there with the National Commanders of the AMVETS at an AMVETS 
meeting hall; and I was talking with many of those veterans, and I want 
to state that they were upset. They talk about the underfunding of VA 
health care; they talk about the fact that the administration is trying 
to increase the cost of prescription drugs for their medicines; that 
the President has asked that they pay a $250 annual enrollment fee to 
participate in the VA health care system; that many veterans, some of 
them combat decorated veterans who are being totally excluded from VA 
health care because they are being considered higher income and they 
can earn as little as $24,000 a year and be considered higher income.
  And yet we nickel and dime the veteran and are so willing to ask for 
huge sums of money to build roads and bridges and schools and hospitals 
and prisons and medical clinics and to establish phone systems and cell 
phone capability in Iraq, and we are shortchanging the American people.
  We are especially shortchanging our veterans. That just simply does 
not make sense to me.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I want to concur with my friend from 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland). I think the most egregious aspect of this war 
supplemental submission is the fact that American veterans have been 
left out. The gentleman indicated that not only are deductibles being 
raised, not only are co-payments being insisted upon for prescription 
drugs, but that a substantial number of veterans are now so-called 
priority 8 veterans, which means that they make over $24,000 a year and 
are denied access to the veterans health care system. That is 
unconscionable.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, it puzzles me. I do not understand why 
the President and the leadership in this House do not just solve this 
problem. It is so easy for them to ask for $87 billion for Iraq; it 
should be a no-brainer, quite frankly. They should decide tomorrow that 
they are going to add this $1.8 billion. If we had an additional $1.8 
billion in the VA budget, we would not have to increase co-payments on 
drugs. We would not have to impose an enrollment fee. We would not have 
to exclude priority 8 veterans from care. We would not have to do any 
of these things if we had sufficient funding for VA health care.
  How can those who are so willing to boast of their support for our 
military be so callous, so unfeeling when it comes to the men and the 
women who have fought our past wars, who have borne the battle and who 
are now in need? It just puzzles me that why is it so easy to ask for 
$87 billion on top of the $65 billion that has already been 
appropriated, and yet they nickel and dime the veterans and refuse to 
add the $1.8 billion.
  I want to state, and the gentleman is aware of this, I am sure, the 
veterans groups in this country know what is going on. The DAV, the 
Paralyzed Veterans, the American Legion, the Vietnam Vets, the AMVETS, 
all of these vets. I have met with them. I am on the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs. They have been before our committee.

[[Page 24692]]

Every last one of these veterans organizations are asking that we 
restore $1.8 billion.
  It is unconscionable, it is unconscionable that those of us who serve 
in this House would refuse to do what needs to be done for veterans 
health care and be so willing to just go into the pockets of the 
American taxpayer and take out $87 billion and use it for Iraq. It just 
does not make sense to me.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If we could just juxtapose these two pictures. As these 
young men and women get on an American naval vessel and go to war, the 
bands are playing, there is confetti, there are waves, there is our 
flag, there is our political leadership applauding them; and yet when 
they return and assume that honored title ``veteran,'' we disrespect 
them, dishonor them; and we have broken our promises to them again and 
again and again.
  The most dishonored, disrespected group who deserves our ultimate 
gratitude in this country is the American veteran. And as the gentleman 
has so well put it, we are ignoring them. I do not know if anyone who 
has this information could vote for this supplemental, including this 
gift to Iraq, and not insist that the American veterans' health needs 
be met.

                              {time}  2330

  My colleague mentioned earlier about deductibles. I know the 
gentleman knows because of his service on the Committee on Veterans 
Affairs, and because of his work with veterans all over this country, 
that there is a long waiting list to get an appointment in veterans 
health care centers, whether it be primary care or even veterans 
hospitals.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it is 
not only veterans who are being neglected, but those who support this 
$87 billion supplemental and the President, this administration, they 
are trying to say to us, if you oppose this, then you are not 
supporting our troops, and I say balderdash. There is absolutely no 
truth to that.
  The fact is that right now, right now this very night, as my 
colleague and I are standing here in this chamber of the House of 
Representatives, there are young soldiers in Iraq who are in danger 
because they do not have adequate protective vests. It is estimated 
that about 44,000 American soldiers this very moment are in Iraq, and 
they have Vietnam-era vests that cannot protect them from bullets. Why 
is that? It is because this Pentagon, this administration did not make 
it a priority.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. The civilian leadership.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. The civilian leadership, not the military. It is the 
civilian leadership, and we had months to prepare for this war. There 
were months during which we knew that war was likely to occur before 
the actual conflict started.
  General Myers has said recently, wait a minute, this is not a matter 
of money, this is a matter of production. We just cannot simply get 
these vests produced rapidly enough, and so our soldiers will not 
receive these until December, but he is saying that after they were 
exposed. If the public had not achieved knowledge that these soldiers 
were being unprotected, they would not be trying to get these vests 
made for the soldiers. It was only after they were exposed.
  In May, I received a letter from a young soldier saying that I and 
all of my men have the vests that will not stop bullets, and we have 
had stories of moms and dads taking money out of their own pockets and 
buying these protective equipment and sending them to Iraq and young 
soldiers literally duct taping them to their bodies because they do not 
have the proper vests to hold these ceramic inserts. That is quite 
shameful.
  I do not want anyone in this administration lecturing me about my 
concern for our troops. I would spend the last dollar available to this 
government to protect our soldiers, but I will not support a policy 
that is flawed.
  I see we have been joined by the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. 
Inslee) as well.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Another member of the Iraq Watch. We are usually led by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), but I am sure something 
has come up so we have a truncated version tonight, but I want to 
welcome the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Before I yield to him, I want my colleague to know that yesterday I 
met with families of a detachment of the Massachusetts National Guard 
who explained to me the concern that they have for their husbands and 
their sons and daughters because of exactly what my colleague is 
saying. One mother went out and bought a Kevlar body armor piece for 
$900. I would think that anyone hearing us tonight is just simply 
incredulous that this is the case, and then had to pay, had to pay to 
have it shipped through the post office some $500, and my colleague is 
right. Do not ever tell anyone in this House that we do not support the 
troops.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, if my friend would yield for a moment, 
we all support the troops. There is not a Member of this chamber that 
does not care about the young Americans, and some of them are middle-
aged because they are reservists and National Guard. They are moms and 
dads and people who are serving us this very night, not only in Iraq 
but in Afghanistan and in other dangerous places around this world. We 
honor them. We love them for their service to this great country, but 
what we are talking about here is a policy that is flawed, and we are 
talking about the need to bring some common sense and sanity to the way 
we support our troops and the way we spend the American tax dollar.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. When they come home, to honor them and to respect them 
and provide them with adequate health care coverage, and they are not 
receiving it now.
  Let me suggest, those that speak of patriotism and indulge in 
rhetoric about America, they are not serving America, and they, in my 
opinion, are unpatriotic until they come before this House with the 
appropriate resources to fully fund veterans health care in America.
  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that segue and why I came to 
the floor tonight to talk about the sad fact that we, and I am from the 
State of Washington, are hearing story after story after story about 
how our troops are not getting the tools they need to do the job and 
how their families are not receiving the benefits they need to keep the 
home fires burning while particularly these reservists and Guard men 
and women are in these extended duties, and that is what I wanted to 
focus on.
  Every Member of Congress I think has heard from mothers and fathers 
of troops. I met with a group of reservists, wives and mothers and 
fathers and husbands last weekend, and the story I heard about was of a 
mother who is a nurse who had to go out and herself buy medicine for 
the troops that her son, who is a medic in the Army, the Army simply 
was not providing. She had to actually ship over medicine disguised as 
brownies or food or something to her troops to get this kind of stuff 
to them. We heard story after story of that.
  In a grander scale, on a macro scale, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) indicated, we need to have a significant 
restructuring to provide the health care and benefits. We are going to 
have to improve or we are not going to have a reserve force. We are not 
going to have a meaningful National Guard force because the families 
that I have been talking to are going to be making some different 
career decisions if we do not start to cut the mustard.
  Now, as a result of that, I offered an amendment today in the 
Committee on Rules to significantly improve the health care situation 
for reservists so that they could buy into TRICARE or Uncle Sam would 
essentially continue their employer-paid programs for at least 6 months 
after their deployment. This would be a significant benefit to

[[Page 24693]]

families in the reserve because they will say at least we are going to 
be able to continue our existing level of coverage for the whole family 
during these extended family deployments. It is not just a year 
anymore. It is 18 months for a lot of these folks because they changed 
the rules on what is an in-country deployment.
  This is a Democrat offering this amendment. We are going to hear a 
lot of people suggesting we are not supporting the troops because we 
are raising issues about this policy, but this amendment was not 
allowed for a vote on the floor here. I offered an amendment that would 
allow us to vote on this floor to give reservists better health care, 
and the Republican majority would not allow even a vote on this effort 
to improve reservists' health care, and I think that is a failure not 
only for the families which have a big dog in this hunt but in our 
military security force structure. We are going to have to do these 
kinds of things or we are just going to have people leaving the 
reserves and the National Guard in significant numbers.
  The second issue, I will be joining the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) who will be offering an amendment to take a little bit of money 
out of the Iraq reconstruction fund and put it where it belongs, which 
is a pay increase for these folks fighting this battle, and this is 
appropriate given the extraordinary nature of this extended deployment, 
and it should have been done in the first instance. I hope the majority 
party will join us in improving the lot of our soldiers on the line.
  The third issue, and I just want to mention this briefly before I 
yield, there is a huge irresponsibility in this plan that the President 
has presented. The irresponsibility is while these soldiers are risking 
all in Iraq, who are sacrificing their time, their limbs, their lives, 
the President of the United States has not asked folks to sacrifice a 
little bit to pay for this war and instead wants people on Social 
Security, essentially in the trust fund, to pay because every single 
last dollar of this money he is taking out of the Social Security trust 
fund to pay for this war, instead of asking for a small sacrifice to 
perhaps delay or defer the tax cuts for people earning over $300,000.

                              {time}  2340

  Now, is that too much sacrifice to ask, people earning $300,000, when 
our kids and our husbands and our wives are serving in Iraq?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, if my friend would yield, the 
President talks about the fact that we are not going to cut and run, 
that we are going to stand strong and that we are going to sacrifice to 
pursue this war on terror. The only people sacrificing, with due 
respect to the President, the only people sacrificing are the soldiers 
in Iraq and the loved ones back here at home, and the children in our 
country who are being given the bill to pay for all of this. Those are 
the people who are sacrificing.
  The President is not sacrificing. I am not sacrificing. No Member of 
this House of Representatives is sacrificing. No Senator is 
sacrificing. We are continuing to draw our salaries and enjoying 
whatever benefits are coming to us. We are not sacrificing, but we are 
using Social Security trust fund monies. We are increasing the debt. 
And that debt has to be paid sometime in the future, and the children 
in this country are being given this huge burden.
  Now, the President says he wants to build schools in Iraq. I care 
about children everywhere, but if we are going to build schools in 
Iraq, let us pay for those schools now. He wants to build schools in 
Iraq, and he wants to give the bill to America's kids.
  He wants to build hospitals in Iraq, and he wants America's children 
to pay for it sometime in the future. They want to build two big 
prisons in Iraq, two 4,000-bed prisons. They are asking for $410 
million to build these two prisons, and we could build those two 
prisons in this country for an estimated $113 million.
  So with all due respect to the President, when he talks about our 
willingness to sacrifice, he is not asking anyone to sacrifice except 
the kids, the old people who depend upon Social Security, and the 
soldiers and their families. He is not asking Members of Congress to 
sacrifice. He is not asking his rich wealthy friends to sacrifice.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Madam Speaker, he is certainly not asking the 
lobbyists on K Street to sacrifice. He is certainly not asking a select 
group of businesses in this country to sacrifice.
  I found it particularly interesting that back on September 30, in an 
article in The Washington Post, it was announced that a group of 
businessmen, linked by their close ties to President Bush, his family 
and his administration, had set up a consulting firm to advise 
companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking 
pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects.
  I am sure my colleagues are aware, but I guess this firm is headed by 
Joe Albaugh, who happened to be Mr. Bush's campaign manager back in the 
year 2000 and served as the head of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency until last March. So one can only imagine that the $87 billion 
is not going to create jobs for Americans.
  And I think our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), made a very good point. It is not even going to create 
jobs for Iraqis. It is going to create jobs that will benefit a very 
select few in our country.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, if my friend will yield once again, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is a Republican 
and a strong supporter of the President usually, is going to offer an 
amendment tomorrow to have at least a large portion of this $87 billion 
given in loans instead of grants. Now, the President says, oh, we 
cannot do that because we cannot put this great debt burden on the 
Iraqi people.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But we can put it on the American people.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. But the President is putting it on America's 
children. I mean it is a puzzle to me. This is strange thinking, that 
we are willing to pile debt upon America's kids and we are not willing 
to expect Iraq, with these huge oil reserves, to bear some of the 
burden.
  And, remember, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz told the Senate 
in March of this year that Iraq was such a wealthy country that they 
would be able to finance, in most part, their entire reconstruction. He 
said that in March.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. What has happened since March? Maybe one of my 
colleagues can inform us.
  Mr. INSLEE. Well, Madam Speaker, what has happened is that many 
misstatements have been laid bare to the American people, and that is 
why the American people are demanding Congress ask the questions we are 
constitutionally obligated to ask about this program. And we will not 
be dissuaded by those who will simply try to demagogue this issue by 
saying that we are not supporting the troops. We are the ones who want 
to improve the troops' pay grades; we are the ones who want to make 
sure that, in fact, this gets paid.
  I want to make one point also. This debate tomorrow is not going to 
be about whether or not we continue to fulfill a responsibility in 
Iraq, because there is bipartisan consensus that we have some 
responsibility in Iraq; and anybody who says otherwise, well, that is 
just a red herring. But what we are saying is, let us not repeat the 
errors that a Democratic President made in the 1960s of deciding to try 
to fight a war on the cheap and saying we can have both guns and butter 
and create these enormous deficits.
  Now, it is the same as what happened in the 1960s here. This is going 
to create enormous deficits. There is a little difference, though. At 
least in the 1960s it was our butter. Now it is going to be the Iraqis' 
butter that Americans are going into debt to pay. Now, maybe some of 
that has to happen by the vicissitudes of fate we find ourselves in, 
but we should not repeat the mistake of the 1960s that ended up with a 
horrendous deficit going through the roof in the 1970s.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam speaker, if my colleague will yield, someone 
said that this is not a debate about

[[Page 24694]]

guns and butter; it is a debate between our butter and their butter. 
And there is some truth to that. But on a very serious note, I said 
something in the Chamber earlier this evening, and I want to repeat it.
  I deeply resent, I deeply resent those who would use our troops as 
leverage, those who would use our troops as hostages in order to 
extract from this Congress an agreement to spend $87 billion in Iraq. 
All of us support our troops, but this President and this leadership 
will not allow us to have separate votes on the money to support our 
troops and the money to build Iraq and money that could and probably 
will be used in a non-bid contracting-kind of environment.
  But it really offends me to imply that because we do not want to just 
give the President $87 billion to spend basically as he wants to spend 
it, that somehow we are not being supportive of our troops. I find that 
a painful thing to have to cope with.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Madam Speaker, I think that is very important to 
understand. And for those that may be listening to us at this late 
hour, the vote tomorrow, or maybe early on Friday morning, will be on 
the entire package. Many of us have pressed the administration and the 
Republican leadership to allow separate votes. But as the gentleman 
from Ohio indicates, they refuse to do it because they know that, yes, 
the body would support the needs of American troops; and, therefore, 
they feel that the other monies, the monies that are going to be going 
to large multinational corporations to rebuild Iraq would be very much 
at risk.

                              {time}  2350

  That is a ploy, a stratagem that I daresay is again unconscionable. 
And for anybody to suggest that a vote against the $87 billion is a 
vote against supporting the troops is misleading the American people. 
We have had enough of misleading the American people. Let us really 
tell it as it is.
  Mr. INSLEE. The way it is is that those of us who are raising 
questions about this proposal, I will not call it a plan because it 
does not rise to the dignity of a plan. It is not a Marshall Plan. It 
is not even a partial plan. We do not have a schedule, we do not have a 
schematic, we do not have a plan. It is the beginning of a proposal of 
an idea maybe, but that is why we are here asking these questions. But 
what those of us who are asking these questions, the one thing we do 
know is this. The amount the administration has proposed for military 
expenditures is actually inadequate for the job at hand. We are the 
ones who are saying that what has been proposed is not enough to 
fulfill this responsibility. It is not enough because it does not take 
care of the health care of Reservists, it is not enough because it does 
not take care of the health care of National Guards, it does not 
provide some of the basics to the service personnel. It is billions of 
dollars short on what it is going to take to rebuild the tracked 
vehicles that get essentially destroyed in the sands of the Mideast. 
There are billions of dollars we are going to have to spend that are 
not in that figure that should be ultimately. There is not a method of 
paying for the interest on the debt they want to rack up to do this.
  In a whole host of ways, we are the ones who are saying we actually 
need to beef up the amount needed for the military expenditure in this 
mission. So we will not hear or suffer those who would attack our 
willingness to invest in the military part of this operation.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Let us remind our colleagues tomorrow during the course 
of the debate and the American people here tonight that there exists in 
Iraq a so-called governing council that Mr. Bremer himself in 
consultation with the White House and the leadership in the 
administration selected. There are 25 of them. They were handpicked by 
Mr. Bremer. These individuals came to Washington 3 or 4 weeks ago to 
say, cede us more authority or things are unraveling and, furthermore, 
you are spending money that you should not be spending. You are wasting 
American taxpayers' dollars.
  Let me just give you one example. There was a cement factory 
somewhere in Iraq. The American estimates for rebuilding that cement 
factory and bringing it up to Western standards was $15 million. And 
somebody in the military, not in the civilian leadership of the 
Department of Defense, but in the military said, I am going to make a 
decision and let the Iraqis build it. It is now up and running. The 
cost went from $15 million down to $80,000. $80,000. And they want a 
blank check. No, no, no, Madam Speaker, no blank checks anymore. No.
  Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to just address 
how large this blank check is. I mean, it is a large figure. It sounds 
big. But in reference, it is, for instance, compared to the Marshall 
Plan, it is 10 times per capita benefit going to the Iraqi folks than 
went to the German folks. Ten times per capita. This is an enormous sum 
of money. Speaking as one who has supported foreign aid, even though it 
is sometimes controversial, there are many circumstances where we ought 
to support foreign aid. But this is 50 times larger per capita foreign 
aid to the country of Iraq than the next largest developing nation. 
Fifty times per capita. This is an extraordinary amount of money for 
one country.
  Frankly, this is not the only country that presents us problems. 
Yemen is a potential terrorist site. The Sudan is a potential terrorist 
site. Somalia is a potential terrorist site. Afghanistan, we are doing 
lip service to and frankly it is too little in my opinion for 
Afghanistan given what is going on there with the Taliban perhaps 
restructuring. Indonesia, throughout that part of the world. We have 
lots of places where we need to keep stable governments.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman will yield, we are talking about the 
$87 billion that is currently under consideration. We ought not to 
forget, we have already appropriated for Iraq about $65 billion. And, 
mark my word, this administration is going to come back here next year 
and they are going to ask for another $50 billion or more. This $87 
billion is just part of what they are asking for. And every dollar of 
that $87 billion is going to come out of Social Security and Medicare 
trust fund moneys. It is going to be added to our debt. Our children 
are going to be responsible for paying it off. And in the meantime we 
are nickel and diming our veterans as we said earlier. All they need is 
$1.8 billion to increase their health care budget to bring it up to 
where we can take care of the veterans in a reasonable, defensible 
manner. They are not willing to spend an additional $1.8 billion on our 
veterans. Think about that. Hear that, people. They are not willing to 
spend 1.8 billion additional dollars on our veterans, and they are 
asking for $87 billion for Iraq. It in my judgment it is shameful. 
Shameful. And this is one of the things we ought to be talking about 
tomorrow when this bill comes to the floor for our consideration.
  Mr. INSLEE. The gentleman just provoked a thought. You think about 
who is really paying for this in financial terms. The soldiers are 
paying for it with their lives. But in financial terms, it is our young 
who are going to be saddled with this debt, billions of dollars of 
debt, and it is our older folks, including veterans, who are not going 
to get their health care because this President wanted to send this 
money to Iraq and did not pay for it. So we are hurting the two most 
sort of vulnerable groups in our neighborhoods, in our communities, 
because this plan is not a responsible plan that fulfills our mission 
in Iraq and our responsibilities to our future kids and our current 
elders. For that reason, we ought to be asking serious questions.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Could I just say in closing before I turn it over to 
our good leader here this evening, I am not sacrificing for this war. 
The President has not asked Ted Strickland to sacrifice a thing. I am 
getting my full salary, my full benefits. No one in this Chamber is 
sacrificing. And you know the President is not sacrificing. Who is 
sacrificing? His wealthy contributors are not sacrificing. Halliburton 
is not sacrificing. The Vice President is not sacrificing. You know who 
is sacrificing? Our soldiers are sacrificing.

[[Page 24695]]

Their loved ones back here who worry that they do not have protective 
armor so that when they are out on patrol they are not as protected as 
possible. They are sacrificing. And the children of this country who 
are being given a huge debt to pay off at some time in the future, they 
are the ones that are sacrificing. I do not want to hear the President 
talking about us being willing to sacrifice. The sacrifice ought to be 
shared sacrifice. We all should be sacrificing, including the wealthy 
among us.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Like we did in World War II and in subsequent wars that 
this country has had to fight. Speaking of wars, much has been talked 
about the war on terrorism earlier during the course of the debate but 
I think it is important to remember and remind the American people that 
after Vice President Cheney made the statement on national TV that 
there possibly were some links between Saddam Hussein and September 11, 
the President finally came forward and stated unequivocally that there 
was no evidence whatsoever in supporting that link. I would also urge 
Democrats to seriously consider supporting the Rohrabacher amendment, a 
good, conservative Republican from the State of California, because he 
is right. It ought to be a loan, not a giveaway. Because America and 
America's future is riding on this. Because once we establish that as a 
precedent, and the gentleman from Ohio is right, they will be coming 
back looking for more and more and more money right out of the pockets 
of the American taxpayer.

                          ____________________