[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14379-14380]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  SMART SECURITY AND VETERANS FUNDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sadness and in frustration over 
the news that the Nation finds itself $1 billion short of the funding 
that is needed to cover health care for our Nation's veterans this 
year.
  It is bad enough that next year's VA budget will almost surely be 
inadequate; now we are having trouble paying for this year's needs. 
Just as the architects of our Iraq policy did not have a plan for 
winning the peace, it appears that the budget experts in the executive 
branch did not plan for increased veteran costs associated with the 
deadly foreign war, a preemptive war that has killed over 1,700 troops 
and injured more than 13,000, a war that will certainly result in an 
increased burden on the Veterans Administration.
  This shortfall comes on the heels of efforts by the Bush 
administration to increase veterans prescription drug co-payments and 
to add an enrollment fee to enter the veterans health care system in 
the first place. There is even talk of classifying veterans in ways

[[Page 14380]]

that entitle some veterans to benefits and leaves others on the outside 
looking in.
  How is this possible, Mr. Speaker, all the talk of supporting the 
troops, is this just rhetoric? Is it just bumper sticker boiler plate, 
or are we really serious about honoring the sacrifices of war and 
showing our gratitude to those who have risked life and limb on our 
behalf?
  What is even worse is that some people saw this budget problem coming 
and were ignored or rebuffed. Minority Members in the other Chamber, 
the Senate, proposed adding money to the VA budget in anticipation of 
this shortfall, but they were told by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
this spring that no emergency supplemental funds were needed.
  Well, guess what? Emergency supplemental funds are needed. And now we 
either have to get an advance on next year's limited VA appropriations; 
borrow from other parts of the VA budget; or pass a supplemental bill 
to fill the gap. One of the key committee Chairs has said that it would 
be best to avoid a supplemental package. But were they saying that, Mr. 
Speaker, when we were debating an over-$200 billion supplemental bill 
to fund the war effort in the first place? It does not make sense to 
me.
  We have no problem approving billions upon billions of dollars and 
taking on massive debt to send our brave soldiers to Iraq in the first 
place. And while they are there, we are denying them of the protective 
body armor and vehicles that would prevent these severe wounds in the 
first place, and they are returning home more injured than ever. And 
when they come home, then we start pinching pennies, pinching pennies 
on their care. Are these the priorities of a great Nation?
  Now, it is tempting to see this VA situation as simply an actuarial 
miscalculation, but it is indicative of something far more serious that 
we have been seeing over and over again from this administration, a 
rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul mentality; a tendency to ignore problems until 
they become crises; a habit of embracing war without accounting for its 
costs, human or financial.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just one example of the way our Iraq policy has 
been bungled. Not only do we need to bring our troops out of Iraq as 
soon as realistically possible, a position that the majority of the 
American people agree with; we need an overhaul of our approach to 
national security in general.
  I have proposed a new plan called SMART Security. SMART stands for 
Sensible Multi-lateral American Response to Terrorism For the 21st 
Century. The guiding principle behind SMART is that war should be the 
absolute last resort. Prevention of war, not preemptive war, which we 
know from the Downing Street memo was not the thinking on Iraq.
  So SMART includes an ambitious international development agenda, 
democracy building, human rights education, business loans, 
agricultural assistance and more for the troubled, underdeveloped 
nations of the world.
  SMART is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic. It protects America by 
relying on the very best of American values: our commitment to freedom, 
our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for 
multilateral leadership.

                          ____________________