[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2347-2353]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we are moving swiftly into the Iraq 
Watch time, and many other Members will be down here shortly to talk 
about a couple of different issues, one would be the issue of Iraq that 
has been going on for some time in a working group here.
  Congress has been talking about this issue over and over and trying 
to bring some awareness and some clarity to many of the people of this 
country who are very concerned with what is going on in Iraq. I would 
also like to, since we claimed the time here, I would also like to talk 
a little bit about the veterans and a little bit about what is going on 
here with the budget.
  As we just talked about, and as the gentleman from New York 
articulated and the gentleman from Florida articulated as well, there 
is some real pressure being put on the budget here in the United States 
Congress, and I did mention it towards the end. One of the programs 
that is going to take a real beating here in the 2005 budget is going 
to be the issue of veterans.
  Now, the President has made a formal request of this body for another 
$80 billion to help fund the Iraq war, and this will take the grand 
total over $300 billion that we will spend on the Iraq war. And that is 
just today. That is up to this point. This $80 billion may get us 
through the year, but some analysts say it may not. We are going to be 
over $300 billion in what we have spent in Iraq.
  Now, there is nobody in this Chamber who will not support the troops, 
who need our support. Many of us have argued, and I was on the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the last Congress, many of us argued 
vehemently that we need to fully fund veterans health care in the 
United States of America. If we are going to continue to say there are 
other priorities in the budget, or that a certain amount of people who 
make a certain amount of money, a lot of money, the Bill Gateses of the 
world, should somehow get a tax cut and that we should do it on the 
backs of the veterans of the United States of America, and tell them 
their copay is going to go from $2 to $7, $7 to $15; that their annual 
fees are going to be increased up to $250 if they are a category seven 
or eight veteran, then this is an issue that I think as much as Social 
Security attacks some of the fundamental concepts and promises of this 
country.

[[Page 2348]]

  Is there anything more despicable than to go out and tell a veteran 
who has left a limb somewhere across the world that somehow he is not 
going to be able to get the kind of benefits he was promised? That is 
what is happening with the irresponsibility of the budgeteering that is 
going on in the United States Congress today.
  We showed the deficits: $450 billion. We are out borrowing money, 
paying interest on it, and eating up a bigger share of the budget in 
years to come. And we are not challenging the top 1 percent, or people 
making $1 million a year or more to somehow pay their fair share, to 
say they do not have to on the backs of the veterans.
  And no one can squirm out of this one. This is one you just cannot 
get away from. You can maybe talk private accounts will yield more 
interest and at least get people thinking, but how can you not ask 
people who benefit the most from the capitalistic system to pay and 
meet their obligation to the rest of society? Because if it were not 
for those people, if it were not for the veterans of the United States 
military, there would be no capitalistic system for anyone else to make 
money off of. That is the fundamental premise. So we need to make sure 
that we find the resources in the Congress to do it.
  I would like to just take this opportunity to acknowledge the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who was the Republican chairman 
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who was a great advocate for 
veterans in this country and who was removed from the chairmanship of 
the committee because he was too strong of an advocate because he 
wanted more resources put in.
  I live in Ohio, and a lot of those folks have moved into the State of 
Florida, south Florida, Miami, and they have some sun and fun; but 
there are a lot of veterans who have stayed in my community and who are 
having a lot of difficulties accessing the system. So I think it is 
appropriate that we are here following this debate, the generation that 
gave us Social Security, the generation that freed Europe, the 
generation that saved southeast Asia in many ways, and who created a 
lot of the opportunities that we have here today and set us on this 
path of democracy and fiscal responsibility for years to come, social 
justice. I think we have an opportunity to honor those folks, 
especially as we have more people from our generation coming back.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio for his comments, and I am very excited about the fact that some 
Members of the Congress are watching out for our veterans, making sure 
our veterans are receiving what they deserve.
  We talk about silver and blue hair once again, but there are a number 
of veterans that were in the first Gulf War, in Korea, even some in 
Grenada, definitely in Vietnam and World War II, and other conflicts 
that we have been involved in over the years; and it is important they 
receive the care they need not only at our veterans hospitals but also 
because these veterans were told when they signed up and they went into 
harm's way on behalf of this country, on the philosophy of our 
leadership and this Congress, that we would provide those kind of 
benefits.
  That is the reason why in the President's budget, as we heard in the 
last hour where we said how can we talk about Social Security and not 
talk about the budget, that it is important that we realize that this 
budget is deplorable as it relates to keeping our promise to our 
veterans and to our young veterans. We have a lot of young veterans out 
there that are trying to raise families and dealing with real issues. 
Some are on 50 percent benefits, some are on 100 percent benefits 
because they laid it down for this country, Democrats and Republicans.

                              {time}  2115

  I will tell you once again, when you see the land of milk and honey, 
when it comes down to the top 1 percent and what they get and the 
promise that is kept to them by this administration and by the majority 
side, it is really night and day. If you are in the top 1 percent, you 
are in good shape right now. You are receiving every tax cut that you 
could possibly get at this particular time, and I am pretty sure there 
are some Members of this body that would have some other great ideas 
for you. But what happens to that individual that works every day? What 
happens to that individual that puts it on the line every day?
  We are talking about Iraq Watch, and this is the hour that usually 
our colleagues come to the floor to talk about Iraq. I just recently 
returned with a bipartisan group going to Iraq and Afghanistan to visit 
our troops and also to visit some of the civilians that are over there. 
I will tell you that news reports are not even covering half of what is 
happening there. Tomorrow we will have the opportunity on the Committee 
on Armed Services to hear from Secretary Rumsfeld. We will have an 
opportunity to hear the administration's vision as it relates to Iraq, 
and also to talk about this budget in the Department of Defense. But it 
is important that we have past statements and hopefully not to say that 
we want to have the Secretary responding to misstatements or anything 
of that nature, but we want to make sure that we are giving voice to 
those future veterans and we are giving voice to the troops that are 
over there in harm's way right now. There are individuals, and God 
bless them, they want to do and they are doing the right thing that 
they are being told to do. But we just had the Iraqi elections. New 
elections are going to be coming up in December. Hopefully the Iraqis 
will be ready or close to being ready for taking responsibility for 
their country and for the security of their country.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just as we are talking about this and all the 
sacrifices that are being made over there and all the questions that 
are coming up and what is going on, before I yield to the gentleman 
from Ohio, there are a couple of statistics that I think we need to 
share with the American people about the investment in our veterans, 
because we have to focus on the ones that are coming back and new 
veterans that are being created every day. I know the gentleman has 
been out to Walter Reed and I have been out to Walter Reed several 
times. There is nothing more tragic for any of us who serve in this 
body than to go over there and see some of these soldiers and the 
sacrifices that they have made for the country, and to come and look at 
some of what is happening here in the Congress, where our President's 
budget for health care programs provides only 106 million more dollars 
than last year, $3.5 billion less than the veterans service 
organizations that come here and testify before the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs and meet here say they need. The veterans groups, the 
American Legion, they are not going to come before Congress and ask for 
anything more than their soldiers that they served with need. And they 
say they need $3.5 billion more. And so when you are telling us that 
you are only going to increase it by $106 million in the President's 
budget, it is outrageous.
  I yield to the fine gentleman from Ohio whom I split Mahoning County 
with in the great State of Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. We also 
have with us tonight the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). There 
are some things that I think the American people need to understand 
about what is happening here in Washington, D.C., especially as we 
discuss the budget and its relevance to the veterans population. I am 
amazed. I am truly amazed and puzzled. I really do not understand why 
the President and why the Republican leadership in this House would 
choose to treat veterans with such disdain.
  Why do I say that? I will share with you some recent history with 
this administration. One of the first things the President did after 
becoming President during his first term was to increase the cost that 
a veteran pays for a prescription drug from $2 a prescription to $7 a 
prescription. I introduced legislation to repeal that increase but 
unfortunately I was unable to get that legislation passed. So now many 
veterans, thousands of veterans, pay $7 for

[[Page 2349]]

each prescription they get through the VA. Seven dollars may not sound 
like a lot of money, but many of the veterans who are in need of 
medication take 10 or more prescriptions a month, and many of these 
people are on fixed incomes. Many of them have fought our wars. In 
fact, you can be a combat-decorated veteran and you can be a priority 8 
veteran. That is the veteran that the administration says makes too 
much money to currently qualify to participate in VA health care. Or 
you can be a priority 7 veteran, and a priority 7 veteran is a veteran 
that has a medical need but the medical need is not a direct result of 
the military service, and so they are charged more for the VA health 
care they receive.
  So the President increased the cost of a prescription drug from $2 to 
$7. Shortly after, the VA issued a new policy. It was in the form of a 
memo that went to all the VA health care providers. It said basically, 
and I am summarizing, but it said too many veterans are coming in for 
service and we cannot afford to treat all these veterans and 
consequently there are waiting lines; and so we are going to solve this 
problem by rationing care to veterans, and we are going to ration care 
by prohibiting our nurses and social workers and physicians from 
proactively informing veterans of the services they are entitled to 
receive under the law.
  We are talking about services that lawfully were made available to 
them by the actions of this Congress. I thought that was egregious. I 
have filed suit against the Veterans' Administration in conjunction 
with the Vietnam Veterans of America to try to overturn this egregious 
policy. That suit is currently before the court. I am hopeful the court 
will recognize that the VA is in violation of law and will force them 
to withdraw this onerous gag order.
  We see a pattern developing here. Because then the VA decided that 
they were going to create a brand-new category or priority group for 
veterans, and they called that new category priority group 8. They 
said, this group just simply can no longer enroll and receive VA health 
care. And why? Well, because they make too much money, so they should 
not be able to get health care. The formula that is used to determine 
if a veteran is high income and no longer entitled to receive VA health 
care is based on a Housing and Urban Development formula.
  In my district, you can make as little as $22,000 a year and the VA 
will consider you high income and tell you that you can no longer 
receive VA health care. Think of that. Those of us who serve in this 
Chamber, the American people have a right to know that, make over 
$150,000 a year. Maybe we can pay $7 a prescription for our 
prescription medications if we need to. Maybe we can find the ability 
to afford the kind of health insurance that will take care of our 
medical needs if we need to. But I submit to you that if you make 
$22,000 a year, you are not high income. I think it is shameful, I use 
that word, but it is shameful that this government would make a 
decision to treat our veterans in that manner.
  And now, before I yield back to my friend from Ohio, the Republican 
leadership in this House has done something just very recently that the 
American people have a right to know about. Because over the last 
Congress, Democrats and Republicans worked together on the VA Committee 
to preserve adequate funding. It was not as much as I wanted it to be, 
but at least it was enough to maintain at least the current level of 
services. And we did that with the help of some of our Republican 
colleagues. The chairman of the VA Committee in the last Congress 
really enabled us to keep VA funding at a level that enabled current 
services to continue. That Republican Congressman's name was Chris 
Smith. He is a Republican Congressman from the State of New Jersey. 
Many people who watch C-SPAN know Chris Smith because he frequently 
stands in this Chamber and he argues and advocates for an end to 
abortion. I would call Chris Smith, at least in my judgment, he is the 
most pro-life Member of this House. I just point that out to emphasize 
that he is a true conservative. He is a true conservative.
  Chris Smith had served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 24 
years, nearly a quarter of a century. He had been the chair of the VA 
Committee for the last 4 years. But because he was an advocate for 
veterans, Speaker Hastert and the leadership in this House decided they 
were going to strip him of his chair's position. Not only did they do 
that, they removed him from this committee that he had served on for 24 
years, and they did that in the face of opposition from 10 of the 
national veterans service organizations. I am talking about the 
American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Vietnam Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans 
of America, the Noncommissioned Officers, the Jewish War Veterans. All 
of these veterans organizations wrote Speaker Hastert a letter, they 
all signed their name to that letter, and they said to Speaker Hastert, 
it would really be a shame for Chris Smith to be taken out of the 
chair's position and to be removed from this committee because he has 
been our friend. He has been an advocate for veterans. What was Speaker 
Hastert's response? Chris Smith was stripped of his chair's position, 
removed from the VA Committee.
  I am asking my friend from Ohio, do you see a pattern here? It seemed 
that time after time after time, this administration and the leadership 
in this House of Representatives, they are taking steps that are 
harmful to veterans.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We just had an hour where we discussed Social 
Security and the private accounts, not to get back into it, but this 
many Members on the other side are willing to borrow $5 trillion over 
the next 20 years to pay for the privatization plan. If you had come 
here and said, you know, we maybe need to borrow $3.5 billion to fully 
fund veterans, I think many of us on this side of the aisle would say, 
well, we think we should balance the budget, we probably think that 
there is a better way of doing it, but what a much better reason to go 
out and borrow money, $3.5 billion compared to $5 trillion granted, to 
meet the obligation that we have.
  I thought it would be interesting just to show since 2001, I have 
these charts working tonight so I am going to do one final chart. This 
is the increase, funding increases since 2001. This is the percent of 
increase in funding. The red is defense, the lavender is homeland 
security, and the blue is 9/11 response, New York City, international 
and airline relief. This is 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001. In 2004, 69 percent 
of the increase in funding from this Congress went for defense, 9 
percent for homeland security, and 12 percent for 9/11.
  These are three priorities I think the whole Congress could agree on. 
But to have a 70 percent increase in the military? You are telling me 
we could not find $3.5 billion that could not get to Halliburton in 
order to fund some of this for our veterans? My point is that this is 
an issue of priorities. This comes down to one word, choice.

                              {time}  2130

  What is the choice that this Congress wants to make?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman says is true. There 
are several ways we can find the money to pay for veterans health care. 
For one thing, we can cut back on these tax cuts that have gone to the 
richest people. There are people in this country who have never served 
in the military, never put their lives on the line; and yet this 
President, during this time of war, has decided to give them a huge, 
huge tax cut, while our veterans, many of them becoming increasingly 
elderly and disabled, are being deprived of adequate health care, 
having to wait for weeks and months to get a doctor's appointment. That 
is just wrong.
  So the President had a choice: tax cuts for the richest people in 
America or adequate funding for VA health care. He chose tax cuts for 
the richest among us.
  There is something else I would like to share with my friend from 
Ohio. We

[[Page 2350]]

are spending in Iraq today about $1.25 billion a week. Think of that. 
And we cannot find an additional $3.5 billion for our veterans, all of 
our veterans. I do not want to choose among our veterans. I do not want 
to say this veteran is worthy and this veteran is not worthy. All of 
these people have served the country. They are in need of help and 
health care, and I am getting sick and tired of hearing about focusing 
on the core constituency. Of course we need to focus on the core 
constituency. But that does not mean that we should neglect other 
veterans as well. And that is what is happening. And I hope the people 
in this country, especially the veterans and the families of veterans, 
are paying attention because we are treating our veterans in a shabby 
manner.
  The President's budget that he sent us a couple of weeks ago is a 
shameful document. It cuts back on nursing home care for veterans. It 
is a shameful document. And I do not want to hear my colleagues over 
there say these are tight budgetary times, we just do not have the 
money.
  We have the money, Mr. Speaker, to pay for what we think is 
important. We have the money for that. The fact is that President Bush 
and this leadership do not consider America's veterans a priority. They 
cannot run from that fact. And I would just invite any of my Republican 
friends to come to this floor and let us discuss this openly. Let us 
discuss the fact that President Bush is asking that our veterans pay 
increased costs for medications, that he wants to impose a $250 annual 
user fee for many of our veterans to use a hospital. I think it is 
shameful. I really think it is shameful.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
comments, and I have just got to say it is stunning. We are down here a 
lot and we get wrapped up and frustrated and upset about this; but I 
mean, when we take a step back, this is stunning what we are doing. It 
is absolutely stunning that we can somehow expect the American people 
and the veterans that are sitting at home tonight who make $22,000 a 
year, who struggle and many people in our community in northeast Ohio 
who have lost their steel jobs or their rubber jobs and have moved into 
the VA health, they have moved into VA health because they do not have 
anything else. But they made the sacrifice. When the bell rung, they 
were there.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as I say, I would invite any of my 
Republican friends to come down here and challenge what we are saying 
because what we are saying is the truth.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, let me add just to what the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland) was saying. He was asking why this administration 
cannot make veterans a priority, but I would suggest that we are not so 
much even asking the administration to recognize veterans as a 
priority, but just asking them to give them a decent kind of regular 
order priority, because the fact of the matter is this administration, 
and it is sad to say, has not only failed to give the veterans 
priority. They have really treated them like about second- or third-
class citizens.
  The administration really has decided to put veterans, some of whom 
have lost limbs and health and their lives in Iraq, on a second or 
third tier below other folks that the administration values more 
highly. That is a fairly dramatic thing to say, but let me back up what 
I mean by that.
  The administration has decided to put people who earn over $400,000 a 
year and got about almost a third of the tax breaks that the President 
handed out, the President refuses to ask any of those folks to 
contribute in any way to the Iraq war, and so basically the 
administration has put veterans behind those folks on a lower tier. He 
has not just put them on a lower priority. He has put them on a second-
class tier, but it is not just folks earning a high income.
  The President has also put Halliburton on a higher tier than the 
veterans who have actually fought the wars. We have not seen this 
administration really get aggressive about the misuse of funds in Iraq.
  We Democrats had to hold sort of a rump hearing. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) and the Senator from North Dakota had a hearing 
to find out what happened to all this money that disappeared into the 
financial swamps of Iraq.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that, as I understand it, 
about $9 billion is unaccounted for.
  Mr. INSLEE. Exactly, Mr. Speaker. And if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, three times, three times the amount of money it would take to 
fix this problem with veterans so they would not have to stand in line 
for 6 months to get treatment when they come back from Iraq, this 
administration lost three times as much money in the financial 
netherworld of Iraq, and they refuse to do anything about it because it 
is embarrassing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just like 
to say that that would not be the least embarrassing thing about this 
war.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, let me mention maybe one of the most 
embarrassing things, and I read about this today. When I said that this 
administration has put veterans on a lower tier of value, let me tell 
my colleagues the sort of icing on the cake. Today, I read that a group 
of veterans from the first Persian Gulf War who were tortured by Saddam 
Hussein in the Abu Ghraib prison brought a lawsuit in the American 
courts against Iraq, the Iraqi Government, and they were granted a 
significant judgment, several millions of dollars for the abuse, and it 
was horrendous abuse. These were fliers who went down in the first 
Persian Gulf War, were captured by Saddam's forces, and were terribly 
tortured; and they won a judgment that seemed to me to make the right 
decision considering what they went through. They now are attempting to 
enforce that judgment against Iraq and against the oil revenues that 
are generated in Iraq.
  So what did the administration do? Did it come to the aid of these 
veterans who were so terribly tortured at Abu Ghraib? No. This 
administration went to court to refuse to pay these veterans the 
judgment they had received against the Iraqi oil field money, 
essentially, which is now pouring into Iraq.
  And the irony of this is pretty amazing because our Secretary of 
Defense, Rumsfeld, has said we are going to pay damages to the Iraqis 
who were subject to the abusive conditions in Abu Ghraib by our forces. 
The same defense Secretary who said we ought to pay the Iraqis who were 
abused in Abu Ghraib, unfortunately, in our situation, in our custody, 
now steps in and refuses to allow our Americans to get payment when 
Saddam Hussein tortured them. What kind of convoluted cockamamie, 
knuckleheaded policy is that.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation to make 
this government stop what they are doing, stop fighting these veterans, 
these tortured veterans. The gentleman explained it well, but I would 
like to just take a stab at it as well because what we have here is 
these are soldiers that were captured during the first Gulf War, and 
they were terribly tortured under Saddam Hussein's regime. This 
government, as my colleagues recall, had held on to billions of dollars 
that were Iraqi dollars, and when these tortured Americans sued and won 
their suit, they were laying claim on those dollars that this country 
had possession of, and this administration returned that money to Iraq 
and literally used the Justice Department to go to court to try to set 
aside that judgment that would compensate these soldiers.
  And the gentleman from Washington State is right. At the same time, 
here is Secretary Rumsfeld speaking of the

[[Page 2351]]

Iraqis who were abused at Abu Ghraib prison saying they are going to be 
compensated. So our Secretary of Defense is willing to use American 
dollars to compensate Iraqis who had been abused by Americans, and at 
the same time this government is fighting to keep our American troops 
who were tortured in Iraq from being compensated with Iraqi dollars. 
How can one explain that to the American people? It is unbelievable.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, there is an explanation, and it is very 
clear what the explanation is. The explanation is that this 
administration puts on a higher tier of value the Iraqi provisional 
government in dollars than these American veterans who were tortured. 
They put them on a higher tier, number one. Number two, the 
administration puts Halliburton on a higher tier than veterans because 
they refused to give this $9 billion back that could be used to finance 
veterans, number two. Number three, this administration puts people who 
earn over $400,000 a year and got a tax cut that the administration 
refuses to even talk about now, it puts them higher than the people who 
went to Iraq and came home sometimes without legs.
  I do not believe that is consistent with American values on how we 
ought to look at respective contribution by Americans to our freedom, 
which was the ultimate contribution of these veterans. But it shows a 
skewed value judgment by the administration. That explains why this 
administration takes the position.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I think it shows a moral blindness. I really do. I mean, we are talking 
here about decisions that are made that affect the lives of American 
soldiers, and in this case soldiers who were tortured. There is no 
question that they were tortured. There is no question about that. 
There is no question as to who was responsible. It was the Iraqi 
Government under Saddam Hussein.
  Now this administration is trying to play, I think, word games 
because they are saying, well, that was the government that existed 
under Saddam Hussein and now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from 
office, this new government is not responsible for what happened under 
Saddam Hussein. But I would remind the gentleman from Washington State 
the money that we were holding on to here was money that was from the 
Saddam Hussein government and regime. So I would like to ask the 
President if I had a chance to talk with him, I would like to say: Mr. 
President, why do you think Iraqis who were mistreated at Abu Ghraib 
deserve to be compensated with American tax dollars and at the same 
time you do not believe that American soldiers who were tortured when 
they were captured and held in Iraq should be compensated with Iraqi 
dollars? That seems like a fairly straightforward question, and I just 
wonder how the President would answer that.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I think I know, if I can posit a hypothesis, 
in general how the President would answer, perhaps in more diplomatic 
terms than I will offer, but I think he would say: Mr. Strickland, with 
all due respect, you just do not get it. Our administration has made a 
decision for the first time in American history to fight a war, but the 
only people we are going to ask to sacrifice are veterans. Nobody else 
is going to have to sacrifice.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. And the soldiers that are active duty.
  Mr. INSLEE. And the soldiers that are active duty.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. And Reservists and Nation Guard.
  Mr. INSLEE. And Reservists, some of whom are going to have to go back 
for a second and third deployment. These are the only Americans that we 
have asked to suffer and sacrifice because I, as President of the 
United States, do not think this is worth fighting enough to ask any 
other Americans to sacrifice rather than that small, less than \1/2\ 
percent of the population. So as a result, I, as President, have made a 
decision that if the veterans get in my way by needing health care or 
if the veterans get in my way by having a judgment because they got 
tortured by Saddam Hussein and if they get in my way because they want 
to get Halliburton to pay the 9 billion bucks back that was 
fraudulently used by at least somebody over in Iraq, then it is just 
tough.

                              {time}  2145

  They are not going to get in my way, because I as president am not 
going to touch tax cuts, I am going to do deficit spending, I am going 
to continue to cut these veterans off from getting payment, because if 
I get away with it, that is good enough for me. That is the only answer 
I can think of.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, we 
are standing here and talking about this, and there are probably 
Americans watching and perhaps a few listening to us, and what we are 
saying sounds almost unbelievable.
  I understand how someone listening to this may be puzzled, because 
there is no rational explanation, as far as I am concerned. Why should 
this government put a greater value on compensating Iraqis than on 
compensating tortured Americans? It just does not make sense. And it 
does not fit the image that is usually presented to the American people 
by this administration, because you hear a lot of rhetoric about how 
much we appreciate our soldiers, how much we appreciate what the 
military does for us, but the world now knows, and certainly most 
Americans that have paid attention, that we did send our soldiers into 
battle without adequate body armor, and we have them driving around in 
vehicles in Iraq that are not properly armored, and we have people over 
there conducting patrols and driving long distances and taking fuel 
from one part of Iraq to the other part of Iraq without night vision 
goggles. So we know there has been that kind of neglect.
  But what my friend has brought to our attention here tonight 
regarding these tortured Americans and the administration's fighting 
them through the courts to keep them from getting compensated by the 
Iraqi government is nearly unbelievable.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think if you are 
sitting at home listening to this debate that we are having here, the 
discussion we are having here, there is a real key component, and I 
mentioned it earlier and I think it is worth reiterating: Every major 
veteran's service organization is against what the President and this 
Congress is doing.
  This is the most noble generation in the history of our country. They 
are fiscally conservative. They are Republicans and Democrats. They are 
frugal. They saved. They never had the kind of personal debt that our 
Nation has today, not their generation.
  They are not going to ask for money just to ask for it. They need it, 
and they see the need with their friends, within their organizations, 
and they are asking for it. If you do not believe the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) or the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Meek), believe all the veterans organizations that are out there 
sticking up for their membership. If there is anybody you should 
believe, it is them.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I want 
to tip a hat to these veterans groups, who are really one of the least 
demanding groups of people I have ever worked with, considering how 
they have been mistreated since this Iraq war started and since this 
administration started to cut health care. Incredibly, they have been 
respectful in bringing this to our attention. But, frankly, if they 
were yelling at the top of their lungs and circling the White House 
with pitchforks and torches, I think that would be, frankly, 
understandable.
  I was talking to somebody the other day saying if you are a World War 
II

[[Page 2352]]

veteran right now and you have a urological concern and you want to get 
an exam, you have to wait like four months in the State of Washington 
to get in for an examination. That is just not right. Those lines are 
getting longer, and they will continue to get longer because of these 
cuts in the general VA budget.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) has talked with some 
eloquence about raising the deductible that individual veterans have to 
pay. Now they are also trying to soak veterans for $250 up front before 
you get your first dollar of health care payments, if you make the 
enormous sum of $22,000, which puts people right up in the Donald Trump 
category, I am sure.
  They are also cutting the general budget, or not raising it to the 
level it demands, for the whole hospital system, which means these 
waiting lines get longer, just as the number of people who need them 
get larger. So it is a multiple. It is like a death by a thousand cuts.
  Let me suggest one reason why we do not hear as much as we should 
about this issue. If you look at the pictures of our Iraqi veterans who 
are coming home, and we in Congress on both sides of the aisle have 
visited with them and know how courageous these mostly young and not-
so-young people are, if you look at pictures of them, they are a lot of 
times alone. They have gone back a lot of times to a small town and are 
living in somebody's basement, and you see them sitting on the edge of 
a chair with a missing limb. They are kind of alone. There is not a big 
group around them except maybe their immediate family. They do not have 
a blaring group of bugles and a press corps to advocate their cause. 
Maybe that is what we ought to be doing here tonight, and in some small 
way I guess we are.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, why 
is there not an outcry about this? I think one of the reasons is that 
the American people are not fully aware of what is happening and find 
it hard to believe. I can understand why someone listening to us 
tonight would find it hard to believe what we have said, because it is 
so outrageous.
  It is outrageous. As I said a little earlier, it is contrary to the 
public image we get from this administration, because if you listen to 
rhetoric coming from the White House and coming from the leadership in 
this House here, you would think that they really appreciate the 
veterans and they care for veterans and they were going to do 
everything they could to care for veterans. But the facts just do not 
match the rhetoric.
  You could also wonder why is there not an outcry from many of the 
Republicans who I know care about veterans? I have friends on that side 
of the aisle that I know are veterans themselves, and they deeply in 
their hearts care for veterans. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) was one such person that I mentioned, the former Chair of the 
committee. But I think there is a hesitancy to speak out, because if 
you speak out and you challenge the leadership over there, there is a 
price to pay.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) found that out. When he 
spoke up for veterans, he was stripped of his chairman position and he 
was taken off of a committee that he had been on for 24 years. That is 
almost unbelievable. Twenty-four years, a quarter of a century almost, 
this man had served on that committee.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, when they 
stripped the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) of his chairmanship, 
he was sort of politically decapitated, if you will, because he had a 
dissenting voice in the Republican caucus. He wanted to bring to the 
country's attention the fact that veterans were not getting their due. 
That was a courageous step by him. As a result, the leadership 
essentially lynched him and excommunicated him from the leadership 
position he held, after 25 years.
  Think of what that message is to Iraq. We saw Iraqis really 
courageously go to the polls. That was amazing. They had a 58 percent 
or 60 percent turnout, almost 82 percent in a lot of the Shiite areas. 
There were people who walked through violence to get to the polls. This 
was a lot of personal courage there that we should respect in a lot of 
ways. One would think we ought to honor that and send some messages to 
Iraq about how to run a democracy.
  Well, look at just three examples, how under the leadership of the 
current House, what our lessons to Iraq are. Number one, to the Sunnis, 
we want the Sunnis to come into the Iraqi government. We want the 
minority group to participate in the government, because if we do not 
get the Sunnis involved in the Iraqi government, this insurgency is 
going to continue to bloom. So our message is to the Shiites, embrace 
the Sunnis. Let them come in and have a voice in your government. Let 
dissent have a voice. Reach a consensus through embracing the minority.
  What do they do here in the House of Representatives? To their own 
Member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who had a dissenting 
viewpoint, kind of the position the Sunnis are in as a minority, boom, 
off with his head, silence him. Take him out of the political discourse 
here by removing his chairmanship. That is not a good message to the 
Iraqis about how democracy ought to run.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
do not think is it is a good message to the rest of the Republicans who 
serve there. The message is if you challenge us, you are in trouble. So 
it silences even their own Members. It keeps them from having the 
ability to speak up and speak out.
  I have said before, we are elected to come here to represent the 
people who vote for us and make us their representative. We do not come 
here to serve the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert). We do not 
come here to serve the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) or the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). We come here to represent the 
people who send us here.
  If my Republican friends do not have the freedom to speak up and 
speak out about what they think is right for their constituents without 
getting a committee taken away from them or getting a position taken 
away from them, well, then they become impotent, quite frankly. They 
are not able to be a true representative.
  I ask this question: Where are the friends of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith)? Where are they in the Republican caucus? I want to 
tell you, if that happened to my friend from Washington State, if our 
Democratic leadership did that, or if our Democratic leadership did 
that to my colleague from the State of Ohio, I would be outraged, and I 
think Members of our caucus would be outraged. We would not stand for 
it.
  But there is a silence over there that is very, very troubling. What 
it means is there is one or two or three people who are in charge of 
what happens in this House, and the others go a long to get along.
  I quoted this statement from Ben Franklin before. I think it is good 
and applicable. Ben Franklin said, ``If you act like sheep, the wolves 
will eat you.'' I wonder if my colleagues over there are not acting 
like sheep? They are being awfully quiet. They let an honored, 
respected, hard-working, committed, devoted, dedicated member of their 
caucus be treated in that manner, be treated in that manner, and I did 
not hear any public outcry at all. None at all.
  I think it must be because of fear, because I know there are people 
over there who respected the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who 
believed he was right in his thinking and in the position he was trying 
to take as an advocate for veterans. Yet I did not hear any public 
outcry.
  I think it is a shame that this House would be so constrained out of 
fear of what the leadership may do if the individual members speak up 
and speak out.
  Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman will yield further, the President had 
some eloquent language about freedom around the world, which is 
something

[[Page 2353]]

we all aspire to. I guess we are saying people ought to have freedom in 
the House of Representatives to stand up for veterans, and not be 
punished as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was. That is 
wrong, and we are going to continue to be a voice for veterans so this 
administration does not cut their health care.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to 
thank both gentlemen tonight and just say we are willing to work with 
the other side to find the $3.5 billion, whether it is out of the $500 
billion or $600 billion increase to the Medicare program that we just 
found out about, we could squeeze $3.5 billion out of that, or whether 
it is asking the wealthiest to help. We are willing to work with them 
and follow the veterans organizations and do what is right to our 
veterans who made the sacrifices.

                          ____________________