Previous question -- Is War with Iraq Inevitable?
The final results are as follows: Yes - 79%, No - 15%, Maybe - 5%, No Opinion - 1%
This is a non-scientific poll designed for the reader to express their opinion and to record a sampling.

Previous question -- Will the war with Iraq ultimately reduce the threat of terrorism in the world?
The final results are as follows: Yes - 54%, No - 35%, Maybe -10%, No Opinion - 1%
This is a non-scientific poll designed for the reader to express their opinion and to record a sampling.

Previous question -- Are young people today more aware of the significance of Memorial Day than say  ten years ago? The final results are as follows: Yes - 24%, No - 65%, Maybe -10%, No Opinion - 1%

Since Senator Leahy is not yet here, let me call on Senator Mikulski for her comments.
  
MIKULSKI: Thank you very much.
   Well, good morning, everybody. Last week, we debated the Iraq
supplemental to put money in the federal checkbook, to stand up for our troops.
   Well, we need to stand up for our troops not only over there, to
make sure that they have the right gear, the right equipment to be
able to do the job we asked them to do. But while we stand up for
them over there, we have to stand up for them as veterans right
here in our own country.
The amendment that we passed during the Iraqi supplemental, a bipartisan amendment,
lead by myself, my colleagues here and Senator Bond, we added $1.3 billion to this
supplemental to pay for veterans' health care. Now we put the money in, we need to
show that if we support our veterans and their health care, we not
only have to put it in the federal checkbook, we also have to keep it
in conference. We need to support our veterans.
   My amendment will make sure that soldiers returning from this war
can get the medical care they need, along with the veterans who fought
in other wars.   Our veterans need to know that America is with them and that we
owe them a debt of gratitude. But gratitude should just not only be
with words and with parades, it's got to be with deeds and resources.
That means making our troops and our veterans a priority and that
means in their health care.
   Now when we were debating the funding for veterans' health care,
the administration's proposals were spartan and skimpy. Without
this emergency funding in my amendment, our veterans will either face
long waiting lines to get the health care they were promised or to pay
new fees, new fees and co-payments; even a membership fee if you're a
category seven veteran. That means mostly the World War II guys,
who though they don't have literally service-connected disabilities, will
always bear the permanent memory of war.
   So we moved this amendment, and guess what? Last night, the
administration had the gall to say that they objected. They objected to this money.
   Well, we object to them. We object to their approach to
veterans' health care. We object to their platitudes without performance.
   So we're going to fight for this money because we believe that
promises made should be promises kept. We don't think you should have
to pay a membership fee to get veterans' health care.
We think those veterans paid their dues. They paid
them at Normandy, they paid them at Iwo Jima, they made them at Pork
Chop Hill and Mekong Delta. And now they pay their dues in the burning sands of Baghdad.
   So we're pretty burned up about the way they're ignoring our
veterans. So this $1.3 billion is needed to provide veterans' health
care. We need to keep it in the conference.
No veteran should ever have to stand in line to get the health care they deserve.
   We have a fantastic veterans' staff of doctors, nurses and
facilities. They have the will to do the job, now it's up to us to find the wallet.
  
DASCHLE: I see Senator Leahy has arrived. Now let me ask for
Senator Leahy to make his comments.
  
LEAHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Leader, and I apologize for
being late especially on an issue this important.
   You know, we've turned especially since September 11th two years
ago we've turned so much of the men and women of the National Guard
into Reserves but now more than 200,000 Guard and Reserve members
activated in the war on terrorism, more than 20,000 working on
security and infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, another 15,000
have been alerted across the country to stand by. And as that's
happened it has brought to the forefront the huge gaps they and their
family have in health insurance coverage. They need something far
more stable than what they have.
   This week, the troubling news out of Georgia where Guard and
Reservists have been in a medical hold limbo, apparently in very crude
living conditions for months. I sent someone from my staff down today
to investigate this situation. I look forward to the report which
I'll share with everybody here.
   I'm co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus. I want to see
us fix this. I think what Senator Daschle and all those who have
joined with him in a bipartisan effort, it's absolutely right what we
want to do. We passed our plan on the defense authorization bill this
summer in a vote of 85 to 10 and two weeks ago, with the crucial
cooperation of Chairman Stevens of the Appropriations Committee, we
included it in the Iraq funding.  Now, Secretary Rumsfeld, for some
reason, opposed this plan last summer, and now we find the administration continues its
opposition.   I can't understand this. For Iraq, the administration wants
millions of dollars in this new bill for a new ZIP code system, but
when it comes to filling the health insurance gaps facing our Guard
and Reserves, the White House only wants zip, and it's wrong -- it
is absolutely wrong. Guard and Reserve answered the call. We ought to
step forward with this TRICARE legislation.
   The White House should change its mind on this. It is not fair,
it is not right to call up these Guard and Reserve, tell them to do
a first-class job, but then treat them as second-class parts of the military.
  
GRAHAM: When it comes to supporting our troops, this president
is all hat and no cattle. The White House claims that it supports our
troops, but its actions prove otherwise. The administration has not
supported our troops on the front lines and has acted with indifference toward our veterans.
   What is some of the evidence of this lack of support and
indifference? The administration fought against the initial increase
and now has fought against the extension of an extra $225 per month
for hazard pay and for troops serving abroad.
   When pushed against the wall by Congress, the White House
reluctantly supported the extension, but only for those troops serving
in Afghanistan and Iraq.   Further, Congress insisted that all of our troops serving abroad
should receive this additional compensation and that service men and
women who are fighting the war on terror here in the United States should get its benefits.
   In one of the most outrageous decisions of this administration,
the Department of Defense was charging our soldiers for the meals that
they were receiving while they were hospitalized. Congress halted
this effort by including a provision in the supplemental appropriation
bill that assures that soldiers will not longer have to pay for the
meals that they are receiving as a result of hospitalization, in many
cases as the result of injuries suffered in combat.
   We also passed the amendment offered by Senator Boxer, which
would reimburse soldiers who had had to pay the cost of their meals
when hospitalized since September the 11th, 2001.
   We were also successful, as she has so forcefully and eloquently
stated, in passing the Mikulski-Bond amendment, which provides an
additional $1.3 billion for veterans' health care, funding that which
the Bush administration failed to recommend.
   This funding is sorely needed, considering that 80,000 veterans
are currently waiting longer than six months to see a VA doctor.
And until they see a VA doctor, they are not eligible for VA benefits,
including access to prescription drugs.
   When debating the supplemental, Democrats offered an amendment
that would have granted full concurrent receipts, allowing veterans
who have been injured and disabled, and who have now reached the point
that they are eligible for retirement, to receive both types of
compensation. Republicans blocked this proposal by ruling it out of
order.The administration has also slashed benefits to middle-
income veterans, adding co-payments to medical services for veterans
and is currently working through the CARES process to cut some 6,000
beds in the VA system. This comes at a time when wounded and sick
servicemen are returning from combat to inadequate health care and living conditions.
   We've had to fight every step of the way to get this
administration to commit adequate funding to the care of our troops
and the care of our veterans. The men and women who serve our country
deserve more than this White House's empty rhetoric. They deserve
more than an empty hat. They deserve recognition for their sacrifice
and service and honor for their hard work. They deserve the beef.
This means recognizing their heroism during and after their service to America.   Thank you.
  
CLINTON: Well, I want to thank my colleagues for their years of
leadership on these issues. Everyone who has spoken is someone who
has been committed to providing adequate support for our troops and
for our veterans going back through many presidencies and, indeed,
through all kinds of challenges and crises.
   But we're here today because we seem to have a disconnect between
our historical support for our troops and our veterans and the policies of this
administration and it's very troubling.    I think you could sense some of the emotion in the
remarks of each of my colleagues that we are facing an administration that,
even in the face of overwhelming bipartisan support to remedy some of
these difficulties, says no, and sends out threats that they will veto or
disapprove the kind of efforts that we are trying to succeed in implementing.
   Now it's absolutely clear from my travels around New York, just
as all of my colleagues in their own states, that the issue about
health care for our reserves and the members of our National Guard is at the top of the list.
   That's why I was pleased to be an original sponsor, along with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to make it possible to provide
options for Guard and Reserve members and their families.
   That's the TRICARE amendment that we are referring to. And it
would allow these brave men and women to have a chance to buy health
insurance, either through TRICARE or to keep another policy if they had it.
   And we call upon the president to strongly support this. It is
not too much to ask. It is, in fact, the right thing to do. At the same time that we are acting to
improve the health care coverage for our National Guard and Reserves, it's
important that we adequately provide health care to our active duty troops.
   And as Senator Leahy referenced, there have been several
disturbing news reports over the treatment of soldiers returning home
from Iraq. Active duty, National Guard, Reserves, it didn't matter
when they were in the line of fire outside of Baghdad; when they came
back they were injured they deserved the same kind of medical care
that we have provided historically to anyone who was the victim of conflict.
   Unfortunately, these press reports indicate that hundreds --
hundreds of sick and wounded soldiers are waiting in hot cement
barracks sometimes for months until they can see their doctors.
   Our soldiers deserve better and I anxiously await the report from
Senator Leahy's staff and today I'm sending a letter, as a member of
the Armed Services Committee, to Senators Warner and Levin, as well as
Chambliss and Nelson, to call for hearings on the adequacy of the
health care being provided to our troops in Fort Stewart and elsewhere.
   This is a very disturbing series of reports for a number of reasons.
But one of which is that, during the Clinton administration I chaired an effort to get attention to
the physical and mental health problems of our returning Gulf War veterans. And we finally
created a commission and we made some real steps forward in providing ongoing
treatment to many of those soldiers who went to the Gulf healthy and
came back with undiagnosed and difficult problems that did not for a
long time get adequate medical care.
   I cannot believe that we are hearing the same kinds of stories
now. Where we have young men and women who went to Iraq healthy and
now are suffering from not only the results of conflict but from other
kinds of diseases and symptoms that are not being given adequate attention.
   In a number of hearings leading up to this engagement I asked
specific questions of the Pentagon, ``Are we prepared to take care of
our returning active duty soldiers?''
   And it fits in perfectly with Senator Mikulski's amendment.
These young men and women are about to become veterans.
Some of them will not be able to continue active-duty
service because of their injuries and whatever other physical and
mental conditions they have developed. They will go into the VA system.
   So on the one hand, we're not providing adequate care for our
active duty, our National Guard and Reserves, and on the other hand,
we are cutting the budgets for the VA system.
   It's perfect storm. It does reflect well on the quality of care
that should be forthcoming or on the values of this country.
   So we join in trying to send a message to this administration
that it is time for them to back down and be concerned about the
people that they are sending into harm's way.
   And it is especially troubling when you pick up the paper and you
read a leaked memo -- or maybe not leaked, maybe provided to the press
by the secretary of defense -- wondering whether we're doing the best
job we can do in fighting the war on terrorism.
   I mean, this administration is fighting a war within itself. It
should not take out its internal struggles against those who are
actually fighting the real war in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
  
STRICKLAND: Well, I'm happy to be here with my Senate friends and colleagues.
   The record of this administration in terms of treatment of
veterans is scandalous and it is hypocritical.
   At a time when the president was preparing to send our young
soldiers and some of the middle-aged soldiers into war, he sent us a budget.

And in that budget he asked that we have a $250 annual
enrollment fee imposed on priority seven and eight veterans.
   He asked that there be an increase in the prescription drug
costs, from $7 a prescription -- which had just been recently
increased from $2 a prescription -- from $7 to $15 a prescription.
   The secretary decided that we would create a priority eight group
of veterans. And because they were considered higher income, they
would no longer even be able to enroll in the VA health care system.
These persons could be combat-decorated veterans and excluded from the
VA health care system.
   And in my distressed district in Ohio, you could make as little
as $25,000 a year and be considered higher income under this provision
and be deprived of VA health care.   What's happening to us?
   During the House of Representatives budget considerations earlier
in the year, we promised veterans that we would increase the budget by
$3.2 billion. However, we fell $1.8 billion short of meeting that
commitment and that goal. Today we have veterans who are doing without and
going without. It is a shame.   Talk is cheap and we hear a lot of it in this capital.
But health care costs money. And we ought to be ashamed of ourselves, in
my judgment, as a government, that we would treat our veterans in such
a shabby manner. Our veterans deserve more.
   And I am pleased that just yesterday in the House of
Representatives we passed a motion to instruct the conferees on the
emergency supplemental bill. We have asked to concur with Senator
Mikulski's amendment -- the Senate amendment -- to add an additional
$1.3 billion to this budget. It passed the House by a vote of 277 to
139; a large step forward in trying to meet this critical need.
   Now, we'll have to wait and see what happens. It was a strong
vote in the House of Representatives and I think that ought to
obligate those who are representing us in the conference to support
the will of the House, to confer with this amendment passed in the Senate.
   And that brings me to the word I used earlier: hypocrisy.
Because it is important that we do what we say we believe and do what
we say we're going to do.
And I believe the veterans in this country and their families, their loved ones and all fair-minded
Americans believe that we've got an obligation and we're not meeting it and
shame on us, if we don't.   Thank you.
  
DASCHLE: I thank my colleagues. I thank Congressman Strickland for joining us.
   And we'll take a few questions, if you have any.
  
QUESTION: Senator Graham had mentioned that he (OFF-MIKE) issue,
there was a compromise proposed last week. Is that an acceptable
solution to the problem, in terms of phasing in that coverage?

DASCHLE: Well, I would think that it's yet another down payment
to the long-term goal of providing full concurrent receipt to all veterans.
   I personally could accept it. I haven't had the opportunity to vet it with our caucus.
But I think those who are 50 percent disabled and more certainly deserve priority.
   As I say, that doesn't solve the problem, but it, again,
addresses part of the problem, and if we keep building on it,
ultimately we'll succeed. We'll take this, put it in the bank and
continue to advocate until we have completed our work on concurrent receipt.
  
LEAHY: You know, an easy way -- still, the easy way is what we
did in the appropriations bill when it went through. I mean, that's
something that you have Republicans, Democrats, we all worked together on.
   For the life of me, I can't understand why the administration
threatens to veto the bill for the military and reconstruction in Iraq
over helping those who are called up to fight the war. And I'm hoping
that the Appropriations Committee will show independence and stick with that.
  
QUESTION: Senator Daschle, I was wondering how much bearing you
think that the donors conference -- the results of the donors
conference this week will have on the loan provision in conference in
the supplemental. A lot of Republicans say they believe that it's all
but dead, including Republicans who supported the loan provision.
I was wondering if you agree with that.
  
DASCHLE: Well, I still believe that the strongest message we
could send to donors is that we're prepared to forgive, but we also
expect some degree of responsibility from Iraq themselves. That's all we're saying with this.
   And we're setting the example. We're providing a good deal of
the money in grant. If they forgive, we'd be prepared, I'm sure, to
forgive. And that is the message that I think we ought to take to the donors conference.
   I think a larger question about the donors conference is how much
of a commitment from the international community can we expect.
And if we aren't going to be able to achieve the goals that have been
enunciated by this administration, why are we not doing a better job
of convincing our international partners to be participants of greater
consequence in Iraq today?
   That ought to be the essence of our effort. And, frankly, I'll
be disappointed and I think the American people will be disappointed
if, as a result of that donors conference, the realization becomes all
the more clear that the lion's share of the responsibility for Iraq
will continue to be on the shoulders of American taxpayers.
  
CLINTON: That's especially hard to justify when there's no give
on these other issues for veterans and other pressing needs.
   You know, I think each one of us has a difficult time going home
and telling our constituents -- I spent Monday testifying about the
closure of a VA hospital in Canandaigua, New York, and yesterday, by
satellite, about another closure in Montrose, near where I live, and
it's very difficult to say, ``Well, we just voted $87 billion,
including $20 billion to build hospitals and schools and
infrastructure in Iraq, and we can't find the money to keep VA
hospitals open for our aging veteran population and the new veterans
that we're making every day in Iraq.''
   It just doesn't add up. And I just, for the life of me, don't
understand the administration's position on this, especially given
their refusal to take care of home front needs, like the ones we're
talking about today.
  
MIKULSKI: I think the administration needs to be more aggressive
and more flexible in terms of international burden sharing. I think
we have to be aggressive in really asking the world to support this
effort to rebuild Iraq. And they can do it in three ways: They can
send more people to help our troops, they can send cash to help with
the construction, or they can forgive the debt that Saddam Hussein rolled up with them.           
So there are three things they can do.
   But they're also going to want something from the United States
of America. If they're going to have international burden sharing,
then they want to be able to have a role in terms of moving Iraq to a democratic society.
   So we need vigor and we need flexibility. But quite frankly,
they're very tepid in terms of pushing the international community. I
want them to push the international community with the same effort
that they pushed us to war.
  
GRAHAM: One additional perverse consequence of the United States
supplying its reconstruction totally by grants, is that we are going
to make every other creditor of Iraq that much more secure.
   Many countries had essentially written-off their loans to Iraq as
being non-collectible. If we go in and repair the bridges and the
roads, the schools at our total expense, without any likelihood of
reimbursement, we're making everybody else's debt that much stronger.
   Some of the countries, specifically one of the countries,
conducted itself in a manner before September the 11th, 2001, and I
think after September the 11th, 2001, in a way that merits the United
States condemnation, not its giving greater solidity to the loans that
it has made to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
   I think that's an outrage. And I hope that the conferees
understand the feeling of the American people and will not follow the
administration's demand that they remove this loan provision, even in
the face of a threat of a veto.
  
Isn't it ironic that the administration says it's critical now
that we support the troops, but if supporting the troops also means
that we do not give benefits to countries that were our enemies in the
war on terror, that's a higher priority?
  
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
  
DASCHLE: We'll take a look at what the final conference report
presents itself to be. I think it'd be unlikely that we would oppose
it. I think it's important for us to do all that we can to try to
maintain what we have fought for all the way through this process:
some degree of responsibility on the part of Iraq and a commitment
from this administration to remember the home front.
If we can do that, we will be much more supportive.
But if we fail to do that, we'll take that fight to other bills as     
they present themselves in the Senate.
  
QUESTION: This Rumsfeld memo refers to a long, hard slog ahead
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides probably needing some more veterans,
what kind of implications do you draw from that memo?
  
DASCHLE: Well, I think Secretary Rumsfeld's comments are an
illustration of the concern that they have about the failure of their
policies in Iraq so far. There can be no other description of those
words than that. They acknowledge that they have not succeeded to date.
   I think what we all need, though, is a good yardstick, a measure
by which we can judge progress and ultimately our success.
   If we don't establish that yardstick -- and I think it ought to
be one that people in Congress and the administration can agree to, so
that we know just how we are progressing, we know when we have
achieved success. We don't have that today.  Thanks, everybody.
  
END

America's Leading Online Veterans Newspaper