On the recordMay 19, 2004
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we will not be allowed to debate the true cost of this war. That is ironic because I think most Americans, whether they are for or against the conflict, at least want honest answers from this body. They want to know what the real casualty rate is, something that, unfortunately, Secretary Wolfowitz could not recall in a hearing the other day. They also want to know about the dollars and cents. In the first Iraq war, which I proudly supported, the American taxpayer really did not have to pay even $10 billion for that war. This cost is already approaching $200 billion. That is not necessarily a bad thing because I think most Americans not only support the war; they want us to win and bring our troops home safely. Here with this bill, despite the many fine things that are in the legislation, most every Member of this House, Republican or Democrat, has already voted for a budget which contained $50 billion for our troops, $50 billion, five zero billion dollars. But what is in this bill? $25 billion dollars for the troops. Why the difference? Why the difference? Actually, the $25 billion is a partial victory, and I congratulate the chairman because, before, the White House did not want any money in the bill for the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Source
govinfo.gov




