Thanks, Kiddo. And don't forget the nearly 100,000 Iraqi civilians who died because of "Georgie's" arrogance. Think of the PTSD among the millions of Iraqi's who are in exile or homeless or living in fear every day.

You continue on with the same tired old rhetorical game; attempting to justify the wrongs of contemporary conservatism, using examples of past wrong by Democrats. Do two wrongs make a righty?

> I agree that this latest disaster of ours is taking a huge toll,
> but there were a million of more Vietnam Vets who suffered
> the same fate at the hands of a democratic administration.

Even this portrayal is a bit of a dodge. Depends on which administrations one counts as germane to the argument. It also strikes me as an astounding admission. Are contemporary conservatives unable to use history as a guide to direct their decisions in the present?

But what experience and history teach is this-that peoples and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; "The Philosophy of History", introduction

From the Congressional Daily Records' October 5, 2005; Page S11117:

Amendment No. 1937

Mr. Stevens: Now, is the record clear about my making a point of order to the Stabenow amendment? If not, I renew the point of order under 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. The amendment requires spending in excess of the committee's 302(b) allocation for the fiscal year concurrent resolution of the Budget, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. Stabenow: Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

The Presiding Officer: Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Ms. Stabenow: Mr. President, I ask colleagues to support the Stabenow-Johnson-Thune amendment that guarantees funding for our veterans for health care. It takes it out of the annual appropriations process where every year we are wrestling with whether the funding is available. This year alone already we have had one emergency designation of $1.5 billion because the veterans health care budget was underfunded this year. We know there are concerns about next year.

This amendment would do two things. First, the legislation provides an annual discretionary amount that would be locked in for future years at the 2005 funding level. Then in the future, the VA would receive a sum of mandatory funding that would be adjusted year to year based on changes in demand from the VA health care system as well as rate of inflation.

This is incredibly important. We should not be arbitrarily picking numbers in terms of funding veterans health care. It should be based on the brave men and women who have served who come on home and put on a veteran's cap. We have more and more coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq every day. Each and every one of them has been promised health care. The way to guarantee we keep our promise is to pass this amendment.

I urge agreement.

Mr. Craig: Mr. President, our veterans deserve all a grateful nation can give them. Over the last 6 years we have increased the Veterans budget by over $3 billion a year. Although the Senator from Michigan is right about the dustup this year, we still did it because America is grateful for those who serve in harm's way.

While all veterans are entitled, should we start a new entitlement program, one that is now out of control, that we cannot monitor on a yearly basis as we do through the appropriating process and the authorizing process? The Senator is proposing a new entitlement program. But she is also saying something else. She is not saying those who served is the baseline of the formula. She is saying those who are entitled. And there is a very real difference between those who are entitled and eligible versus those who seek service because of need. We pay for those who seek service based on their eligibility. We do not create a new entitlement program.

Ask yourselves, do you want to create a new entitlement program or do you want to do what we are doing now, providing the necessary resources on an annual basis to meet the needs of America's veterans?

I ask Members to vote no. Do not waive the Budget Act. Do not create a new entitlement program and basically take it out of the hands of the Congress and put it in the hands of the VA. That is not what I think our veterans would want us to do.

That was some soft-shoe routine in a public toilet by Larry Craig, eh: "While all veterans are entitled, should we start a new entitlement program"?

Then there is Sally Satel, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Satel's dismissive spin on PTSD is reprehensible.

Instead of helping contemporary conservatism continue on down its long descent into the miasma of moral relativism, you should be working on what has been spoiled. It's time for American Conservatism to evolve or die.

Thank you for your service and thank you for helping others. I appreciate your taking the time to comment and there is a special place for those of you who give of yourselves to help other vets.