Washington - U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) this evening continued his series of floor speeches aimed at highlighting what Iraq War spending could provide in domestic priorities. This evening, Sen. Menendez focused on what Iraq War spending could be providing in terms of children's health coverage - earlier today House Republicans sustained President Bush's veto of a children's health bill that could have covered up to 10 million children from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.

"Iraq costs us $10 billion per month," said Sen. Menendez. "That means with three and a half months of Iraq funding, the expansion in this bill is paid for. That's what the war costs. Health care for 10 million children. Versus three-and-a-half months in Iraq."

Sen. Menendez plans to deliver speeches in this series periodically, particularly when a domestic policy priority is being considered on the Senate floor. Below is the text of his remarks from tonight, as prepared for delivery:

THE IRAQ WAR: What It's Costing Us Here at Home
Part II: Iraq VS. Children's Health Insurance

M. President,

Yesterday I began to speak about what the failed War in Iraq is costing us here at home, to mark the fifth anniversary of Congress's capitulation to the war.

Again, let me begin by saying we are all very aware of the human cost of the war. 3,816 Americans are dead. More than 28,000 have come back home wounded. Iraqis have died in even greater numbers, and millions have fled their homes. The United States has been involved in the war for longer than we fought World War II.

We all know that the Iraq War is a human calamity of vast proportions.

It can be harder to visualize the direct damage that comes from the financial cost of the war. We are paying for this war with borrowed money, burying ourselves in massive debt, severely threatening the future of our country.

We know that we have spent more than $450 billion on this war so far. We continue to spend about $10 billion every month.

That doesn't just add up to a stack of bills that could have sat in the Treasury. It's equipment at ports that scan for nuclear weapons, and other measures that actually make the homeland more secure.

It's children healed with better healthcare. It's more teachers in schools, better training for our jobs, energy that's clean and doesn't strengthen repressive regimes in the Middle East, payment of our debts so future generations will inherit a country that is financially viable.

The Bush Administration likes to parrot the line that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." But when we add it all up, the bottom line is very clear: the Administrations' motto really is, "We're spending all our money over there so we don't spend it here."


M. President, yesterday I spoke about how much we really could accomplish to safeguard our homeland against terrorists if we spent just a fraction of the money that we've dumped into a war that makes no sense.

Today I would like to speak about what the failed War in Iraq has cost us in terms of our health, and specifically, the health of our children.

Today the House of Representatives considered whether or not to support a bill to provide health insurance for children.

Every time we go to the doctor or fill a prescription at the pharmacy, we remember how expensive health care can be.

There are families who work every day in some of the toughest jobs in the country, but their jobs don't offer health care and their paychecks won't let them afford private coverage.

That's why the federal government and the states teamed up to start the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. This year Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a bill that will continue to provide health care to the 6 million children already enrolled, and will expand the program to include a total of 10 million children across America. We knew we had to, because the children who fall into the wide abyss between Medicaid and private coverage are depending on us.

But on October 3rd, millions of children got some terrible news: President Bush had vetoed the bill. He did it silently and secretly, with no cameras allowed to watch as he condemned millions of children to a lack of coverage with a single stroke of his pen.

Today, families across America were waiting to see if Congress had the moral resolve to override that veto.

Some of our colleagues who cast the decisive votes against children's health raised the question of whether the bill was financially reasonable, whether 10 million uninsured American kids were worthy of funding. President Bush said that they were not.

I'll add that many of my colleagues who voted against children's health have repeatedly decided to vote for continuing the failed War in Iraq.

So right now I want to speak directly to them. If we're talking about what's financially reasonable, let's take a very close look at the stark contrast in costs between children's health and the failed War in Iraq.

The total cost of expanding children's health is $35 billion over 5 years, for 10 million kids. How many dollars per child does this cost us every day? Depending on which state you live in, the answer is, as little as $3.50-around the cost of a latte at Starbucks.

Iraq costs us $10 billion per month. That means with three and a half months of Iraq funding, the expansion in this bill is paid for.

That's what the war costs. Health care for 10 million children. Versus three-and-a-half months in Iraq.

The impact of this bill would have been enormous in New Jersey, where families have to pay some of the highest health care costs in the nation.

It would have helped support the state in keeping 124,000 New Jersey children insured, and could have covered as many as 100,000 additional children in our state.

In the bill, New Jersey would have received around $350 million next year alone to cover working families and children. This program has given New Jersey families, who cannot afford private coverage, the peace of mind to know their children have health care.

President Bush has told those children, no, you don't deserve the federal government's strong support, even though this country spends $330 million in Iraq every day. Again: every single day in Iraq, we spend roughly the amount of money it would take to get tens of thousands of New Jersey children coverage for a full year. I wish he had to look every child in the eye to tell them that.

But that's what the war costs. Health insurance for New Jersey children. Versus one day in Iraq.

In fact, with the amount Congress has spent on the failed War in Iraq, we could provide two years of health coverage for all of the 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance, who play Russian Roulette every day with their lives and their wallets, and still have $30 billion left over.

That's what the war costs. Health coverage for every single American family. Versus the failed War in Iraq.

So here's the question we have to ask ourselves, as legislators, as Americans, as human beings: is a child going to get more benefit from a dollar spent keeping our military in Iraq to referee a civil war, or a dollar spent on her health insurance?

Is she going to be better served by oil injected in an Abrams tank, or by a vaccine a nurse injects in her arm to save her from measles? Is her life going to be more improved by missiles in the desert or antibiotics in her medicine cabinet, more troops on the streets of Baghdad or more doctors in the hospital down the block, multi-million-dollar bombs that rain down on Iraqi neighborhoods with surgical precision, or orthopedic surgery for a disease like cerebral palsy that would mean the difference between a life in a wheelchair and being able to walk and run and play with the other children at school?

How dare we take tax money from her family, and borrow money from foreign countries, to spend it on a war that makes no sense, while leaving her on her own to fight diseases and injuries that might claim her life?

It is hard to think of a more grievous act on the part of this government than abandoning those children in order to prolong that war.

The vote to override President Bush's veto was not just about political responsibility. It was not just about Constitutional responsibility. It was a question of right and wrong.

Let's remember the Administration's motto: "Spend all our money over there so we don't spend it here." That is as wrong as it gets.

I will continue to speak on what else this war is costing us here at home: in terms of education, jobs, green energy, helping the middle class make ends meet, and the financial stability of the nation our children will inherit.

America deserves to know what we could have achieved had this horrible war never happened. The Administration has spent down our finances, Republicans in the House have voted down health coverage for our children, but one thing they have not yet emptied out is our vast treasury of hope.

It is tragic to think what might have been. But it is not too late to believe in what we can become.

###