[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 23, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON

                                of idaho

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 22, 2003

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2799) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes:

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer some perspective on 
the amendment offered by my colleague from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
  As all of us know and acknowledge, Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment seems 
like a no-brainer and something everyone would support. To suggest that 
our Nation's veterans who were held prisoner by the Japanese in World 
War II should be prevented from filing a lawsuit for compensation seems 
outside the realm of what any politician would argue. But if my 
colleagues will allow, I am here to do just that.
  While I do acknowledge the difficulty of arguing my position, I 
believe it's a sound position and one any member of this body could 
support if only they were made aware of the history surrounding this 
matter and the facts behind our international obligations.
  America is indeed indebted to our former POWs--whether they are World 
War II POWs or those, including Jessica Lynch, who were held captive by 
Saddam Hussein. That debt our Nation owes these men and women is not 
just one of gratitude, but one of compensation for their time in enemy 
hands.
  This amendment, however, is neither the best nor a wise approach to 
ensuring we meet our Nation's obligations to our former POWs and I 
would like to explain why.
  If passed by the House of Representatives and adopted in conference 
in its current form, this amendment would almost certainly invite a 
veto by the White House. I firmly believe that the President would be 
using sound judgment in vetoing the amendment because it would violate 
our treaty obligations under the treaty we signed with the Japanese at 
the end of World War II.
  Some of us in this chamber may take those treaty obligations lightly 
or might suggest that we should ignore commitments made over 50 years 
ago. I say we must abide by those treaty obligations because that 
treaty is what set the foundation for the 50 years of friendship and 
cooperation our Nation has had with Japan. Great nations do not violate 
their treaty obligations nor do they go back on their commitments to 
their friends. Great nations abide by their commitments and stand with 
their friends in easy situations and in difficult situations.
  I believe there is another compelling reason why this amendment 
should be rejected and why we should choose another course. The 
amendment offered by my colleague from California only addresses those 
POWs who were taken captive during World War II. What about the POWs 
from the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the 
Persian Gulf War, or our most recent war with Iraq? These POWs have 
suffered extraordinary hardships and, due to the inequity in this 
amendment, would be left without any long-term compensation for their 
sacrifices.
  I think it's important to point out that our Nation is currently home 
to an estimated 42,781 surviving ex-POWS: more than 39,700 from World 
War II, 2,400 from the Korean War, 601 from the Vietnam War, one from 
Somalia and three from Kosovo--and these numbers don't include the POWS 
from our actions against Iraq.
  That is why I have offered an alternative--one that would accomplish 
everything this amendment does not. My legislation, H.R. 850, would 
create a new compensation system for former POWs delivered through the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Under the new system, POWs detained 30 
to 120 days would receive $150 per month, those detained 121 to 540 
days would receive $300 per month, and those detained for 540 or more 
days would receive $450 per month. Payment would be made without regard 
to any other compensation under the laws of the United States. In 
addition, the bill contains a provision to provide outpatient dental 
care for all POWs. Current law requires a period of internment of not 
less than 90 days in order to qualify. Further, I have already agreed 
to eliminate the 30 day requirement to be eligible for benefits under 
the bill to ensure POWs who were held for a shorter period of time, 
including those who have returned from Iraq, would in fact be eligible 
for monthly compensation.
  Mr. Chairman, my legislation offers this body an alternative to 
breaking our treaty obligations and failing to meet our commitments to 
50-year-old friends and allies. World War II ended nearly 60 years ago 
and throughout the last half of the twentieth century, Japan proved 
time and again that it is one of our most trusted allies and a nation 
upon whom we could count for lasting friendship. If anything, the last 
year has shown this Nation the value of trusted friends and our need 
for close allies around the globe.
  We have the chance today to do something noble. We can both be a good 
friend to Japan and meet our commitments to the men and women who have 
worn our Nation's uniform and been held captive during foreign wars. We 
can do this by rejecting the path chosen by my colleague from 
California and by, instead, choosing an approach such as that offered 
in H.R. 850.

                          ____________________