[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 66 (Thursday, April 24, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3343-S3344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       VETERANS COMMUNITY ISSUES

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise to talk about two issues with respect 
to our veterans community. First, I express my strong support for S. 
1315, as reported by the committee, and my thanks, as a member of the 
veterans committee, to Chairman Akaka for all the work that went into 
this legislation.
  I wish to spend a little time talking about the provision of the bill 
that is in question. As someone who began working on veterans law as a 
committee counsel in the late 1970s, I understand the concerns of the 
Senator from North Carolina about the provision with respect to 
Filipino veterans who are living in the Philippines who would receive 
pension benefits from this bill. I emphasize that I believe the 
chairman has done a great job in trying to balance a list of powerful 
competing considerations that go to the aspect of basic fairness to 
those who served.
  This issue has been around a long time. People have struggled with a 
way to resolve it. The fairness aspect cuts both ways. As Senator 
Inouye and others have been so clear in pointing out, the question of 
assisting Filipino veterans for their service in World War II is 
complicated by the notion of the political status of the Philippine 
Islands at the time. They were, in fact, a territory of the United 
States politically, and they served under the command, in many cases, 
of American commanders and not simply in affiliated allied status as, 
for instance, the veterans of the South Vietnamese Army during the 
Vietnam war.
  This situation is unique. It is complex, and it does create a series 
of obligations by our Government toward these people.
  There is precedent of sorts for this activity. I go back to 1976, 
when President Ford signed into law a provision that gave limited 
veterans' status to Polish and Czechoslovakian freedom fighters who 
served during World War II, not with the United States military at all 
but had migrated to the United States. The logic was given at the time 
that since Poland and Czechoslovakia had fallen under Communist rule, 
they had lost the government that would have been able to give them 
veterans' benefits, and our Government did provide limited veterans' 
benefits to those people.
  What we are talking about in this bill is the notion of according 
veterans pension rights to Filipino veterans of World War II living in 
the Philippines. It is important to emphasize to my colleagues that 
under veterans law, pension is not a gratis benefit such as, for 
instance, a Social Security pension that is given no matter one's 
economic status. In veterans law, pension is given based on need. This 
has been the focus of the debate for more than 30 years, as to how do 
you define, under American law, the cutoff in terms of standards of 
living inside the Philippines.
  This is where Chairman Akaka and his staff have worked so assiduously 
to come up with something that is fair. In order to apply for a 
veterans pension, you have to be in financial need. And the amount you 
receive is basically to get you to a certain level that gets you above 
the poverty level. So the average annual pension in the United States 
for an American veteran is just under $10,000 a year. You can get up to 
nearly $15,000 a year in the United States in your veterans pension 
program, and under some extremely unusual cases, you can get up to 
$18,000. What we are talking about, the way the committee staff has 
worked this out in terms of equity, is giving the Filipino veterans 
living in the Philippines a $3,600-a-year pension based on need, once 
they go into the U.S. formula. It is not a perfect solution, but I do 
believe it is an equitable solution. I intend to support it.
  The second issue I would like to discuss relates to a piece of 
legislation that was introduced a couple days ago by Senator Burr, with 
Senators Graham and McCain as cosponsors. It is apparently designed to 
be an alternative to S. 22, the comprehensive GI

[[Page S3344]]

bill I introduced nearly 16 months ago, which was recently modified and 
reintroduced to reflect the collective view of a wide range of experts, 
both inside Government and in the veterans community. S. 22, the bill I 
originally introduced, now enjoys strong bipartisan support. We have 57 
cosponsors in the Senate. That includes 11 Republicans. Among the 
cosponsors on this bill are the Senator from Missouri; Senator Warner, 
former chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and many others, 
Senator Hagel, who, along with myself, is the only ground combat 
veteran from the Vietnam war. A majority of the House is cosponsoring 
the exact version of S. 22 that we reintroduced. Most, if not all, of 
our leading veterans organizations have endorsed S. 22. In fact, it is 
important to note that the major pieces in this legislation were 
specifically endorsed in the recent Independent Budget submitted by a 
consortium of our top veterans organizations.
  The proponents of this newly introduced legislation, Senators Burr, 
McCain, and Graham, maintain S. 22 would be too generous to today's 
veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, would be too difficult to administer, 
and would unduly harm the retention of our active duty military people. 
I emphasize that these assertions are incorrect. I would say to all 
those Senators, whom I deeply respect--and I enjoy a long friendship 
with Senator McCain that goes back 30 years--we have a lot of issues to 
debate in this Senate. We have a lot of issues to debate in the 
campaign this year. But this should not be one of them.
  S. 22 is hardly too generous, unless people are prepared to say that 
the World War II GI bill was too generous. To the contrary, we have 
taken 15 months, with daily cooperation with all the major veterans 
groups and with many Members of the Congress. We have listened to them. 
We have refined this legislation in many important ways, and it is our 
best collective, bipartisan effort to mirror the types of benefits that 
were given to those who served in World War II.
  Nor would this bill be too difficult to administer. There was a list 
of concerns about our bill when they introduced this other version, 
which is the reason that compels me to explain this. We worked closely 
with the Department of Veterans Affairs and with committee staff on the 
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. We have addressed every major 
concern. For these reasons, Chairman Akaka of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee and Chairman Levin of the Armed Services Committee have 
cosponsored this bill.
  Finally, there is no indication this bill would unduly harm active 
duty retention. Recent statistics from the Army and Marine Corps show 
that 70 to 75 percent of soldiers and marines who enlist return to 
civilian life at, or before, the end of their first enlistment. This is 
the pool that is having readjustment difficulties, and this is the pool 
we are trying to assist with this legislation. The military is already 
doing a very good job of managing its career force. It is not doing a 
very good job of assisting this large group of people as they attempt 
to readjust to civilian life, and this is the primary focus of S. 22. 
With respect to active duty retention, a good GI bill will increase the 
pool of people interested in serving, lower first-term attrition, and 
would have a negligible impact on retention itself.
  I see my time is about to be called by the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________