[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6458-6465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         VETERANS' BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume the motion to proceed to S. 1315, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A motion to proceed to the bill (S. 1315) to amend title 
     38, United States Code, to enhance life insurance benefits 
     for disabled veterans, and for other purposes.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I see Senator Klobuchar on the floor. I 
think she was coming to speak in morning business, and I may have used 
the minute or two that was remaining for her. I wish to address the 
motion to proceed to the bill that is pending, but since she is on the 
floor, I would like to give her a chance to speak at this moment before 
I do. So I ask--if it meets with the approval of the Senator from North 
Carolina--unanimous consent that the Senator from Minnesota be 
recognized for----
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Five minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Five minutes, and that following her remarks, I be 
recognized for 10 minutes to speak on the pending motion to proceed.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not 
plan on objecting, if the 5 minutes is to come out of the majority's 
time for the debate--which the time is split between now and 12 o'clock 
between the majority and minority--if Senator Klobuchar's time comes 
out of the majority's time, fine.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Akaka wants 
to speak for up to 10 minutes. So I am trying to figure out--we have 38 
minutes remaining before the vote, so that would allow 19 minutes per 
side. If Senator Akaka needs 10 minutes, I would

[[Page 6459]]

ask for 4 minutes and yield 5 minutes to Senator Klobuchar, if that 
meets with the Senator's approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Illinois, 
thank you very much. I appreciate the time. If I go less than 5 
minutes, I will give you back the rest of the time.


                             Equal Pay Day

  Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleagues today, many of 
whom were here earlier--Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator 
Boxer, and Senator McCaskill--in support of Equal Pay Day.
  In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed Eleanor Roosevelt as 
chairwoman of the President's Status on Women Commission.
  In 1963, the Commission's findings enumerated rampant discrimination 
against women in the workplace: in hiring, in accommodations, and in 
pay. This was part of the larger catalyst to finally pass--that same 
year--the Equal Pay Act.
  It is a sad reality that still, 88 years after the 19th amendment 
gave women equal voting power and 45 years after the passage of the 
Equal Pay Act, it takes women 16 months to earn what men can earn in 12 
months. In other words, today, Equal Pay Day, marks the day it takes 
women to finally catch up to where men were back in January.
  But Eleanor Roosevelt was a strong, wise woman, and she brought to 
that first Commission her personal philosophy that ``It's better to 
light a candle than to curse the darkness.'' That is why it is so 
important that the Senate take up the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on 
the floor this week. We must light a candle to the pay discrimination 
women continue to experience across the country.
  This important legislation will reverse a 2007 Supreme Court ruling--
Ledbetter v. Goodyear--that significantly limited the rights of 
individuals to sue for gender-based pay discrimination.
  The facts that gave rise to Lilly Ledbetter's case are all too common 
today. Lilly Ledbetter was a hard worker, working at Goodyear Tire as a 
manager for 20 years. When she started at Goodyear, all the employees 
at the manager level started at the same pay. She knew she was getting 
the same pay as the men did. But early in her tenure as manager, the 
company went to another system. Payment records were kept confidential, 
and Lilly did not think to ask what her colleagues were making. She did 
not think to look at her pay raise and ask if men in the department 
were getting the same. As the years passed by, the pay differential 
between what she made and what the male managers were making just kept 
getting bigger. She only found out about it from an anonymous note from 
a coworker.
  At trial, she was able to prove discrimination. But the company 
appealed the jury's finding, and the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four 
decision, decided that Lilly filed her charge too late. Essentially, 
they read the law to say that she would have had to file it within 180 
days of Goodyear making its first discriminatory decision.
  Although this decision completely ignores the realities of the 
workplace--that employee records are kept confidential and that there 
is no way to know when it starts unless we require women to start the 
embarrassing practice of asking what men make--we can do what Eleanor 
Roosevelt says. We can bring the realities to the light. We cannot 
expect women to challenge practices they do not know are happening, and 
by passing this law we can start to give women those 4 months back--
those extra months it takes to allow them to catch up to their male 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act 
passed out of the committee 9 months ago, and 6 months ago I came to 
the floor and asked that we consider it. I could not imagine there 
would be any delay in wanting to bring critical help to our veterans.
  This legislation expands eligibility for traumatic injury insurance 
under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Program. It extends 
housing benefits to individuals--veterans--with severe burns. It 
increases benefits for veterans in apprenticeship or on-job training 
programs. And it restores veteran status to Filipino veterans.
  The bill had a positive vote coming out of committee, and the 
Republican minority objected, 6 months ago, to bringing it up. Then, 
last week, when we tried to bring up this bill to help the veterans 
again, the Republicans initiated a filibuster trying to stop us from 
bringing this bill forward.
  This morning, the Republican leader explained it was because the 
Republicans need to sit down at noon and talk about the bill so they 
understand it. The bill has been out of committee for 9 months. It is 
very clear what is in this bill. There was no need for a filibuster--
except for the fact that is the strategy of the Republican minority.
  So far, the Republicans have filed, during this legislative session, 
66 filibusters--and continue to file them--66 filibusters, including a 
filibuster against this veterans' benefits enhancement bill. They 
continue to file these filibusters in an effort to slow down or stop 
the Senate from considering legislation.
  Last week, they wanted to stop a technical corrections bill that made 
corrections in spelling and grammar and a few references in a bill 
passed years ago. It took us a full week to pass a bill, which should 
have taken no time at all, because the Republicans slowed us down.
  This week is even worse--that they would force a filibuster on a bill 
to help veterans. Why? Why in the world would they do that? From the 
beginning, we said if they had an objection to any provision in this 
bill, they could offer an amendment. I know the Senator from North 
Carolina objects to giving Filipino war veterans--who served next to 
American soldiers, risked their lives and died on behalf of Americans--
they object to the idea of giving $300 a month to the 18,000 surviving 
Filipino World War II veterans who would be eligible. They object to it 
but will not come to the floor and just offer a motion to strike. No. 
They will filibuster to drag this out for days at a time. This is not 
fair. It is not fair to the veterans who wait on this important 
legislation. It certainly is not fair to the Filipino veterans.
  You have to understand that during World War II, President Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt issued a military order calling to service the 
Commonwealth Army of the Philippines to stand next to American soldiers 
to fight and die. This entitled--many believe--those who served beside 
U.S. troops to some recognition from the United States of America. My 
goodness, how many more years will we wait? Those 470,000 Filipino 
veterans risked their lives to save American lives and their homeland 
and to fight for the same values we treasure, and we have put them off 
that long. A cloture motion was filed, forcing a vote today at noon.
  I can tell you that the continued efforts by the Republican minority 
to stop and stall any efforts for change and progress is being noted by 
the American people. We only have 51 Democrats. It takes 60 votes to 
overcome a Republican filibuster, which means we need nine of them to 
join us. Maybe they will at noon. But the obvious question is, Why did 
we have to go through this? Why did we have to wait when there was an 
objection last November? Why did we have to face a filibuster? It is 
critical to pass the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act and do what is 
right for our veterans and the Filipinos who stood beside our troops 
and fought in World War II.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, let me say this. It is disingenuous to come 
to the floor and suggest that I, or any Member of the minority, have 
stood in the way. I have stood in the way when the conditions to move 
forward were such that it diluted the minority's ability to represent 
its Members but, more importantly, the American people, and to

[[Page 6460]]

limit us in the time of debate and in the amount of amendments. Yes, 
sir, it was not offered to have a full and open debate. We are in the 
process--and, as I said, I urge my Members to vote for cloture. I am 
sorry we have to have the vote, but that is the only thing that assures 
us the ability to have the time to debate these issues.
  I think what you will find is how much we are all in agreement, which 
is 98 percent, and there is 2 percent on which we have a difference. I 
respect the chairman and other Members who believe a special pension 
should be set up for Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines and 
have no service-connected injury. But I disagree with that as a 
priority over our guys.
  So I plan to offer an amendment that I have never had an opportunity 
to offer which embraces 98 percent of what the chairman has in his 
bill, but it elects to prioritize our soldiers in enhanced benefits 
over the $221 million that is now devoted to Filipino veterans who live 
in the Philippines and have no service-connected injury.
  I believe it is time for us to stand up for our guys versus that 
select group to whom there was never a promise made.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I again urge my colleagues to vote for 
cloture and express their support for consideration of S. 1315, the 
proposed ``Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007.'' This 
comprehensive bill, reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
would improve benefits and services for veterans, both young and old. 
We should be debating and voting on this bill now. It has been on the 
calendar since last August.
  It is well past time for this body to address and resolve the 
differences of opinion on provisions in this bill--so active duty 
service members, veterans, and their survivors can receive improvements 
to benefits for which they may be entitled without further delay.
  Mr. President, I respect the fact that Members have different points 
of view on parts of this bill, but I do not understand why there is an 
unwillingness to debate.
  As I noted yesterday, for seven months, all I have asked for is 
debate on this bill. I reached out in October, November, and December 
of last year, in an effort to come to an agreement to hold that debate. 
This session, my efforts to reach a time agreement or to negotiate, 
including in February after the committee's ranking member introduced 
an alternate bill to S. 1315, have been rejected time and time again.
  Mr. President, I am disappointed that members of the minority have 
continually stood in the way of veterans receiving the enhanced 
benefits they deserve. I am discouraged that they have not been willing 
to engage in debate--the business of the Senate. This is not the way 
that we should be conducting business on behalf of those who have 
served under the U.S. flag.
  A number of things were mentioned yesterday by my colleague, the 
committee's ranking member, which seem to demonstrate significant 
confusion about the process that has brought us here.
  For example, the ranking member spoke of being asked to agree to no 
amendments and limited debate time. That is simply not true. What I 
asked for was an agreement to limit amendments to the bill to only 
those that relate to the bill. After identifying such amendments, we 
would then seek to define the time needed to debate these amendments. 
This represents the way the Senate most often gets its business done 
and certainly is the process that the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
follows on those occasions when there is a need for floor debate.
  It may be that my colleague does not believe there should be any 
limitation on amendments to this bill.
  If there is no limitation on what amendments can be offered during 
debate of this bill, I anticipate that other Senators will bring 
forward a significant number of amendments. Some will be based on 
measures considered by the committee and not adopted. Some will be 
based on measures that were debated by the committee and included in 
other bills now pending on the calendar. Some will represent issues not 
yet considered by the committee and thus not subjected to the hearing 
and debate process. And lastly, I am certain that a number of 
amendments will represent issues not under this committee's 
jurisdiction.
  That does not appear to me to be a desirable way to get our business 
done. However, if that is the ranking member's preference, let him say 
so.
  Another misleading statement made by the ranking member was his 
suggestion that the committee was not willing to talk about changes to 
the bill. That statement cannot refer to the actual committee process 
last year--where the provision relating to Filipino veterans was 
noticed--and an amendment was offered--and debated.
  After the bill was reported, I clearly expressed my willingness--on 
multiple occasions--to reach a compromise on the pension provision. As 
I noted yesterday, the only debate raised in the committee was on the 
amount of the pension for Filipino World War II veterans, not on 
eliminating the pension entirely.
  The provision prevailed in committee. Now the ranking member offers 
one option: to give these elderly Filipino veterans nothing. That is 
not a compromise.
  I am ready to debate the core issue--but I am not prepared to abandon 
a provision that I believe is right.
  I believe it is the moral obligation of this Nation to provide for 
those Filipino veterans--who fought under the U.S. flag during World 
War II. We must act to ensure that these veterans are not left to live 
out their twilight years without acknowledgment that their service 
during World War II is valued. I am not going to abandon them without a 
fight.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to agree to begin the process of 
debating this bill. If cloture on the motion to proceed is achieved, I 
hope that the ranking member will join me and our party leaders to 
craft a workable agreement that allows for a full debate on this bill--
and on his amendment to it--along with any other amendments to 
provisions in the bill. Once this bill is disposed of, our committee 
will be in a position to bring forward other bills, including whatever 
bills we report out of committee later this year.
  I look forward to a spirited and in- depth debate on this bill. This 
is a debate we could have had two months ago or even late last year. 
Let us not waste any more time. Let us work together to join the issues 
and have the Senate do its business. I ask my colleagues to join in 
voting for cloture.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have a deep respect for my chairman and 
friend, Senator Akaka. I think the Senator has suggested that over the 
course of the last half year we have had some disagreements. I don't 
expect him to know everything that has been communicated to staff or 
that my staff communicated to his staff.
  The reality is that we are here today, and we each respect each 
other. We are both honored to serve in the Senate. We both have the 
same responsibility to the same people--and that is the American 
taxpayers--to make sure we are fiscally responsible but, more 
importantly, that we are prudent, that we prioritize things where they 
are needed the most.
  At noon today we will have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to 
S. 1315. For one, I have mixed feelings about where we are in the 
process. I share the frustrations of Chairman Akaka. The proud 
tradition of the Senate committee on Veterans' Affairs has been to 
write laws that improve benefits and services for our veterans. Those 
laws typically enjoy bipartisan support. As a result, the committee's 
bills have almost always passed by unanimous consent. In fact, I asked 
the Senate Library to confirm that for me.
  Since 1990, there have been only two rollcall votes on bills reported 
from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs: the first in the 102d Congress 
which cleared by a vote of 99 to 0; the second was in the 105th 
Congress and cleared by a

[[Page 6461]]

vote of 98 to 0. There were no amendments that received rollcall votes 
on either of those bills.
  This tells me that Republicans and Democrats have always been able to 
reach a compromise on committee bills out of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. There has been no need for floor debate or rollcall votes 
when it comes to the veterans bills. The norm is to find a common 
agreement before moving forward, even on policy issues with which one 
side or the other may not agree.
  This has changed during this Congress with the unprecedented vote on 
cloture that we will have today. The chairman, in the spirit of our 
relationship, sent me a letter on, I believe, the 10th of the month 
requesting that we work on this. The next day, the majority leader of 
the Senate filed cloture. I am not sure how quickly I am supposed to 
jump through the hoop for him, but I didn't do it fast enough. I say 
that with the knowledge that the chairman and I both have that we are 
not in charge. We don't always make the decisions on the course the 
Senate will follow.
  Let me briefly outline for my colleagues the key disagreement that 
has held up this bill for so long; namely, the provision that seeks to 
use $221 million over the next 10 years to create a special pension for 
Filipino veterans who have no war injuries, are not U.S. citizens, and 
who reside in the Philippines.
  There are four groups of Filipino veterans. Here is a chart. There 
are the old scouts, who enlisted in the U.S. Army. They are veterans of 
the U.S. Army through and through. You see in the benefits that is 
exactly what is displayed. We have the Commonwealth Army of the 
Philippines, Recognized Guerilla Forces, and new Filipino Scouts, 
individuals committed to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and, yes, 
at times were under U.S. command.
  The important thing to notice is our disagreement is with the pension 
for nonservice-connected disability and the death pension for 
survivors. It is the $221 million that is suggested to create a special 
pension for 13,000 individuals whom I do not dislike. I do not want any 
Member of this Congress to think in any way that I devalue what they 
did. But I have researched this in history, which we will get into over 
this debate, that Congress never intended for something such as this to 
be extended.
  I, again, have profound respect for the World War II service of 
Filipino veterans. Their contribution to victory in the Pacific is a 
matter of historical record. We honor them--I honor them--their 
service, their sacrifice. We have good friends in the Philippines. But 
the issue at hand is not the merit of the service rendered by Filipino 
veterans. The issue is whether creating a special pension for them in 
the Philippines is responsive to the following questions:
  Is it the right priority in time of war when the needs of our men and 
women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are so great?
  Two, is it appropriate policy, given the purpose of VA pensions and 
the vast differences in the United States and Filipino economies?
  And last, is it fair to U.S. pension recipients from whom this money 
is taken to pay for this special pension in the Philippines?
  Let me ask that another chart be put up because I think it is 
absolutely crucial that we understand exactly what we are talking about 
in a $300, or $221 million, special pension.
  For a U.S. veteran, if they qualify for a special pension, we are 
going to get their annual stipend to $11,181, which is 17 percent of 
U.S. median income. We are going to take American veterans slightly 
above the poverty level. If it is a married veteran couple, we are 
going to get them to $14,643, which is 22 percent of the median income 
in the United States and slightly above the level of poverty. Special 
pensions were designed to make sure a veteran was out of poverty. We 
were not putting them into the middle class in the United States, but 
we were getting them out of poverty because that was the right thing to 
do. If it is a surviving spouse in the United States, they get a 
payment of $7,498, which is 11 percent of the median income in the 
United States.
  Today in the Philippines, the Filipino Government provides $120 a 
month pension for these 13,000 individuals Senator Akaka is targeting. 
I am not taking into account the $120 a month that the Philippine 
Government is providing for each one of these 13,000. But if they are a 
single veteran in the Philippines with the stipend that Senator Akaka's 
bill has, we will provide $3,600 a year, which will be 87 percent of 
the median income of the Philippine economy. If you add in to that 
number the $120, we see they far exceed the median income of the middle 
class of the Philippines. If, in fact, it is a married couple, the 
stipend from the United States in a special pension for a Filipino 
living in the Philippines with no service-connected injury is $4,500, 
108 percent of the median income of a Philippine family; in the case of 
a surviving spouse, $2,400, or 58 percent of the median income.
  It is important to understand that the VA pension is designed for 
veterans who have no service-related injuries and who are poor, 
according to the U.S. definition of poverty. The maximum VA pension 
payable to a U.S. veteran puts them 10 percent above the poverty 
threshold and 17 percent of median income.
  The Philippine Government, as I said, already provides a monthly 
pension to Philippine veterans, putting them at roughly 400 percent 
over poverty with the $120 pension that the Philippine Government 
provides, and 35 percent of the average income of the household. Adding 
an additional VA pension on top, as considered in S. 1315, would put a 
single Filipino veteran at roughly 1,400 percent over the Philippine 
poverty level.
  What are we talking about in simplistic terms? We are going to allow 
a U.S. veteran to get slightly over the poverty level. The percentage 
was 10 percent. But we are going to create a special pension for 
Filipinos who live in the Philippines and have no service-connected 
disability that is going to make their percentage over poverty 1,400 
percent when U.S. veterans are at 10 percent over the poverty line and 
21 percent above the average household income.
  A VA pension benefit is not designed to put a veteran in the middle 
class. It certainly does not in the United States. I do not believe it 
is our responsibility to do it in the Philippines, and I do not believe 
in this time of war that it is a priority of this country.
  It is meant to ensure that no wartime veterans suffer the indignity 
of poverty, whether you are in the Philippines or whether you are in 
the United States. We have defined that in the United States as 10 
percent above the poverty line.
  I can argue that is not good enough, but I can certainly make the 
case that going to 1,400 percent above the poverty line is not right. 
It is not the right policy, and it is certainly not the right priority. 
Creating any new pension benefits for Filipinos in an effort to rectify 
what some call an injustice would only serve to create a new injustice 
for U.S.-based veterans because of an enormous discrepancy in the two 
Nations' economies.
  As I said, I have deep respect for Senator Akaka. We will have a 
spirited debate, I am convinced, over the next 2 days, 3 days--whatever 
our leadership decides. That is where it gets out of our hands. I am 
willing to do it. I have done my homework. I am willing to get into the 
1946 Senate hearings when the Senate debated an act where they took 
benefits away because they researched it to find out if we promised 
veterans' benefits be extended. And the court's interpretation was they 
extended it and, quite frankly, the Congress in 1946 legislatively took 
those benefits away that the court had awarded.
  I have Senate hearings from 1948. And in the 1990s, I have the 
Clinton administration that came to this body and lobbied that this was 
not the right thing to do; they were not supportive of it. I am willing 
to share that information with all our colleagues, and over the next 
couple of days, I think

[[Page 6462]]

everybody will get a great history lesson on what happened with our 
decisions and who has testified since 1944 to the Senate about this 
issue.
  I do not expect any American who listens to be less than educated on 
whether this is the right move or the wrong move. But I also believe my 
colleagues will recognize the fact if we are establishing 10 percent 
above poverty for U.S. veterans and we are down here talking about a 
special pension to individuals who live in the Philippines who have no 
service-connected injury that is going to be 1,400 percent over 
poverty, this is the wrong thing for the Senate to do.
  Mr. President, I am going to yield to my good friend and former 
ranking member of the committee. But I do want to say before I yield to 
him, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the cloture motion. I 
want to proceed. I want to debate this issue. I want to make sure every 
Member of the Senate has an opportunity to hear the full breadth of 
what has happened since 1946, and I am prepared to do exactly that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand we are under a unanimous 
consent agreement for a vote at 12 o'clock?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief, only to amplify what 
Senator Burr spoke to clearly and, I hope, understandably. First and 
foremost, understand that my relationship with the chairman of 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, Danny Akaka, is a personal one and one of 
great affection. Here is a man today attempting to do the right thing 
and probably, in all fairness, is leading with his heart, and that I 
respect greatly.
  There is no question, there remain in the Philippines 13,000 veterans 
who fought gallantly to save their island from Japanese domination and 
fought with us and under our flag to do just that. They deserve to be 
compensated, and they have been compensated.
  Immediately following the war, the United States Government put $620 
million into the repairs of the Philippines. In today's dollars, that 
is $6.7 billion.
  Then we left a VA hospital in place so that these veterans could 
receive first-class health care. And we did and they do and it is still 
there and it is still operating.
  Then we added $22 million--and that is worth $196 million in today's 
dollars--for equipment and construction. America did its part then, and 
it does its part today. The question is what is reasonable and right 
compensation.
  I stepped down as ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
last September. In doing so, I was well aware of this bill, and the 
chairman knew at that time that I agreed with 99.9 percent of it. It is 
a good bill. It is an important bill for America's veterans, and it 
ought to be passed.
  At that time, I thought I offered what was a reasonable compromise; 
that we would reduce the level of the proposed increase in compensation 
to nonservice-connected Filipino veterans living in the Philippines; 
that we would not lift them to the standard to which Senator Burr has 
just spoken; that they would deserve some help. The chairman had found 
an offset in a court ruling that took money away from our veterans, and 
it was sitting there.
  I would have much preferred rewriting the law and reinstating that 
money to our veterans to abrogate the court decision, but we did not do 
that. So I offered a compromise at that time. It was roundly rejected 
by the committee. It simply did not fit where the chairman wanted to 
go. Therefore, from that point forward, I opposed the bill. It is a 
matter of fiscal responsibility. It is a near quarter of a billion 
dollars over the next 10 years, and it does exactly what the ranking 
member, Senator Burr, spoke to. It lifts these Filipino veterans above 
their poverty line into a middle-class status in Filipino society. 
Well, that is OK; none of us should deny that. But we don't do that for 
our veterans who live here. If you are a Filipino veteran living here 
legally, you get full compensation as a veteran living in this country.
  We do tie a benefit to a poverty level and a cost-of-living standard, 
and we always have. I certainly wish we could do more, but this budget 
is nearing $100 billion. The overall VA budget is nearing $100 billion. 
Four years ago, 11 percent; 3 years ago, 12 percent; 2 years ago, 13 
percent; last year, an 18-percent increase. No budget in America, other 
than defense, has increased that much. And why are we doing it? Because 
collectively this Senate and this Congress have always believed in fair 
and responsible compensation to America's veterans--America's veterans.
  We also try to compensate those who support us and work in our behalf 
as the veterans of the Filipino society did what is right and what is 
reasonable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I believe what the Senator has offered in 
this Senate bill that is on the floor, S. 1315, is too much. There is a 
middle ground. I offered it once, and it was rejected. I hope we can 
revisit that as a reasonable amendment when we get to the amendment 
process.
  I thank my colleagues, Senator Akaka and Senator Burr, for their work 
on this legislation. It is good legislation. With a little fine-tuning, 
then it will be fair, and we ought to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I commend my ranking member and former 
ranking member for their comments. I look forward to a good debate. I 
thank them for joining in asking for Senators to vote for cloture.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 336, S. 1315, the Veterans' Benefits 
     Enhancement Act.
         Harry Reid, Daniel K. Akaka, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, 
           Byron L. Dorgan, Edward M. Kennedy, Christopher J. 
           Dodd, Benjamin L. Cardin, Patrick J. Leahy, Bernard 
           Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Richard Durbin, 
           Ken Salazar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Max Baucus, Daniel K. 
           Inouye.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1315, a bill to amend title 38, United States 
Code, to enhance life insurance benefits for disabled veterans, and for 
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign

[[Page 6463]]


     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clinton
     Domenici
     Landrieu
     McCain
     Obama
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 
zero. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, would the Chair advise me, was the last 
vote 94 to nothing?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to say to the Chair and to all those 
following this debate, we wasted 4 days of the Senate's time, 4 days to 
come to a bill for veterans' benefits. We tried to bring this bill up 
last November. The Republicans objected. We tried to bring it up last 
Thursday, and they started a filibuster so we had to burn off 4 or 5 
days.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. DURBIN. We had to burn off 4 or 5 days of doing nothing because 
of another Republican filibuster. So far in this Congress the 
Republicans have initiated now 67 filibusters. The record in the 
Congress before this Republican minority was 57 filibusters over a 2-
year period of time. They have now broken that record by 10, and we 
still have 8 months to go this year.
  We are wasting more time. When I ask the Republicans why did you 
filibuster a bill for veterans' benefits, they said because when we 
have lunch today, we want to talk it over.
  This bill was reported by the veterans committee 9 months ago. How 
many veterans have been created in 9 months? How many more have needed 
job training, health care benefits, and housing, and now our Republican 
minority wants to talk it over?
  If we are going to do the people's business in this Chamber, this 
filibuster mentality on the Republican side has to come to an end. 
There are critically important issues. Wouldn't it be great if we had 
finished the veterans health bill last Thursday and could have started 
debating today the cost of gasoline across America; the impact of high 
diesel fuel prices on truckers; what the jet fuel costs are doing to 
the airline industry? But no, another Republican filibuster, the 67th 
filibuster in this session.
  I hope the people of the United States understand what the problem 
is. To break a filibuster, it takes 60 votes. There are only 51 
Democrats. The voters of America will have their chance to vote in 
November.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Isn't it the case the vote we had is on the motion to 
proceed? This is not on the issue, this is on the motion to proceed to 
an issue? So we have a filibuster on the question of shall we proceed. 
Time after time after time, isn't it the case that even on motions to 
proceed, we discover the other side demands 60 votes, then demands to 
have the full 30 hours elapse after the vote has taken place? This one 
was, I think, 94 to zero. There was a requirement that we go to a 
motion to proceed--94 to zero--so it was not controversial, it was a 
matter of bleeding time. It makes no sense, with all that we have to 
do.
  Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair I say in response to the Senator: That 
is exactly the case. I would like to make a unanimous consent request 
that we go to the bill immediately and entertain germane amendments to 
the bill. Let's start this bill right now. Let's get this done for the 
veterans. I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I object.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President? I would like to 
ask the Senator from Illinois if germane amendments include a 
substitute amendment? I have heard the debate, or at least the 
statements of the two Senators. But the issue is not going to the bill. 
We have not filibustered the motion to proceed. It was unanimous. The 
question is are the minority rights going to be recognized? Will we be 
able to offer amendments, germane amendments, substitutes?
  I would like to know, before we proceed further to the bill, if we 
are going to be able to have enough amendments so the minority rights 
are protected.
  That would be my question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Chair identify the Senator who objected to the 
unanimous consent request to move to the bill immediately and consider 
all germane amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I happened to be here for the vote. You know, this is a 
game that has been played by both sides, last year and this year too. 
The majority calls up a bill, they generally file cloture. And, 
frankly, that does not mean there is a filibuster. As you can easily 
see, the vote was basically unanimous to going ahead with the bill.
  What bothers me is that time after time we have had situations where 
we were not able to even offer amendments, even a limited number of 
amendments. But generally we get to that point around here because we 
have to. And it is the only right the minority has. So that is one 
reason that occasionally the minority will require cloture.
  But there is also too much of this filing cloture by the majority the 
minute the bill comes up. That, of course, is a game, frankly, with no 
intention on our side to filibuster the bill or stop the bill.
  So these high numbers that are said are mythical, to be honest with 
you. And, frankly, I hope someday we can realize that this is a 
legislative body where both sides have certain rights and that one side 
cannot roll over the other side without at least giving them an 
opportunity to file amendments.
  Frankly, the other side, the majority side, has been able to win on 
amendments anyway in many cases. I think to stand and say that the 
Republicans are causing all of this mixup is not quite as accurate, as 
I think the record will show.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     International Food Assistance

  Mr. KOHL. Last year, the World Health Organization reported that 
25,000 people died every day from hunger-related causes. Let me repeat 
that number: 25,000 people who died every day last year.
  The World Health Organization further reported that of that 25,000 
people who died, 18,000 were children. That means that in the time it 
took me to say that last sentence, a child somewhere in the world has 
died. It also means before I finish this sentence, another child will 
have died from hunger. For lack of food, a child dies every 4.8 
seconds.
  As grim as these facts are, things have grown worse, much worse. We 
are witnessing what could be called a perfect storm of world hunger. 
The world's supply of food is down, food demand is up, the climate is 
changing, and crops are failing.
  Food production resources are shifting every day to energy 
production, food costs are skyrocketing, and, indeed, entire societies 
are falling apart

[[Page 6464]]

as a result. This is not another round of appeals for humanitarian food 
assistance. There is something new and very troubling occurring.
  One of the greatest responsibilities of Government is to assure 
people the basic necessities of life. When that assurance fails, 
governments fail with it, and an already insecure world moves that much 
closer to chaos. The most basic need, of course, is the need for food. 
However, in recent events around the globe, 33 countries have 
experienced riots and violence because of a failed food supply, 
including countries in this hemisphere. In the face of hunger, order 
breaks down, and reason is lost. People are painfully realizing that 
food production is not keeping up with food demand, and this is a 
recipe for global disaster.
  Last month, the Director of the World Food Program, Joesette Sheeran, 
wrote to President Bush on the immediate need for increased food 
assistance due to rising food and related costs. I met with Director 
Sheeran last week and got a firsthand appraisal of the dire situation.
  Rising food and transportation costs have created a $750 million hole 
in the World Food Program budget which had assumed that the U.S. 
contribution this year would include a pending $350 million 
supplemental request for PL 480.
  Unless this Congress acts, thousands of people will die, and an 
increasing number of societies and nations will be at risk. This is 
indeed a world crisis.
  Last week, OMB Director Nussle appeared before the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, and when asked to state whether he thought 
there was a need to provide food assistance above the President's 
request of $350 million, he declined. He dodged the question.
  There is no way to dodge this problem. This is a problem of world 
security. This is a problem of U.S. security and our place in the 
world. We must and we will respond.
  As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, I take 
the issue of international food assistance very seriously. Although the 
President's supplemental request of $350 million was predictable--after 
all, he has requested the exact same amount for 3 years in a row--it is 
totally blind as to what is happening in the world. It is therefore 
very dangerous.
  If the United States wants to maintain its role as a world leader, 
there is no better way to do that than to step forward now, take full 
account of what is happening, and take meaningful steps to stop the 
suffering, to stop the hunger, stop the dying. In fact, it is time to 
be a leader.
  So I will continue to work for food funding assistance at a level 
that does not turn a blind eye to the suffering in the world, nor the 
danger to the world community. So I ask other Senators to join me in 
stating support to fight this perfect storm of world hunger and to 
support action to do something about it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, tomorrow we will have a vote to proceed--
--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has an order to recess.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank you all for indulging me.


                              Fair Pay Act

  Tomorrow we will have a vote to proceed to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 
Pay Restoration Act. Four of my Democratic female colleagues spoke on 
this earlier today--four or five. I wanted to add my voice to their 
voices because, as I stand on the floor of the Senate some 45 years 
after passage of the Equal Pay Act, it is unfortunate that workers 
throughout the Nation will suffer pay discrimination based on gender, 
race, religion, national origin, disability, and age. They still suffer 
this.
  We still have a long way to go on equal pay for equal work. It stuns 
some people to learn that women still earn 23 percent less than men, 
and the pay disparity is still so great that it takes a woman 16 months 
to earn what a man earns in 12 months.
  In 2006, an average college-educated woman working full time earned 
$15,000 less than a college-educated male. According to the American 
Association of University Women, working families lose $200 billion in 
income per year due to the wage gap.
  This is an important point because so many women now work. We know 
this. So families are struggling to make ends meet with higher gas 
prices, higher college tuition, higher food prices, higher health care, 
all of that. We know there is not an easy solution that will eliminate 
all pay discrimination, but the bill we hope to go to tomorrow, the 
Equal Pay Restoration Act, will ensure that when an employer 
discriminates based on gender or race or any other factor, the employee 
can take his or her case to court.
  There was a very bad decision that was made by the Supreme Court 
which reversed decades of legal precedent, and this was the Ledbetter 
decision. With its decision, the Court imposed a serious obstacle for 
equality, equal pay, by requiring workers to file a pay discrimination 
claim within 180 days of when their employer first starts 
discriminating.
  Now, that is an impossible standard to meet. You really do not know 
when that moment occurs. What was important about this decision is it 
threw out the law that had always worked well and would have protected 
people such as Lilly Ledbetter from discrimination.
  Her story is not unfamiliar to many female employees. She was a 
female, she was a manager at an Alabama Goodyear Tire plant when she 
discovered, after 19 years of service, that she was earning 20 to 40 
percent less than her male counterparts for doing the exact same job.
  It took her a long time to ferret this information out. As Justice 
Ginsburg noted in her dissenting opinion, the pay discrepancy between 
Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark. In 1997, her last 
year of employment at Goodyear, after 19 years of service she earned 
$5,600 less than her lowest paid male coworkers, and she earned over 
$18,000 less than her highest paid male coworkers.
  Evidence submitted at her trial showed that Mrs. Ledbetter was denied 
raises, despite receiving performance awards, and in some cases female 
supervisors at the plant were paid less than the male employees they 
supervised.
  So when Ms. Ledbetter discovered this, she took Goodyear to court, 
and the jury awarded her full damages. But the company, Goodyear, 
appealed the jury's decision.
  In 2007 the Supreme Court made this very bad decision and said she 
could not sue for back pay despite--and with which they agreed--the 
overwhelming evidence that her employer had intentionally discriminated 
against her because of her gender.
  But, they said, it took Lilly Ledbetter longer than 6 months to 
determine she had been a victim of years of pay discrimination. So, in 
other words, because it took her more than 6 months to figure this out, 
she was denied any kind of help.
  It does take a significant amount of time in many cases for the truth 
to be known. Here in the Capitol, if you work for the Government, 
everybody's pay is on record. And you can see it; it is a public 
document. But in a private sector plant there may be no way to find 
out.
  As Justice Ginsburg pointed out: Compensation disparities are often 
hidden from sight for a number of reasons. Many employers do not 
publish their employees' salaries, and other employees are not anxious 
to discuss what they earn. So this controversial decision is having 
serious impacts.
  In the 10 months since the decision was handed down, the Ledbetter 
precedent has been cited 207 times by Federal district courts and 
courts of appeal. So it means, it seems to me from what I gather, from 
that statistic alone, many people are being denied equal treatment 
under the law: equal pay, equal treatment.
  So what does the bill do that we want to go to, we Democrats on 
Wednesday, tomorrow? It simply restores the law to what it was in 
almost every State in the country before the Ledbetter case

[[Page 6465]]

was decided. It does so by helping to eliminate the unreasonable 
barrier created by the Supreme Court and allows workers to file a pay 
discrimination claim within 180 days of each discriminatory paycheck. 
That was the law before Ledbetter.
  The Ledbetter decision was a giant step backward in the fight for 
equal opportunity and equal rights. Goodyear engaged in chronic 
discrimination against female employees, but because of the Ledbetter 
decision, the Court must treat intentional ongoing pay discrimination 
as lawful conduct.
  Employers who can conceal their pay discrimination for 180 days can 
continue this practice, and there is no redress. We must ask ourselves: 
Is this the standard that Congress should be proud of? Is this the kind 
of standard that we should support, where somebody is treated in an 
unfair fashion, is paid less than somebody else simply because of their 
gender?
  It is not right. It seems to me, if we are going to have fairness and 
justice in America today, the least we can do is overturn the Ledbetter 
decision. Justice Ginsburg told us: ``Congress, the ball is in your 
court.''
  That is why I am so pleased that Senator Reid is bringing this 
opportunity before us tomorrow. Today, as we reflect upon the 
importance of fairness and equity to our society with a celebration of 
Equal Pay Day, we must restore this important protection and return the 
law to its meaning. I hope tomorrow when we get a chance to move to 
this bill our colleagues will all vote aye because what is fair is fair 
and what is wrong is wrong. We need to fix this problem. Equal pay for 
equal work is a value that we should hold dear.

                          ____________________