Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask for 10 minutes in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue of fairness for our National Guard soldiers. They serve with honor and bravery at home and abroad. They have earned the respect and admiration of an entire Nation with their incredible sacrifices over the last decade.

We must not forget they have also, in addition to our respect and admiration, earned their compensation and their benefits. To take back a veteran's compensation after she or he has fulfilled the requirements for it is unthinkable. Yet that is exactly what is happening around the country in regard to National Guard bonuses.

Let me share the story of PFC Chelsea Wells. This story is emblematic of the struggle many men and women in the National Guard are facing today.

I thank Congressman Walden for bringing this situation to the public's attention and to my attention. I add my voice to his to call for fairness for PFC Chelsea Wells and for all other members of the National Guard.

Private First Class Wells is from my home State of Oregon, where she has served in the Oregon National Guard for the last 3 years.

In 2007, she enlisted as an intelligence analyst in response to the needs of the Army. At the time when she signed her enlistment document, she signed an additional document that stipulated she would receive a $20,000 bonus for enlisting in a critical Military Occupancy Specialty or MOS.

That agreement, which was also signed by the enlisting official at her processing station, also stated she would receive the first half of her bonus upon completion of her initial training and the second half after 36 months of service.

As planned, Private First Class Wells received that first $10,000 upon completion of her initial training. However, when her 36 months of service was completed, the second half of the bonus was nowhere to be seen. In fact, it was denied.

Following an inquiry from Congressman Walden, the National Guard stated the payments had been denied because her specialty was not on the critical skills list at the date of enlistment. However, the very document Private First Class Wells signed--also signed by the enlisting official--very specifically listed her Military Occupancy Specialty, 35F, as indeed being a critical skill specialty.

I have that document here: ``Annex E to Defense Department Form 4, Non-prior Service Enlistment Bonus Addendum.''

It says the purpose of this form is ``to explain and confirm obligation and to ensure that agreement to these conditions is a matter of record.''

The entire point of this document is to ensure that there is a clear understanding in regard to eligibility for bonuses. This document says on its list of eligibility--and this section is signed by the soldier:

I am enlisting into a critical skill MOS under the 6x2 or 8XO enlistment option and will receive a NPS Critical Skill Bonus (50/50 payment.)

That means 50 after initial training and 50 at the end of 3 years.

At the end of this document, it has section IX, ``Certification by Service Representative,'' and this is in regard to the enlisting official, the recruiting officer. It says:

I certify that I have witnessed the reading and signing of the above agreement and the signature appearing is that of the applicant. I have verified the soldier meets the eligibility requirement of NGR 600-7, paragraph 2-3, and the applicant's MOS/unit is currently eligible for an enlistment cash bonus.

I think that is pretty clear. The story gets even worse. Not only is our own military saying they are not going to award the second half of the bonus, but they want her to return the first half because, apparently, they made some kind of mistake in between the recruiting officer and the higher-ups. I must say any individual should have the right to a reward that he or she was contractually owed.

And there are no individuals who deserve their reward more than our brave men and women in uniform who have already made so many sacrifices, large and small, to ensure the security and safety of our Nation.

Private First Class Wells upheld her end of the bargain. She signed this enlistment document in good faith. She answered the call to serve when she was needed, and she served with honor for the full term. Now we must uphold our promise to her and to other National Guard veterans who find themselves being punished due to a dispute that was no fault of their own. They signed these documents in good faith, with the certification of the listing officer that they were indeed eligible. What is absolutely clear is that whatever dispute there may be between the listing officers and authorities higher up the chain, that is not Chelsea Wells' fault. She served in good faith under a very clear document, and we owe her and all the National Guard soldiers who are being pursued in the same fashion the bonuses that were promised to them.

We ask a tremendous amount of those who serve. Now is when we should be giving back, not asking for more. Asking a soldier to give back money they have received under a document they signed in good faith and fulfilled in good faith is 100 percent unacceptable. I and my colleagues from the State of Oregon call on the National Guard today to resolve this matter and to make sure this wrong is made right.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source