[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 22, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3233-S3248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    VETERANS' BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.


                         Tribute to John Little

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am honored today to pay tribute to an 
outstanding member of my staff. When I was elected to the Senate, one 
of the first things I had to do was to select and hire a chief of 
staff. It didn't take long for me to find John Little. He came to work 
for me in December 2004, even before I was sworn in as a Senator.
  When I first met John, he was legislative director for the junior 
Senator from Alabama, my colleague Jeff Sessions. I asked Jeff if it 
would be all right if I approached John and hired away a key member of 
his staff. He was very gracious, and he told me that although he would 
be hard to replace, he thought it would be a great opportunity for John 
and wanted to make sure he didn't stand in his way in any way.
  One of the reasons I came to Washington was to be engaged in the 
issues of the day and try to find solutions to the problems facing 
Floridians and all Americans. Having spent my entire public career in 
the executive side of Government, I didn't know the inner workings of 
the Congress and looked for someone with that skill and knowledge. John 
Little brought that legislative experience from day one to my office 
and has been an invaluable member of my staff and someone I have relied 
on and counted on every single day I have been in the Senate.
  John's experience on the Hill started when he was a very young 
lawyer, fresh from passing the bar and eager to work in Government. He 
worked his way up from being a young staffer writing legislative 
correspondence to becoming a legislative aide handling policy in the 
areas of education and health care. John had the respect of his peers 
and would eventually become legislative director. He is known in the 
Hill community for being bright, aggressive, conservative and even-
keeled. He knows the implications of both large and small shifts in 
public policy and the impact they might have on families and 
communities. He brought to the people of Florida a great amount of 
knowledge and experience and was a problem solver when we had problems 
we faced.
  Through his work and in getting to know John personally, I have come 
to admire him greatly for his strength of character, a trait I greatly 
admire in him. In the face of challenges, John courageously rose to 
meet those challenges. He never wavered in his love of this institution 
or his love of this country, and he has served the people of Florida 
and the Senate, an institution that I know he loves, very well.
  Over these last few years, John has demonstrated tireless dedication 
and loyalty to me and the people of Florida. We have successfully 
turned back attempts to breach Florida's ban on offshore drilling. We 
have sought and secured funds for restoring the Everglades. We have 
fought to ensure Florida's military people and bases have the resources 
they need to perform their duties. Throughout these and other 
achievements, John has remained humble and committed to ensuring the 
policies we have pursued were in the best interests of the people of 
Florida.
  For those who know the life of a chief of staff for a Senator, it is 
not glamorous. The hours are long, the issues are complex and 
innumerable, and you rarely have the opportunity for an uninterrupted 
weekend. For these reasons, John has accepted a position in the private 
sector--a great opportunity for John. This speaks to his skill and 
knowledge as one of the great

[[Page S3234]]

qualities he possesses as chief of staff in the Senate. I am sad to see 
him go, but I am confident he will continue to find ways to serve the 
public good. He will be missed.
  I thank him for his service, and I wish him all the best in all his 
endeavors. John is truly a friend. I will miss my personal day-to-day 
contact with him, but he is someone with whom I hope to have a lasting, 
lifelong relationship.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.


                               Tony Blair

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, last evening I had the honor of 
attending a dinner of the Atlantic Council, and at that dinner they 
honored the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Honorable 
Tony Blair. I want to quote from his speech, and I ask unanimous 
consent to have his whole speech printed in the Record after my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. He said this:

       The transatlantic alliance is, of course, a product of 
     historical connection, culture, language and tradition. But 
     most of all it is an alliance of belief, of shared values, of 
     a common outlook not just about nations and their common 
     interest but about humanity and its common destiny. Out of 
     the travails of the twentieth century, the alliance drew its 
     history and its strength. In the fight against fascism, and 
     communism, it confronted and defeated totalitarian ideology. 
     Millions of our citizens died for the victory. Through their 
     sacrifice, we gained our freedom.
       More than that, we came to a profound understanding about 
     what it is to be free. We realized through the pain and 
     suffering, the difference between deferring to those in power 
     and deciding who they are; between the rule of law and the 
     caprice of dictatorship; between the right to speak out and 
     the silence of the fearful.
       Now with those twentieth century battles over, it is 
     tempting to think that this alliance has served its purpose. 
     But here is the important point about it. It was never, and 
     is not now, an alliance only of interests. It was and is an 
     alliance of conviction. We, in the West, don't own the idea 
     of freedom. We didn't fight for it because of the 
     happenstance of birth in Europe or America. It is there, in 
     the DNA of humankind. It is universal in nature and appeal. 
     We developed it, but we didn't invent it.
       Now is the time to stand up for it. If we want our values 
     to govern the twenty-first century, we must combine hard and 
     soft power. We must show unhesitating resolution in the face 
     of threats to our security; and we must show that our values 
     are indeed universal, that they encompass not only freedom 
     but justice, and not for us alone but for the world as a 
     whole. We must show these values are global. And build 
     alliances accordingly, starting with the renewal of our own. 
     And we need to do it with energy and urgency. In the Middle 
     East this is time critical. We must act now.
       Two things I now perceive more clearly than in office. The 
     first is: the fundamental shift of the centre of gravity, 
     politically and economically, to the East, to China and of 
     course India, but more broadly to the Middle and Far Eastern 
     nations.
       This evening I will focus elsewhere, but suffice it to say 
     that we are still, in the West, not in the state of 
     comprehension or analysis we need to be, fully to grasp this 
     shift. China and India together will over the coming decades 
     industrialize on a scale, and at a pace, the world has never 
     seen before. In China especially, the implications are huge. 
     Whatever the present controversies, a strong strategic 
     relationship with it is vital; as it is with India. We are so 
     much better able to fashion the terms of such a relationship 
     if we do it in unison. That alone would justify and re-
     justify our alliance.
       This is a challenge of diplomacy and statesmanship of one 
     kind.
       The other challenge arises from the security threat that 
     occupied so much of the last years of my premiership. Today, 
     as we meet, our armed forces face the prospect of a 
     continuing campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope one thing 
     unites us all. Whatever the debate about the decisions that 
     brought us to these countries, there should be no debate 
     about the magnificent and sustained heroism of our armed 
     forces. British and American troops and the forces of 
     other allied nations deserve our full support and our 
     gratitude.
       But this struggle is not limited to those fields of 
     conflict. Out in the Middle East, it is there in the 
     activities of Hezbollah in Lebanon, of Hamas in Palestine; it 
     is played out in the street of Arab opinion every day. It has 
     spread across the world. More than a score of nations have 
     suffered terror attacks in the last year, still more have 
     foiled them. They do not include only the usual list, but 
     Thailand, Nigeria, China itself.
       In the Middle East, the ideology that drives the extremism 
     is not abating. The Annual Arab Public Opinion survey 
     published last week was not striking simply for its specific 
     findings but for its overall picture. The basic ideological 
     thrust of the extremists has an impact way beyond the small 
     number of those prepared to engage in terror. In sum, it 
     shows an alarming number of people who buy the view that 
     Islam is under attack from the West; the leaders to support 
     are those like Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad who are perceived to 
     take on the West; and there is a contrast between Governments 
     and their people that is stark.
       The extremism is a tiny minority activity; the ideas, 
     prejudices and sentiments that drive it, are not. The truth 
     is that the roots of this global ideology are deep, far 
     deeper than I first thought in the aftermath of September 11.
       I believe the eventual outcome is not in doubt. But it is 
     possible, dangerously, to underestimate the size of this 
     challenge. And it is possible completely to misunderstand its 
     origins.
       This global ideology is based on a total perversion of the 
     true faith of Islam. Its revolutionary rhetoric and 
     attachment to so-called liberation movements is a sham 
     designed to hide its profoundly reactionary and regressive 
     character. It is totalitarian in nature and compromising with 
     it will lead not to peace but to a ratcheting up of demands, 
     none of which are remotely tolerable.
       But it plays cleverly on the insecurities and uncertainty 
     deep within Islam. It speaks to a sense that the reason for 
     its problems is not to be found within, but as victims of 
     outside aggression.
       So today the issue hangs in the balance. The Middle East is 
     without doubt a region in transition; but in which direction 
     will it travel?
       Like it or not, we are part of the struggle. Drawn into it, 
     Europe and America must hold together and hold firm. Not 
     simply for our own sake, but for that of our allies within 
     Islam. If we do not show heart, why should they?
       If they don't see our resolve, how much more fragile is 
     theirs?
       So how is this battle won?
       We have to recognize that though the circumstances and 
     conflicts of the twentieth century are very different from 
     ours, nonetheless, one thing remains true in any time and for 
     all time: That if under attack, there is no choice but to 
     defend, with a vigour, determination and will, superior to 
     those attacking us. Our opponents today think we lack this 
     will. Indeed they are counting on it. They think that if they 
     make the struggle long enough and savage enough, we will 
     eventually lose heart, and our will fade. They are fanatics 
     but they have, unfortunately, the dedication that accompanies 
     fanaticism.
       We cannot permit this to happen. Where we are confronted, 
     we confront. We stand up. And we do so for as long as it 
     takes. This ideology now has a nation, Iran, that seeks to 
     put itself at the head of extreme Islam. They need to know 
     what we say, we mean and, if necessary, will do. If we 
     exhibit this attitude, peace is more likely; because they 
     will not miscalculate or misread our character. But if they 
     think us weak, they will fight all the harder and risk all 
     the more.
       They need to see our belief. We should not apologize for 
     our values, but wear them with pride, proclaim their virtues 
     loudly; show confidence; ridicule the notion that when people 
     choose freedom this is somehow provocation to terror; and do 
     so together, one alliance.
       This struggle did not begin on September 11th 2001. It 
     isn't the fault of President Bush, of Israel, or of Western 
     policy. The idea that we suppress Muslims in the West is 
     utterly absurd. There is more religious freedom for Islam in 
     London than in many Muslim countries.

  Madam President, I found his statement very convincing. I urge 
Senators to read it.

                               Exhibit 1

                Speech by the Right Honorable Tony Blair

       The transatlantic alliance is, of course, a product of 
     historical connection, culture, language and tradition. But 
     most of all it is an alliance of belief, of shared values, of 
     a common outlook not just about nations and their common 
     interest but about humanity and its common destiny. Out of 
     the travails of the twentieth century, the alliance drew its 
     history and its strength. In the fight against fascism, and 
     communism, it confronted and defeated totalitarian ideology. 
     Millions of our citizens died for the victory. Through their 
     sacrifice, we gained our freedom.
       More than that, we came to a profound understanding about 
     what it is to be free. We realised through the pain and 
     suffering, the difference between deferring to those in power 
     and deciding who they are; between the rule of law and the 
     caprice of dictatorship; between the right to speak out and 
     the silence of the fearful.
       Now with those twentieth century battles over, it is 
     tempting to think that this alliance has served its purpose. 
     But here is the important point about it. It was never, and 
     is not now, an alliance only of interests. It was and is an 
     alliance of conviction. We, in the West, don't own the idea 
     of freedom. We didn't fight for it because of the 
     happenstance of birth in Europe or America. It is there, in 
     the DNA of humankind. It is universal in nature and appeal. 
     We developed it but we didn't invent it.
       Now is the time to stand up for it. If we want our values 
     to govern the twenty-first

[[Page S3235]]

     century, we must combine hard and soft power. We must show 
     unhesitating resolution in the face of threats to our 
     security; and we must show that our values are indeed 
     universal, that they encompass not only freedom but justice, 
     and not for us alone but for the world as a whole. We must 
     show these values are global. And build alliances 
     accordingly, starting with the renewal of our own. And we 
     need to do it with energy and urgency. In the Middle East 
     this is time critical. We must act now.
       Two things I now perceive more clearly than in office. The 
     first is: the fundamental shift of the centre of gravity, 
     politically and economically, to the East; to China and of 
     course India, but more broadly to the Middle and Far Eastern 
     nations.
       This evening I will focus elsewhere, but suffice it to say 
     that we are still, in the West, not in the state of 
     comprehension or analysis we need to be, fully to grasp this 
     shift. China and India together will over the coming 
     decades industrialise on a scale, and at a pace, the world 
     has never seen before. In China especially, the 
     implications are huge. Whatever the present controversies, 
     a strong strategic relationship with it is vital; as it is 
     with India. We are so much better able to fashion the 
     terms of such a relationship if we do it in unison. That 
     alone would justify and re-justify our alliance.
       This is a challenge of diplomacy and statesmanship of one 
     kind.
       The other challenge arises from the security threat that 
     occupied so much of the last years of my premiership. Today, 
     as we meet, our armed forces face the prospect of a 
     continuing campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope one thing 
     unites us all. Whatever the debate about the decisions that 
     brought us to these countries, there should be no debate 
     about the magnificent and sustained heroism of our armed 
     forces. British and American troops and the forces of other 
     allied nations deserve our full support and our gratitude.
       But this struggle is not limited to those fields of 
     conflict. Out in the Middle East, it is there in the 
     activities of Hezbollah in Lebanon, of Hamas in Palestine; it 
     is played out in the street of Arab opinion every day. It has 
     spread across the world. More than a score of nations have 
     suffered terror attacks in the last year, still more have 
     foiled them. They do not include only the usual list, but 
     Thailand, Nigeria, China itself.
       In the Middle East, the ideology that drives the extremism 
     is not abating. The Annual Arab Public Opinion survey 
     published last week was not striking simply for its specific 
     findings--but for its overall picture. The basic ideological 
     thrust of the extremists has an impact way beyond the small 
     number of those prepared to engage in terror. In sum, it 
     shows an alarming number of people who buy the view that 
     Islam is under attack from the West; the leaders to support 
     are those like Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad who are perceived to 
     take on the West; and there is a contrast between Governments 
     and their people that is stark.
       The extremism is a tiny minority activity; the ideas, 
     prejudices and sentiments that drive it, are not. The truth 
     is that the roots of this global ideology are deep, far 
     deeper than I first thought in the aftermath of September 11.
       I believe the eventual outcome is not in doubt. But it is 
     possible, dangerously, to underestimate the size of this 
     challenge. And it is possible completely to misunderstand its 
     origins.
       This global ideology is based on a total perversion of the 
     true faith of Islam. Its revolutionary rhetoric and 
     attachment to so-called liberation movements is a sham 
     designed to hide its profoundly reactionary and regressive 
     character. It is totalitarian in nature and compromising with 
     it will lead not to peace but to a ratcheting up of demands, 
     none of which are remotely tolerable.
       But it plays cleverly on the insecurities and uncertainty 
     deep within Islam. It speaks to a sense that the reason for 
     its problems is not to be found within, but as victims of 
     outside aggression.
       So today the issue hangs in the balance. The Middle East is 
     without doubt a region in transition; but in which direction 
     will it travel?
       Like it or not, we are part of the struggle. Drawn into it, 
     Europe and America must hold together and hold firm. Not 
     simply for our own sake, but for that of our allies within 
     Islam. If we do not show heart, why should they?
       If they don't see our resolve, how much more fragile is 
     theirs?
       So how is this battle won?
       We have to recognise that though the circumstances and 
     conflicts of the twentieth century are very different from 
     ours, nonetheless, one thing remains true in any time and for 
     all time: that if under attack, there is no choice but to 
     defend, with a vigour, determination and will, superior to 
     those attacking us. Our opponents today think we lack this 
     will. Indeed they are counting on it. They think that if they 
     make the struggle long enough and savage enough, we will 
     eventually lose heart, and our will fade. They are fanatics 
     but they have, unfortunately, the dedication that accompanies 
     fanaticism.
       We cannot permit this to happen. Where we are confronted, 
     we confront. We stand up. And we do so for as long as it 
     takes. This ideology now has a nation, Iran, that seeks to 
     put itself at the head of extreme Islam. They need to know 
     what we say, we mean and, if necessary, will do.
       If we exhibit this attitude, peace is more likely; because 
     they will not miscalculate or misread our character. But if 
     they think us weak, they will fight all the harder and risk 
     all the more.
       They need to see our belief. We should not apologise for 
     our values, but wear them with pride, proclaim their virtues 
     loudly; show confidence; ridicule the notion that when people 
     choose freedom this is somehow provocation to terror; and do 
     so together, one alliance.
       This struggle did not begin on September 11th, 2001. It 
     isn't the fault of George Bush, of Israel, or of Western 
     policy. The idea that we suppress Muslims in the West is 
     utterly absurd. There is more religious freedom for Islam in 
     London than in many Muslim countries.
       You can argue about the rights and wrongs of the military 
     invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, but to allow for a single 
     instant that this action justifies not simply terrorism but 
     the idea that the West is innately hostile to Islam, only has 
     to be contemplated, rationally, momentarily, for its nonsense 
     to be manifest. We get rid of two brutal dictatorships; put 
     in place a U.N. led democratic process; plus billions of 
     dollars in aid: Where exactly is the hostility to Islam? And 
     the only reason our troops are forced to stay is because of 
     terror attacks carried out by this ideology in defiance of 
     the democratically expressed wishes of the Muslim people of 
     both countries.
       And if it is hard and bloody, how bizarre to blame the 
     allied forces, there under a U.N. mandate and who are trying 
     to keep the peace, rather than those using terror to disturb 
     it.
       Yet this paradigm that it is `our' fault that this terror 
     threat is with us, has infiltrated a large part of Middle 
     Eastern public opinion and actually influences significantly 
     a large part of our own. It has to be taken on.
       And here is the good news. The same poll shows most Muslims 
     want peace. Most support a two-state solution in Israel and 
     Palestine. The modern minded rulers of the successful Arab 
     economies are also admired. People in Iran don't hate America 
     even if its leader does. Go beneath the surface and there are 
     allies out in the region and within Islam; people who believe 
     strongly in their faith, but know that the twenty-first 
     century is not about civilisations in combat but in alliance. 
     In other words people are open to persuasion.
       And here is the point. To win this struggle, we must be 
     prepared to confront; but we must also be prepared to 
     persuade.
       This is a battle that can take a military or security form. 
     But it can't be won by military or security means alone. It 
     is a baffle of ideas. To win, we must persuade people of what 
     we stand for and why; and we must do so in a way that answers 
     their concerns as well as our own.
       We believe in freedom and democracy. We also believe in 
     justice. We believe in equality. We believe in a fair chance 
     for all, in opportunity that goes beyond an elite and 
     stretches down into the core of society. That, after all, is 
     the American dream; free not just in politics but free to 
     achieve, to fulfil your ambition by your own efforts and hard 
     work, to make something of yourself, to give your children a 
     better start than you had.
       To win this battle, we must demonstrate these values too. 
     That is why the Middle East peace process matters. It is the 
     litmus test of our sincerity. We should not in any way dilute 
     our commitment to Israel's security. We simply have to show 
     equal commitment to justice for the Palestinians.
       In the coming months, we have a chance to put it on a path 
     to peace. It will require Israel to do more to lift the 
     burden of occupation and give the Palestinians a sense that a 
     state is possible. It will require the Palestinians to do 
     more to get the robust capability on security to give the 
     Israelis a sense that a state is possible. It will require a 
     different and better strategy for Gaza. And it will require a 
     relentless, insistent focus on the issues, from the U.S. and 
     the international community, macro- and micro-managing it as 
     necessary, to get the job done. President Bush and Secretary 
     Rice have made that commitment. This can be done. It has to 
     be done. It is not optional. It is mandatory for success.
       The origin of this extremism does not lie in this dispute; 
     but a major part of defeating it, lies in its resolution.
       Then, wider than this, we have to work with the modern and 
     moderate voices within Islam to help them counter the 
     extremism and show how faith in Islam is supremely consistent 
     with engagement in the twenty first century, economically, 
     politically, and culturally. There is a vast amount of toil 
     and time and energy to be expended in building bridges, 
     educating each other about the other, creating the civic 
     and social networks of reconciliation.
       I would go further still.
       In Africa, we have a cause of justice which cries out to be 
     pursued; one that is, at the same time, a moral imperative 
     and a strategic investment; one that needs the attention of 
     East and West. In climate change, we have an issue that 
     demonstrates that justice is also part of the compact of 
     responsibility between this generation and those of the 
     future.
       My argument is therefore this. The struggle can be won. But 
     it can only be won by a strategy big enough and comprehensive 
     enough to remove the roots as well as the branches. The 
     battle will, in the end, be won within Islam. But only if we 
     show that our values are theirs also.

[[Page S3236]]

       The problem with so much of Western politics is that the 
     argument is posed as one between the advocates of hard power 
     and soft power, when the reality is, we need both.
       This is where America and Europe, united, should act. 
     America has to reach out. Europe has to stand up. Not a 
     single one of the global challenges facing us today is more 
     easily capable of solution, if we are apart; if we let the 
     small irritants obscure the fundamental verities; if we allow 
     ourselves to be assailed by doubt about the value of our 
     partnership, rather than affirm, albeit self-critically, its 
     strengths.
       We need now a powerful revival of our alliance. In the 
     world so rapidly changing around us, we cannot take a narrow 
     view of our interests or a short-sighted view of our destiny. 
     We can't afford to take fright at these changes and go back 
     into isolationism. We can't avoid the challenges. But we can 
     master them. Together.
       The transatlantic partnership was never just the foundation 
     of our security. It was the foundation of our way of life. It 
     was forged in experience of the most bitter and anguished 
     kind.
       Out of it came a new Europe, a new world order, a new 
     consensus as to how life should be lived.
       Today times are different. Every era is different. What is 
     necessary is to distinguish between what endures for one time 
     and what endures for all time.
       In our history, we discovered the values that endure. We 
     learnt what really matters and what is worth fighting for.
       And we learnt it together.
       Today, the challenge to those values is different. But it 
     is no less real. Our propensity to avow those values will 
     shape the way the twenty first century is governed. Will 
     these values become, as they should be, universal values, 
     open over time to all human beings everywhere; or will they 
     be falsely seen as the product of a bygone age? That is the 
     question. It is fundamental. It is urgent. It is our duty to 
     answer it.

  Mr. STEVENS. I wish to address another matter, as I have a moment. I 
understand there is no time limit now; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, before the Senate now is a bill, the 
Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. It is a very important 
piece of legislation. It would expand a series of benefits to our 
veterans, including traumatic injury insurance, adapted housing grants, 
and burial allowances. As a veteran, I am delighted this bill is here, 
and I am pleased the Senate has invoked cloture so we may debate it and 
find a way to reach an accommodation on it with those who may find some 
fault with it or some matter they may wish to try to change.
  What I wish to address is the provisions for the Filipino veterans 
legislation. In this part of this bill, as far as I am concerned, we 
are talking about honor, the honor of the United States. In 1941, on 
July 26, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered all military forces of 
the Philippines into the service of the United States to fight the 
Japanese. They were a province of the United States at that time. They 
were not an independent nation right then. The President had the power 
to do that. He, in fact, conscripted all men 18 years of age and over 
into their military. He took them all, and they fought, they fought 
hard, they fought almost to the death as, really, I think any American 
knows who knows about the Long March and Corregidor and what it meant 
in terms of the time these people delayed the Japanese so we could find 
a way to rearm this Nation and find a way to eventually overthrow the 
threats of tyranny that existed as manifested in the attack of Japan on 
December 7, 1941.
  After the war, these people were recognized as veterans by our U.S. 
Veterans' Administration. All of the Filipinos who went into the 
services were entitled to full VA benefits. In 1946, Congress changed 
that. They said that those veterans who came to the United States would 
get full benefits of being in the military service but those who stayed 
in the Philippines would not.
  I think to deal with this you have to think about the fact that there 
were 470,000 Filipino World War II veterans still alive after the war. 
Millions died. Millions died in defense of our country. Yet here, 
today, there are 18,000 veterans still alive.
  My distinguished friend from Hawaii, who is chairman of our Defense 
Subcommittee, and I went to the Philippines recently and visited with 
some of them. I am the oldest Member of the Senate on my side. My good 
friend is, I think, the second oldest on his side of the Senate. We 
found ourselves junior to these people who are still there. Those men 
who fought over there, who are still with us now, are very much in need 
of our help. They deserve what this bill would give them.
  This benefit that this bill would extend to them is one-third the 
amount they would have received had they come to this country. That is 
what was intended to give them in the first place--one-third--taking 
into account really the cost of living and various other aspects of 
their life in the Philippines. They would get the benefits, one-third 
of the amount they would receive if they came to this country. If they 
came to this country, they would have been entitled to the veterans' 
benefits, to the GI bill, to all of the other benefits we gave the 
veterans after World War II.
  Do you know why Congress gave that to those veterans? Because there 
were too many men seeking a job. They had to take the 16 million of us 
who survived and spread us out over the economy. They did so by giving 
us benefits--training as a pilot, we could build our own home and get 
the money to do that, we could go to school through the GI bill. These 
people thought they had that right, too, but Congress cut it off in 
1946.
  These people, who are the survivors now of that almost half-million 
people who survived as veterans, Filipino veterans of World War II, and 
who stayed in that country, those 18,000, have asked us for help, to 
finally be recognized once again for what they did.
  The cost is really minimal. The Senate will hear all kinds of 
estimates on the amount. But 18,000 people--the youngest age involved 
is 82. They are just not going to be with us that long. Anyone who 
gives you some estimate of billions of dollars that it is going to cost 
to take care of these people and give them what they were entitled to 
long ago--I think it is overestimating it.
  Again, I come back to my point. It is a matter of honor, the honor of 
the United States is at stake.
  These people put on our uniform, wore our uniform, fought with our 
comrades, almost to the death, all the way to Corregidor, and the 
survivors were denied what they should have had.
  If they came to the United States, they had the right to become 
citizens automatically. But if they stayed with their families and 
tried to reconstruct their country, we denied them that right, even 
though by staying at home they would have gotten one-third. If they got 
to come over here and be citizens they would have the benefits. There 
were no GI bills over there. If they came over here as citizens, became 
citizens, they had the full range of benefits.
  Now, I do not get excited too many times on this floor. This one, 
this bill, excites me. There are very few of us left from World War II. 
When I came to the Senate, almost every person who was a Member had 
served in World War II. There are five of us left now. I hope the 
Senate will listen to the five of us because we are united. We say this 
is a wrong that has to be rectified. We urge the Senate not to change 
this bill, to support the bill that has been introduced by the 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii and his colleague with my 
cosponsorship.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I understand my distinguished 
colleague from Alabama has a colloquy with Senator Martinez for 5 
minutes or so. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after the 
Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.


                         Tribute to John Little

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator 
Menendez, for his courtesy. I will adhere to that timeframe. I ask to 
be notified in 4 minutes.
  I would express my appreciation to Senator Stevens for his service to 
his country during World War II, and Senator Inouye, our decorated 
World War II veteran himself. Both served in harm's way for their 
country. We do value their opinions on so many important issues.
  John Little, a native of my hometown of Mobile, AL, a product of UMS 
High School, a good high school in Mobile, graduated from Southern 
Methodist University with a BA in history,

[[Page S3237]]

got his juris doctorate from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, 
AL, a fine law school.
  He interviewed and then joined my staff 9 months into my term, just 
as I had come to Washington. We hired John, and we told him he would 
have to start at the bottom. And he did. He handled judiciary issues 
and correspondence with constituents back home. But within a year, 
using his excellent writing and research, it was obvious he was 
destined to take on more responsibility.
  John had great talent, and we made him our legislative counsel and 
gave him the responsibility of several issues, including education, 
labor, drug caucus work, welfare, and campaign finance reform.
  In 2000, John was promoted to legislative assistant and counsel and 
he dove right into the largest issues of our time, at that point the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act debate. We were dealing with a 
very important issue in education, in particular, the special ed or 
IDEA reform, the need to create a thoughtful, disciplined standard and 
reform for students and teachers in the classroom. It was a big 
problem. We were hearing a lot about it. John spent countless hours of 
work on this project as my legislative assistant and helped foster the 
strong reform that eventually would be accepted in the IDEA reform bill 
which was signed into law that is affecting positively every school in 
America today.
  After 2 years spent on education, labor, and welfare and judiciary 
issues, I promoted him to my deputy legislative director and counsel. 
His portfolio grew on a whole host of issues. He also became a key 
point man in my office on nominations issues.
  So after the departure in 2003 of my legislative director, John was 
the obvious choice to take over and manage the day-to-day legislative 
operations of my office. He and I spent countless hours together 
working on IDEA reform and other issues that were so important.
  He spearheaded my efforts to promote our plans for a strong national 
defense, lower taxes, less regulation, and the thoughtful application 
of commonsense conservative values to promote and pass good public 
policy.
  After the elections of 2004, a new Senator, my good friend and 
colleague from Florida, Mr. Mel Martinez, heard of the outstanding work 
of my young legislative director and counsel. I suppose he heard about 
that because he called me to ask if he could interview him. And I 
certainly agreed to that.
  I think he sought out John's leadership, know-how, interpersonal 
skills, and a command of the inner workings of the Senate, and he 
eventually asked if he could bring John on as his chief of staff.
  Although I would lose a strong counselor and a legislative leader and 
friend, my loss was indeed Senator Martinez's gain. So it has been for 
the past 3 years that John has been at the helm with Senator Martinez 
as his chief of staff.
  He will leave the Senate family now but will be taking on another 
important challenge in the corporate world. I know John Little well and 
the values and high ideals he holds dear. He truly loves the Senate and 
respects her traditions. He loves America. The Senate was a better 
place with him here.
  Thank you, John, for your friendship, your strong personal support, 
and your service to the Senate and our great country. It has been a 
pleasure and an honor to work with you. We wish you every success in 
your chosen endeavors.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                        Fair Pay Restoration Act

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am here today to stand up for equal 
pay for women. Now, that is something we have been working toward for a 
long time, but we are still falling short of the goal.
  For decades we have come together across party lines to help men and 
women earn the same wage for the same work. The Senate voted 
overwhelming for equal pay when President Kennedy was in office. We 
gave our support to the Civil Rights Act under President Johnson. We 
renewed that support during President Reagan's term and during the term 
of the first President Bush.
  So we have had this history of supporting this proposal, this rule of 
law, under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Even after all 
the progress we have made, we still have a long way to go. But last 
year, five conservative Supreme Court Justices threw a roadblock 
against fair pay for women.
  Here is what happened. A woman named Lilly Ledbetter was one of only 
a few supervisors at a tire plant. She worked 12-hour shifts and 
constantly had to endure insults from her male bosses just because she 
was a woman doing what was thought to be a man's job.
  It was not until late in her career that she discovered her company 
was cheating her, paying her up to 40 percent less--40 percent less--
than her male colleagues earned doing the same exact job.
  Lilly filed a claim, and a jury awarded her full benefits, full 
damages. But the Supreme Court said she was entitled to nothing--to 
nothing--simply because she did not discover the pay discrimination 
early enough.
  According to the Court, in the narrow 5 to 4 decision, if you do not 
discover that you are being discriminated against right after your 
employer starts doing it, you might have to suffer the consequences for 
your entire career, and not only for your career of being shortchanged 
fair pay for what, in fact, you were doing equal to anybody else, man 
or woman on that company's agenda, but at the same time having a 
consequence as it relates to your pension and your benefits and your 
Social Security because all of those were factored by the income you 
make.
  So when your income is discriminated against, even though you are 
doing the same job as anyone else in the company in that category, not 
only do you not receive the income during your working life, but you 
have a consequence for the rest of your life, in your retirement.
  It is a discrimination that keeps on discriminating. Today we have a 
chance to change that, to make things right. Discrimination is 
discrimination no matter when it happens. If someone breaks the law, 
they should be held accountable for it.
  This body must make it clear that women should be treated the same as 
men. We must make it undeniably clear that every worker should be paid 
fairly for their labor. We must proclaim in a unified voice the same 
types of voices that have previously held together in this body almost 
unanimously: that discrimination will not be accepted in the workplace, 
discrimination will not be tolerated in America.
  The idea behind the Fair Pay Restoration Act is simple. It would 
restate the rule that the clock for filing a wage discrimination claim 
starts running from the day a worker receives a discriminatory 
paycheck, not the day the employer first decides to discriminate. This 
is, in essence, what the law was before the Court decision. It was the 
law of the land for a long time. All we simply say is, the Court is 
wrong. And even one of the Justices from the bench in a dissenting 
opinion said: ``This is something that Congress needs to change.''
  If a female worker sees her wages are continuously falling behind 
those of her male counterparts, she should be able to challenge her 
employer, even if the original decision to discriminate was made years 
ago. As long as the discrimination continues, the right of a worker to 
challenge it should continue as well.
  This does not only benefit women, it helps all in our country if they 
are getting cheated in their paycheck on account of their age, or their 
race, a disability, their national origin, or what religion they belong 
to.
  Now, as usual, there are those who are trying to defend the status 
quo and scare us into believing that this law would cause a flood of 
litigation and undercut corporations' bottom lines. Unfortunately for 
them, history is not on their side in terms of those false fears.
  We know this legislation is workable and fair because it was the law 
of the land for decades, for decades before the Supreme Court made its 
ruling. All this bill would do is make the law what it was before it 
was widely interpreted to be only 1 year ago. We simply want to return 
the standard to be able to protect an individual at the workplace from 
discrimination simply as the law was for decades before.

[[Page S3238]]

  And this is not exposing companies to unlimited damages either. The 
fact is, liability is still limited to 2 years of back pay following 
the standard set in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  We will hear a lot of goblins here, but the reality is the 
legislation we are considering as it was limits a company's liability 
to 2 years of back pay. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle will ask why workers often cannot file their claim within 180 
days from the first instance of discrimination.
  Well, there are good reasons. There are good reasons for that. To 
begin with, many workers have difficulty comparing their salaries to 
coworkers, with many businesses actually prohibiting it, prohibiting an 
employee from making or attempting to make these comparisons.
  Why would a company be concerned about the comparisons among people 
doing the same job within the context of a company? Why? What is it 
that they have to fear? What is it they have to hide? Even if a worker 
sees their pay is lower than their coworkers, they may not recognize it 
was a result of discrimination.
  If a worker does recognize it as discrimination, they often have to 
wait to contact the EEOC or decide not to due to feeling ashamed or, 
more often, they fear retaliation by their company, and that is a real 
fear.
  They fear the consequences of rocking the boat and figure a job in 
which they are discriminated against is better than being fired and 
having no job at all. Certainly, in this economy today, an economy that 
does not work for working families, those who are fortunate enough to 
have a job have to think about that extra burden of raising their voice 
against discrimination because they might, in fact, lose a job. So when 
people ask: Why can't they within 180 days go ahead and file their 
complaints, it is because it simply doesn't always work that way. I 
would ask those who raise the question: What happened during the 
decades of the standard of the law that existed? No one raised those 
concerns then.
  Here is what it comes down to. If you vote against this bill, you are 
going on record and telling an entire nation you want to make it harder 
for a woman to get paid the same as a man for the same work. It is not 
about working less. It is not about having a privileged role. It is 
about being able to achieve pay for doing the same exact job, with all 
the pressures, all the challenges, all the skills anyone else would 
have, male or female.
  These are challenging economic times, and the challenges are 
especially tough for women. For every dollar a man gets paid, women get 
paid 77 cents. Women's earnings have fallen six times as much as men as 
our economy began sliding toward a recession last year. The truth is, 
the glass ceiling might be a little higher than it was, but it is still 
there.
  I don't want my daughter, who is fortunate to have gone to a great 
university, graduated, incredibly smart, to realize less in her power 
to earn simply because she is a woman compared to those with whom she 
is competing. Yet if we let the law stand the way it is, that very well 
can be institutionalized as something that may happen.
  It is our responsibility as legislators, as Americans, as human 
beings to make sure this country holds the same promise for women as it 
does for men and that in the future our daughters have the same 
opportunities as our sons. Restoring a woman's opportunity to fight for 
fair pay is a big part of that. It has to be part of a broader strategy 
to get our economy back on track. We have to bring down the cost of 
health care, create green-collar jobs, and help workers get the 
training and education they need to succeed in a global environment in 
which intellect is the greatest asset the Nation is going to have, a 
world that has been transformed, where the boundaries of mankind have 
largely been erased in the pursuit of human capital so an engineer's 
report is created in India and sent back to the United States for a 
fraction of the cost, a radiologist's report is done in Pakistan and 
read in a local hospital by your doctor for a fraction of cost or, if 
you have a problem with your credit card, as I recently did, you end up 
in a call center in South Africa. The reality is that for the delivery 
of services created by an individual, we are globally challenged. For 
America to continue to be the leader economically, it needs to be at 
the apex of the curve of intellect, the most highly educated generation 
of Americans we have ever had.
  Even as we move toward achieving those educational goals, what is it 
worth if my daughter graduates from Harvard but still makes 77 cents on 
the dollar that a man makes? It is fundamentally wrong. If we are going 
to prosper as a nation, that prosperity must be shared. I have said it 
before and it is as true as it ever was: Only a society with no second-
class citizens can be a first-class society. Today it is time to act on 
that principle. It is time to vote for fair pay and ease the way to 
prosperity and justice for all. That is our choice. That is our 
opportunity. That is the responsibility of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, when the Spanish-American War ended in 
1898, the Philippines became a possession of the United States. It 
became a colony of the United States. We hate to use that word because 
we frown upon colonial powers, but we became a colonial power. As such, 
we exercised complete power over the people of the Philippines. 
Legally, we could arrest them. We could do anything we wanted. However, 
in 1934, we decided the status should change a little bit, and they 
became a commonwealth; however, not citizens of the United States.
  Then in July of 1941, when war clouds began to appear in the Asia-
Pacific area and the Japanese were invading other countries, the 
President of the United States issued an order forming the Commonwealth 
Army of the Philippines. The Commonwealth Army of the Philippines had 
470 members. They were all Filipinos. They were assured, if combat 
should come about and they participated, they would be granted American 
citizenship, if they so desired. And they would receive all the 
benefits veterans of the United States would receive.
  Well, December 7, 1941, became history. Two weeks later, the Congress 
passed a bill making it a very formal order of the day that if a 
Filipino came forward and volunteered to serve in the uniform of the 
United States and pledged to stand in harm's way on our behalf, at the 
end of the conflict, they would be granted citizenship, if they so 
desired, and receive all the benefits Americans received.
  The Japanese invaded the Philippines. There were two great battles, 
the battle of Corregidor and the battle of Bataan. The battle of Bataan 
has been made part of the history of this Nation. We have seen 
countless movies on the Bataan Death March, one of the better known 
death marches in our history. In that death march, there were 75,000 
prisoners of war. Of that number, 54,000 arrived at the prisoner of war 
camp; 15,000 died on that march. The distance wasn't too long. It was 
75 miles. But they were given no medicine, no food, no water, and 
15,000 died on the way. Six thousand escaped to become guerillas. Of 
the movies I have seen which show Americans being bayonetted, Americans 
being shot on the march, you never saw a Filipino on the march. Yet the 
record will show that of the 75,000 who participated in the death 
march, 15,000 were Americans and 60,000 were Filipinos.
  Most of those who died before arriving at the prison camp were 
Filipinos. Strangely also, though they spent much time on the 
frontlines attacking Japanese, carrying out heroic acts, they received 
no medals, no Purple Hearts, no Bronze Stars, no Silver Stars, and no 
DSCs. They were serving under American command.
  Well, we were victorious. But before we were victorious, General 
MacArthur left the Philippines and said: ``I shall return.'' The men 
whom he left in the Philippines were Filipinos. They had the job of 
harassing the Japanese, keeping them occupied so they wouldn't be 
moving to other areas to cause havoc. The casualties mounted in the 
thousands. Thousands died in our defense.
  So what happens? Surrender terms are signed on the USS Missouri, and 
law and order is restored in the Philippines. Happy day. About a month 
and a half later, Washington sent one man

[[Page S3239]]

to serve in the Embassy, to take applications of those men who wanted 
to become citizens of the United States. But a month later, we called 
him back. That promise we made, if you want to become a citizen, you 
had to do it in some office in the United States, not in the 
Philippines. That is why they sent that man down there to represent us. 
When that man left Manila and returned to Washington, there was no one 
to take applications.
  Then in mid-February of 1946, the Congress, our predecessors, passed 
a bill repealing that law they passed in December of 1941. They 
repealed it.
  It is a matter of honor, as Senator Stevens pointed out. Here was a 
promise, a solemn promise on the part of Americans. And by 
congressional action, we break that promise.
  Here we have a bill before us that will restore this honor. It will 
say to the Filipinos, since your cost of living is not as great as 
ours, your pension will be one-third of ours. Well, one can say that is 
better than nothing. But if they want to become citizens, they can do 
it in Manila or in Honolulu or anywhere else.
  There are 18,000 who want to become citizens. There are many others 
waiting. But as Senator Stevens pointed out, the youngest surviving 
Filipino veteran is 82 years old.
  As I speak, men are dying. By the time we consider this measure and 
pass it, there will be hundreds more who will die.
  It is not a matter of money. It is a matter of honor. It is the 
American thing to do. If we make a solemn promise, we should be 
prepared to keep it. In this case, they were willing to stand in harm's 
way for us. The least we can do is to recognize this and to salute them 
as fellow Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have deep respect for Senator Inouye, who 
just spoke. He is passionate. There is no American who can look at 
Senator Inouye and not see an American war hero. He has committed so 
much, and his perspective on history is important for all of us to 
recognize. Before him, Senator Stevens spoke, one of the foundations of 
the U.S. Senate. I find myself troubled to some degree that I am at 
odds with both of them on this issue.
  I want Senator Inouye to know how much I respect him and how much 
research I have done on this issue, and I will try to make my case for 
why I do not think this is a priority but to do it in the most 
respectful way I possibly can to individuals, such as Senator Inouye, 
who have so much invested not just in their knowledge but in the 
commitment and sacrifices they have made.
  Mr. President, we started debating S. 1315 earlier today. Where I 
ended off in that earlier debate was pointing out to my colleagues and 
the country how this special pension, a special pension we intend to 
provide to a very small group of Filipino veterans who were not 
enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces but were under control of U.S. forces 
and command of U.S. forces--I just want to point this out to everybody: 
Currently, the Filipino Government provides a $120-per-month pension to 
this select group of individuals. That pension puts every veteran at 
400 percent over the poverty line in the Philippines. What S. 1315 
attempts to do is to create a new special pension funded by the 
American taxpayers that would take the average income of this select 
group of Filipino veterans to 1,400 percent above the poverty line in 
the Philippines.
  Now, let me put that in direct comparison to the United States. We 
have special pensions in the United States that apply to our veterans 
because we believe it is important to say no veteran should live in 
poverty. Our commitment is such that it is roughly over $10,000 a year. 
Let me compute what that $10,000 means relative to the poverty line. It 
means they are 10 percent above the poverty line in the United States.
  So with all due respect to my colleagues, I am supposed to come down 
here on behalf of my constituents, my taxpayers, my veterans, 
suggesting there is equity in providing a 1,400-percent pension stipend 
for Filipino veterans over the poverty level but only 10 percent for 
U.S. veterans? Well, I cannot do that. That is why I am at odds with 
some of the people whom I really love and respect in this institution.
  As I said earlier today, I have done a tremendous amount of research 
on this issue because so many people have suggested with a high degree 
of certainty there was a promise that was made. Well, I cannot find 
that promise. According to information provided at a 1998 congressional 
hearing, the Department of the Army examined its holdings on GEN 
Douglas MacArthur and President Franklin Roosevelt and ``found no 
reference by either of these wartime leaders to postwar benefits for 
Filipino veterans.''
  Now, I am going to ask that another chart be put up that displays the 
difference in Filipino veterans because I think most would believe 
there is one target we are after. What you see here is four different 
groups. You see Old Scouts. These are the Filipino soldiers who signed 
up with the U.S. Army, and they served side by side in the U.S. Army. 
Today, they receive every benefit, except for those living in the 
Philippines and outside of the United States. And medical care is only 
provided at a clinic that the VA has in the Philippines. Every other 
benefit they get. They are getting pensions. They are getting death 
pensions for their survivors. They are getting burial benefits. They 
are getting everything because they were part of the U.S. Armed Forces, 
even though they are Filipino.
  The other three categories you see: the Commonwealth Army of the 
Philippines, recognized guerilla forces, New Philippine Scouts--yes, 
they were under the command of U.S. forces. Everybody in the Pacific 
was under U.S. force command. But they actually enlisted in the 
Filipino forces. We never solicited them. They could have joined the 
U.S. Army. They chose not to.
  The reality is that just about every benefit, except for two, was 
extended to even the three groups that are the Filipino veterans. The 
two glaring exceptions are pensions for nonservice-related 
disabilities--nonservice-connected disabilities--and the death pension 
for survivors.
  So what I want everybody to understand is, in a bill that totals over 
$900 million--that, I might add, we are funding. We are offsetting it 
because a court ruling took this away from U.S. veterans. We took money 
away in benefits from U.S. veterans. We are now using this $900 million 
the courts extracted to say we are going to enhance the benefits for 
our veterans here at home. As a matter of fact, over $300 million of it 
is life insurance changes we are making. And, yes, our veterans are 
benefiting from it. But $100 million of that $900 million is going in 
this category to beef up our commitment to Filipino veterans. But there 
is $221 million that is going to create a special pension, a pension 
for those Filipino troops who served as part of the Filipino military 
who were commanded by U.S. forces and never injured in combat. Let me 
say that again: Filipinos who live in the Philippines who were under 
U.S. command who served in the Filipino Army and have no service-
connected disability.

  This is not about disabilities. This is about a windfall. This is 
about a windfall that exceeds what our standard is here for our 
veterans, which is 10 percent above poverty, and currently the Filipino 
veterans are over 400 percent above poverty; and some in this 
institution suggest that the right thing for us to do is to raise their 
pension to 1,400 percent over the poverty level in the Philippines.
  Some might say: Was it Congress's intent to grant full VA benefits to 
Filipino veterans? It is important to note that it was a 1942 VA legal 
opinion which concluded that Filipino veterans had served ``in the 
active military or naval service of the United States'' and on that 
basis were eligible for VA benefits.
  Senator Carl Hayden, chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, 
had this to say about the VA's legal determination regarding Philippine 
Army veterans during committee proceedings on March 25, 1946:


[[Page S3240]]


       There is nothing to indicate that there was any discussion 
     of the meaning of that term, probably because it is generally 
     well recognized and has been used in many statutes having to 
     do with members or former members of the American armed 
     forces. It would normally be construed to include persons 
     regularly enlisted or inducted in the regular manner in the 
     military and naval service of the United States.

  I go on:

       But no one could be found who would assert that it was ever 
     the clear intention of Congress that such benefits as are 
     granted under . . . the GI bill of rights--should be extended 
     to the soldiers of the Philippine Army. There is nothing in 
     the text of any of the laws enacted by Congress for the 
     benefit of veterans to indicate such intent.

  This is our colleague in 1946.
  I go on:

       It is certainly unthinkable that the Congress would extend 
     the normal meaning of the term to cover the large number of 
     Filipinos to whom it has been suggested that the Servicemen's 
     Readjustment Act of 1940 applies, at a cost running into 
     billions of dollars, aside from other considerations, without 
     some reference to it either in the debates in Congress or in 
     the committee reports.

  Now, I am quoting from the history of our congressional hearings, of 
our Senate hearings, in 1946, from the chairman of the subcommittee on 
appropriations.
  Again, we have the Department of the Army examining the records of 
GEN Douglas MacArthur. We have the Department of the Army examining the 
papers of Franklin Roosevelt. They find no references by either of 
these wartime leaders to postwar benefits guaranteed to Filipinos. We 
have the records of the congressional hearing, and Senator Carl Hayden 
says: I have looked. There is nothing that suggests that this promise 
was ever made. Yet individuals come to the floor and they make this 
claim.
  Now, I am convinced that--we are dealing with something 50 years 
later--it is very possible that memories are not exactly the same, that 
one person's recollection may be different today than it was in 1942 or 
1944 or 1946. All the basis we have is to go back in history, to look 
at the documents, to see what the commitments were, and, more 
importantly, to try to get inside the heads of our colleagues then, to 
understand: If it was not in the letter of the law, what was the 
intent? Senator Hayden makes it very clear: It is not only not the 
letter of the law, it is not the intent of the Congress of the United 
States.
  Now, what factors influenced Congress's decision to limit certain VA 
benefits to Filipino veterans in what is known as the Rescissions Act 
of 1946?
  You see, in the United States we have the rule of law. When the 
courts determined, under their understanding, this set of benefits 
would apply, Congress actually passed legislation to rescind what the 
courts had awarded.
  Again, quoting Senator Hayden:

       The GI bill of rights is intended to benefit an American 
     who served in the armed forces and who, upon discharge from 
     the service, returns to civil life in the United States, 
     where American standards of living prevail. . . . Whenever 
     any part of the GI bill of rights is extended to Filipino 
     veterans, the cost of living in the Philippines and other 
     economic factors must be given careful consideration.

  Let me go back to the chart I referenced. That is all we are 
applying. That is the only standard I am asking my colleagues to look 
at: that when we apply what sounds in the United States like a meager 
amount--$120 a month--what we are talking about is 400 percent over the 
poverty level. When we talk about increasing by $300 a month the 
pension, what we are doing is we are taking potentially a Filipino 
veteran who is already 400 percent over poverty, or more--assuming they 
have no other income--and we are putting them at 1,400 percent over 
poverty, which puts them way above the middle class of the Philippines. 
This is a tremendous windfall when you look at it from the standpoint 
of the size of the Philippine economy.
  Mr. President, in total, S. 1315 proposes about $900 million worth of 
spending over 10 years. I will ask that a chart be put up so everybody 
can see what S. 1315 does. I think many have construed that I am 
opposed to S. 1315. I am the ranking member. I only have one piece I am 
opposed to. I have been accused of holding the bill up since last 
August. I have tried to negotiate this one piece since last August. 
What you see there is the Filipino piece, which is No. 1 on the list--
$332 million out of $900 million. The actual pension issue is $221 
million. There is the term life insurance program, $326 million for our 
kids; the State approving agencies, $60 million; mortgage life 
insurance, $51 million. You can go down the list. It is $909 million 
worth of benefits. I am only addressing a small sliver. It is a quarter 
of it in dollars, but it is a small piece. I am for everything else.
  If you take the Filipino special pension out, today I will propose to 
pass it under unanimous consent. I made the offer to the majority 
leader yesterday. This chart lists all of the provisions of S. 1315, 
from the most expensive provision to the least expensive provision. 
Again, you can see that the Filipino piece is the most expensive 
provision in S. 1315.
  During a time of tight budgets, and when multiple commissions have 
recommended that Congress focus our resources to improve the benefits 
of our U.S. returning combat veterans, it is plain wrong to put the 
needs of Filipino veterans, with no service-related injuries, who are 
residing in the Philippines, ahead of our own service-injured men and 
women returning from war. I am not sure it is defensible to suggest 
that we are going to institute that special pension, which means we are 
not going to divert that $221 million to our men and women.
  I will have a substitute amendment tomorrow. The only change in my 
substitute amendment is that it keeps intact everything but the special 
pension. It diverts the special pension and it enhances the ability for 
housing upgrades for our disabled troops to be made from $50,000 to 
$55,000. It provides additional grants for disabled veterans who need 
upgrades to their vehicles that they drive; it will up the special 
grants by $1,000. We are going to address additional burial benefits. 
We are going to address some discrepancies in education benefits for 
our Guard and Reserve. We are using the $221 million solely to divert 
it to our veterans.
  Each of us has met with veterans organizations and constituents who 
have asked us to address the needs that exist in the veterans 
community, particularly the needs of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines who are defending us in the war on terror. The distinguished 
majority leader touched on this very point last Friday. Frankly, after 
reading his comments, I was hopeful he might support the amendment I am 
offering, the substitute amendment. On Friday, he talked about the 
number of Americans who died in Iraq. He talked about those who are 
coming home with physical and mental wounds. He made the following 
statement:

       At the height of this war, with soldiers being wounded 
     every day and soldiers coming home from Iraq every day, we 
     can't even get a bill to deal with their health to the Senate 
     floor.

  All I have ever asked for is a fair opportunity to amend the bill and 
a fair length of time to debate the bill. The majority leader has to 
make decisions as to whether he files cloture motions. He has filed 67 
of them, because 67 times they tried to short the minority on our 
ability to exercise the rights we have as the minority, which are not 
many.
  But 67 times it has been done, so 67 times he filed a cloture motion. 
That is part of leading; I am sorry.
  But don't suggest that the No. 1 thing that you are for is our guys, 
when $221 million of this is going to set up a new special pension fund 
for Filipinos, who live in the Philippines, with no service-connected 
disability. It is disingenuous.
  There is consensus in this body for everything else in S. 1315, 
except for one provision. We have tried for months to negotiate that 
one provision. For my colleagues who want to know why this bill has 
been at a standstill, it is because we have been trying to shift the 
money to our kids--our children and our grandchildren. At the committee 
markup last June, Senator Craig put forward an amendment to redirect 
the Filipino pension fund to other priorities. It was rejected on a 
straight party-line vote--another rarity in the Veterans' Committee. We 
don't have party-line votes in the Veterans' Committee. For some 
reason, this year we have now had them.
  In December, shortly after the Dole-Shalala disability commission 
recommended we improve a host of benefits for war-injured veterans, I 
offered

[[Page S3241]]

another proposal to redirect the spending on pensions for Filipinos to 
higher priorities. It too was rejected. Any claim that there has not 
been an attempt to try to negotiate what is in this bill is ludicrous. 
I put that proposal in the form of a bill, S. 2640. We cannot hide from 
it. We will vote on it. Members will be asked to choose between our 
veterans and a 1,400-percent pension over the poverty line in the 
Philippines. That will happen tomorrow.

  This comes down to where our priorities are--the Senate and this 
Congress. I believe our priorities should be on increasing the benefits 
that apply to our guys. I believe that the substitute amendment I will 
offer that increases housing grants for profoundly disabled veterans 
who need their homes modified is important. It should be a priority. I 
believe the auto grants for profoundly disabled veterans who need the 
freedom of mobility to live independently is a priority. I believe 
improvements to the education benefits for returning Guard and 
Reservists is a priority. I am sad to say that we do increase the 
burial benefits. I am sorry it is a provision that people have to take 
advantage of. But burial benefit increase is a priority of this 
country. I believe all of these things are absolutely crucial.
  I met a veteran from North Carolina last year, Eric Edmundson. He 
needed a vehicle because of his disabilities. An unbelievable soldier; 
an unbelievable American. He will never fully recover. He will only be 
mobile with the help of the aids we can make available to him. The 
Edmundsons found an accessible van to accommodate Eric's injuries for 
$45,000. They had to pay $14,000 out of pocket.
  Can we put the need of that van for Eric Edmundson as a top priority? 
We can if, in fact, we shift the $221 million that is going to people 
who have no service-connected disability, don't live in the United 
States, aren't U.S. citizens, didn't serve in the U.S. Army, but were 
under U.S. command during World War II. We are not going to be able to 
do it if, in fact, we don't shift the money.
  My amendment would increase the auto grant benefit to $16,000 and, 
more importantly, in the case of the housing benefit, the auto benefit, 
and the burial benefit, it would index it so that annually we don't 
have to go in and legislate an increase. It increases with inflation, 
so for the first time what Congress does is actually thinks about the 
future and makes sure our veterans receive a benefit that is reflective 
of the inflation in between times that we have legislated.
  Creating a pension in the Philippines, I suggest, is simply bad 
policy. I will make a comment on why the Philippine pension is not only 
the wrong priority, it cannot be justified as a matter of fairness. It 
is important to understand that VA pensions are designed for veterans, 
as I said earlier, to stay out of poverty. When we left the 
Philippines, we made some commitments to the Filipino Government. We 
transferred to them multiple hospitals and all the equipment that was 
in those hospitals. As a matter of fact, we granted them, at the time, 
a tremendous amount of money. That money, in today's standards, would 
be well into the billions of dollars. We didn't walk away and leave 
anybody without. We made sure that we rebuilt the country, but we also 
left the infrastructure that was most needed.
  Let me suggest to you that this pension creates a new inequity. There 
were a lot of troops in the Second World War under U.S. command. They 
might not have been a territory of the United States, but they signed 
up for their army, and they were under U.S. command. What is to keep 
them from claiming they are owed a special pension from the United 
States? They have never done it. These are the only ones who have. If 
you think of all of our global partners who could claim, based upon 
this precedent, quite frankly, it would be a difficult thing for this 
country to deal with.
  As I said earlier, this new spending is paid for by reversing the 
effects of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision for veterans' claims 
decision that granted extra pension benefits to elderly and poor U.S. 
veterans in a manner that was never intended by Congress.
  Let me explain in layman's terms what that means. The VA made 
enhanced payments to U.S. veterans--benefits that were never intended 
in the letter of the law or in the intent of Congress. When the courts 
determined that, they pulled back about a billion dollars from this 
country's veterans. It is that billion dollars that is used in the 
offset for the $909 million spending plan we have in front of us today. 
I may argue the court's decision, but to take money from veterans in 
the United States, who are slightly above the poverty threshold, and 
spend it on a new special pension for Filipino veterans, who are 
already 400 percent above poverty in the Philippines, is flat wrong.
  Let me say that again. What the court exercised was to take money 
away from U.S. veterans who are slightly over poverty, and I have said 
constantly what we do with special pensions in the United States, we 
get about 10 percent over the poverty line. We have Filipinos today at 
400 percent over the poverty line, and the debate we are having is 
whether we go to 1,400 percent over the poverty line.
  One of the largest service organizations, the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, agrees. It passed a resolution in August urging Congress to use 
funds from reversing the effects of the court decision on U.S. veterans 
and not to create new benefits for Filipino veterans. If my colleagues 
adopted that approach, as many of us have urged from the beginning, S. 
1315 would have become law in August 2007.
  The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is a good man. He is 
a friend. He sent me a letter on April 10, asking for my cooperation on 
a way forward with some of the contentious issues in S. 1315--primarily 
this--but on the very next day the majority leader was already talking 
about filing a cloture motion on the bill. I was perplexed a little. On 
the one hand, I had an offer to negotiate a way forward; but on the 
other hand, I have a cloture vote being proposed. I am not sure where 
the disconnect is. I don't like to look back. I believe we should look 
forward.
  I am prepared to go to the bill. I believe it would be extremely 
healthy for this Congress and for the American people to be educated on 
exactly what this is about because this truly does beg where we place 
our priorities from the standpoint of the Senate. Are our priorities to 
fund our veterans, our kids with service-connected disabilities, or is 
our goal to set up a special pension for non-U.S. citizens who live in 
the Philippines, with no service-connected injuries, and to divert that 
money away from our kids?
  The answer is pretty simple for me. I believe our priority is to make 
sure our troops get it. I believe our priority should be to make sure 
our soldiers get whatever they need, to make sure the Eric Edmundsons 
of the world have the van they need for their disabilities, to make 
sure those who need adaptive housing because of their severe 
disabilities from war have the money they need to upgrade their house 
so they can maneuver in it.
  I daresay, a $1,000 increase on the auto grants and a $5,000 increase 
on the adaptive housing is not enough. I can tell my colleagues, we 
need to do more, and I am committed to say today I will do more. But 
how are we going to do more if we show something as irresponsible as a 
decision to spend $221 million that we have taken from U.S. veterans, 
away from people slightly over the poverty level, to allow it to go to 
individuals who are going to be above the middle class in the 
Philippines?
  How can any veteran in America believe we are serious about 
prioritizing how we spend money in the future if, in fact, we display 
this type of judgment and willingness to extract money from our 
veterans to create new programs?
  I am fairly confident we have a number of Members who would like to 
speak on this bill this evening. It is my hope we will have an 
opportunity to turn to consideration of the actual bill and to 
entertain any amendments our colleagues plan to offer on this bill.
  When the majority leader left the floor earlier today, he said it was 
his request that we move as quickly to conclusion of this bill as we 
possibly can. I have given my colleagues a small snippet tonight of 
what the history I looked at says of our leaders at the time. There was 
no documentation, there was no hearsay, there was no intent of those 
leaders or the Congress to

[[Page S3242]]

actually extend a benefit such as those that have been described by 
some of my colleagues.
  Clearly, this Congress, as any Congress of the future, could elect to 
add a benefit. For 50 years, the Congress could have added this 
benefit. The further we get from the 1942 act and the interpretation by 
the Court and the further we get from the 1946 Senate hearings that 
initiated the Rescissions Act that took the Court's interpretation of 
what the Filipinos were due away, I am convinced it requires somebody 
to do their homework and come to the floor and remind us of where our 
priorities are in this country; that until we have more than our kids 
need, the right priority is to spend it on ours and not necessarily on 
somebody else's.
  I reiterate the fact that our veterans and our VA pension is designed 
for veterans who have no service-related injuries and who are poor, 
according to the U.S. definition of poverty, and the maximum VA pension 
payable to a U.S.-based veteran puts him at 10 percent above poverty 
and at 17 percent of the median average household income.
  Again, the Philippine Government currently provides a $120 pension to 
this brave group of Filipino veterans, putting them at roughly 400 
percent of poverty in the Philippines and 35 percent of the average 
household income. Adding an additional VA pension today, adding the 
pension that is already in S. 1315, would put a single Filipino veteran 
at 1,400 percent of the Filipino poverty level and 21 percent above the 
average household income.
  Think about that. Our special pension is going to put them 21 percent 
over what the average Filipino makes annually.
  If the argument I have made is not credible from the standpoint of 
prioritizing our spending, that it should be our kids and not 
necessarily their veterans, then I ask my colleagues: Is this our 
responsibility? Our responsibility is to take individuals and to put 
them 21 percent over the average working Filipino? I do not believe so. 
I do not believe that is a good thing. I believe it is wrong. But that 
is what we are being asked to do.
  I am not sure the VA was intended to take people and put them in the 
middle class or, in the case of the Philippines, to put them above the 
middle class. It was to make sure our soldiers and their soldiers do 
not live in poverty. Clearly, they are doing better than we are today, 
and I challenge us to do more about ours, or maybe it describes for us 
the choice we have before us, that this would be ill-advised for us to 
proceed forward.
  Since World War II, the United States of America has provided a 
tremendous amount to Filipino veterans. Congress authorized the 
construction and equipping of a hospital for the care of Filipino 
veterans. The Filipino Memorial Hospital Center VMMC was dedicated in 
1955 and turned over to the Filipino Government free of charge. 
Congress authorized the transfer of another hospital located at Fort 
McKinley in the Philippines, including all the equipment contained in 
the hospital, to the Republic of the Philippines. Congress provided 
that annual grants be made to the Philippines to purchase equipment and 
material for the operation of these hospitals. Congress also authorized 
disability compensation, survivor compensation, funeral and burial 
benefits, dependents' educational benefits at the rate of 50 cents on 
the dollar for individuals residing in the Philippines and full-dollar 
benefits for those residing in the United States. Full eligibility for 
VA health care was provided to Filipino veterans legally residing in 
the United States.
  We have done a lot. I am sure it is not as much as some want. We are 
faced with a job where we have people come in and ask every day--there 
is something everybody needs. I learned very early in life that the 
toughest thing to learn in life is to say no because that means 
somebody is upset with you. But you cannot go through life without 
learning the word ``no.'' You cannot do it in business, and you clearly 
cannot do it in politics. Maybe that is why Charles de Gaulle said 
politics is too serious a matter to leave up to politicians. It 
requires a participation level of the American people.
  My hope is, over the next day, 2 days--whatever the leadership 
decides is the future of this bill--that we will have an opportunity to 
educate the American people and, at the same time, we will educate 
Members of the Senate that no matter how far you want to look back, no 
matter how much you want to try to speculate what went on, that when 
you stick with the written word, when you look at what President 
Roosevelt said, when you look at what General MacArthur said, when you 
look at what the Senate did and Senator Hayden--and they were there at 
the time and the Senate was charged with determining whether this 
benefit was appropriate--that from all the information in real time 
they looked at, their decision was the Rescissions Act, to take away 
what the courts had awarded.
  Now, 50 years later, we are being asked not to apply what they 
thought was correct but to apply what we think today. Even if you use 
that standard, I daresay you cannot make a claim that a special pension 
that puts Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines, with no 
service-connected injury, 21 percent over the median income in the 
Philippines is the right thing for us to do.
  I know there are several Members who are going to come over shortly. 
I expect Senator Chambliss any minute.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Earth Day and Global Warming

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, 38 years ago this week, Senator Gaylord 
Nelson of Wisconsin, a great environmentalist and a good friend of many 
of our colleagues who are still here, came to the Senate floor with a 
novel idea. He proposed one day each year to honor our planet, an 
occasion to rededicate ourselves to stewardship of the Earth and the 
fight against pollution. He called his idea Earth Day.
  When Senator Nelson proposed the first Earth Day in 1970, our 
country's environmental outlook was grim. Smog choked the air of Los 
Angeles, New York, and other great American cities; many communities 
dumped raw sewage and untreated industrial waste in our greatest 
rivers, including the Mississippi and the Illinois and the Hudson. 
Polluted air and fouled water weren't the only challenges troubling our 
country. We had endured a series of tragic assassinations of great 
leaders, we were torn over a war in Vietnam, and we had seen civil 
rights riots and antiwar demonstrations in our streets. The Nation was 
divided and, frankly, losing the self-confidence for which Americans 
have always been known.
  But Gaylord Nelson was an optimist. He believed that with imagination 
and dedication, despite all the problems going on in the world, we 
could attack at least one of our country's problems, and that was the 
problem of pollution. With the commitment of our people and the 
leadership from our Government, we could devise ways to clean up our 
rivers and our lakes and the air we breathe. He was right.
  Since 1970, when Congress passed the Clean Air Act, we have greatly 
cut the amount of noxious substances in the air we breathe. Emissions 
of carbon monoxide have fallen by 50 percent since 1980, according to 
the Environmental Protection Agency, lead emissions are down 97 
percent, and sulfur dioxide emissions have dropped by nearly 50 
percent.
  Since 1972, when the first clean water legislation passed, we have 
set high standards for water cleanliness and given our cities and towns 
the resources they need to stop dumping untreated waste. Our great 
rivers--the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Hudson--are healthier today 
than they were 30 years ago.
  Now, this doesn't mean we don't have challenges with the Clean Water 
Act and the Clean Air Act. As a member of the environmental committee, 
I know some of the problems we have seen with this administration in 
terms of rollbacks of some of these great strides. Nevertheless, we all 
know things have improved with the Clean

[[Page S3243]]

Water Act and the Clean Air Act since Gaylord Nelson declared Earth 
Day.
  On Earth Day 2008, however, we confront a new environmental 
challenge. It is a challenge of equal and perhaps greater magnitude. I 
am talking here about global climate change.
  For several years, our country had a debate over whether climate 
change was real or some sort of hoax perpetuated by doomsayers. That 
debate is over. There is now an undeniable scientific consensus that 
the Earth is warming. Study after study demonstrates that global 
warming is real and that it is affecting us now.
  Early last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued 
its latest report on the science of climate change. This report was 
produced by some 600 authors from over 40 countries. Over 620 expert 
reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. 
This is a very cautious group of scientists with a very conservative 
process for meticulously reviewing the evidence and reaching their 
conclusions through consensus. What did they conclude? Well, they 
concluded that changes in climate are now affecting physical and 
biological systems on every continent.
  Last November, the IPCC issued a followup report. It concluded that 
``warming of the climate system is unequivocal,'' based on observations 
of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures. It said that 
evidence from every continent shows dramatic changes in physical and 
biological systems, including melting of the permafrost, rising water 
temperatures, and changes in the habitat range of migratory animals.
  So how did this all come about? Well, certain types of gases--most 
notably carbon dioxide but also methane and nitrous oxide--accumulate 
in the atmosphere and then absorb or trap the sun's heat as it bounces 
off the Earth's surface. The problem is that carbon dioxide doesn't 
dissipate quickly; it stays in the atmosphere for five decades or more, 
causing the Earth's temperatures to rise. This means that most of the 
carbon dioxide produced in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 
1980s--as I look at our pages, Mr. President, I realize many of them 
were not even born when this carbon dioxide was released--well, that 
carbon dioxide is still in our atmosphere today. And it means that 
carbon dioxide produced today will still be in our atmosphere in 2050 
and beyond. All of that carbon dioxide has been trapping heat in our 
atmosphere. Over time, it makes global temperatures rise. In turn, sea 
levels rise--both because the water expands as the oceans warm and 
because melting glaciers and icecaps add more water.

  Global warming is real, with enormous consequences for our world and 
for our economy. For example, here is a chart which shows the rising 
temperatures. Mr. President, 2006 was the hottest year ever in this 
country, capping a 9-year streak unprecedented in the historical 
record. The winter of 2006 was the warmest on record worldwide. Almost 
every State in our country is seeing higher temperatures.
  You can see what we have here, with the coldest being 1, the warmest 
being 112. And you can see for several of the States it was the record 
warmest, and for most of the States it was much above normal, as in the 
Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey. Maybe you remember the year of 
2006--it wasn't that long ago--and you can see how hot it truly was 
when you look at it from a worldwide perspective. It doesn't mean you 
won't have a year here or there that won't be normal, but when you look 
at the actual trend over the last decades, you see an increasing 
warming temperature.
  Worldwide, glaciers are rapidly melting. In fact, almost everything 
frozen on our Earth is melting. A few months ago, it was reported that 
glaciers in the European Alps will be all gone by the year 2050. 
Experts believe that in 25 years there won't be a single glacier left 
in Glacier National Park. So if people are planning a vacation to visit 
Glacier National Park to see the glaciers, they better do it soon 
because experts predict that in 125 years there won't be any left.
  Globally, sea levels have risen 4 to 10 inches over the past century. 
The frequency of extremely heavy rainfalls has increased throughout 
much of the United States.
  The impact is especially dire in Greenland and the Arctic region. The 
temperature changes there have been the greatest, resulting in 
widespread melting of glaciers, thinning of the polar icecap, and 
rising permafrost temperatures. You can see here in our picture that 
since 1979, more than 20 percent of the polar icecap has melted away. 
There is the North Pole, and you see the Arctic sea boundary that we 
had in 1979, and now we have 20 percent melting of this icecap.
  Well, I saw this firsthand, Mr. President, when I visited Greenland 
last summer with my colleagues from the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. Greenland has been called the canary in the coal mine for 
climate change. They have seen vast changes. We talked to local 
residents, and there are still more dogs than residents--more sled 
dogs--but we talked to some of the local residents who said they can 
remember the days when there was ice in their front yards, and now they 
are growing potatoes. They have lost the size of Texas and Arizona 
combined into the sea from the icecap in Greenland.
  Other changes, such as the recent increase in the severity of 
hurricanes and other extreme or destructive weather events, are 
consistent with the kinds of changes scientists expect to occur on a 
warming planet. They are early indicators of even more dramatic climate 
shifts and economic damage that await us if we don't reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions and attack the problem of global warming. So here you 
have related economic losses, and these are, of course, from increased 
storms and wildfires.
  I think we all remember well the wildfires in California. I remember 
this well because during the same time the wildfires were raging in 
California, we had a hearing in our Environment Committee where we had 
the commission on disease control testify. We noticed, when we looked 
at the written testimony, it seemed kind of chopped up. It turned out 
it had been edited by the administration. Among other things, of the 
parts that were edited out was a part about the effect climate change 
would have on disease and the mortality rates in our country. There was 
actually a part edited out that said it would lead to more wildfires in 
the Western States, just as the wildfires were raging in California.
  So this is an example of the increased economic loss we have seen 
that are weather related in this country. You can see that from 1960 to 
1969, and then you go up to 1988 to 1997, and of course I am sure you 
are going to see more now.
  We have had fires in Minnesota and floods in Minnesota, and the 
people of our State are starting to see this in a very different way. 
In our State, one economic loss that isn't one of these hurricanes or 
fires is the decreasing levels of Lake Superior. That will be 
surprising to people who think sea levels are rising because 
Greenland's ice sheet is melting. Why would the level of our Great 
Lakes be going lower? They are going lower because the ice is melting 
more quickly, so the water evaporates, and Lake Superior is now at its 
lowest level in 80 years.
  Now, you might think: Oh, Lake Superior is so cold, hardly anyone can 
go swimming anyway. Who cares? Well, it affects our economy in 
Minnesota because the barges are not able to come in. We have shipped 
something like 300 tons less, by my memory--we will have to correct the 
record if I am wrong--300 tons less of traffic because these barges 
cannot carry as much because the water level of Lake Superior is so 
low.
  By that example, this is truly an issue that has finally moved out of 
the science labs and the classrooms and the seminar rooms and has 
entered the everyday conversations of people in my State. I hear it 
from hunters across Minnesota, who notice how our valuable wetlands are 
changing. I have heard it from the heads of our snow mobile 
associations, who testified at a forum I had with our Governor on 
climate change in January, because they have seen decreasing snow 
levels. I hear about it from ice fisherman because they have seen it 
takes longer for the ice to freeze and they can't put their fish houses 
out as early as they would like.
  Just yesterday, USAToday had a story about the shrinking number of

[[Page S3244]]

moose in northern Minnesota. Biologists think that global warming is 
affecting the habitat of these moose and making them more vulnerable to 
parasites, causing an incredible reduction in the number of moose.
  This is how real people in the real world are talking about this. 
They are worried about what is happening to their planet and the 
consequences that will have for all of us and our children and our 
grandchildren.
  So the question is, How will we respond in Washington? I am actually 
going to give a talk on this every single week, Mr. President, up to 
our debate on this bill in June, and I figured a good day to start was 
with Earth Day. But just to summarize--and I will go into more detail 
in other floor remarks I will make--how will Washington respond?
  In December, the Environment and Public Works Committee approved a 
landmark bipartisan bill to get our country moving in the fight against 
climate change. I thank my colleagues, Senators Warner and Lieberman, 
for their work on this legislation, and I thank Senator Boxer, the 
chairwoman of our committee, for her leadership in developing this bill 
and moving this bill through the committee.
  This legislation is visionary, but it is also practical. The bill 
would, for the first time, set mandatory caps on carbon dioxide 
emissions, on greenhouse gas emissions. It would establish a cap-and-
trade system to use market forces so that the private sector can reduce 
greenhouse gas pollution in the most efficient way possible.
  And I can tell you, we have learned from experience. We did this with 
acid rain, and it was very successful. We have seen from what the 
European Union did what is good and bad, so we can learn from that 
experience and do, I would say, a better job in this country, if we can 
get this right.
  This legislation, in its first title, also contains my proposal, the 
bill I introduced with Senator Snowe, for a carbon counter, which is a 
national greenhouse gas registry, because you can't fix a problem if 
you can't measure it. Right now, we have 33 States off on their own 
starting a climate registry, which shows how absurd the situation is 
getting. They want to act because they are hearing from the people in 
their States. They know they can't wait, so they have started their own 
climate registry, instead of what makes sense, which is a Federal 
registry. And that is the first title of this bill.
  In a few weeks, we are going to bring the Lieberman-Warner bill to 
the floor, and we will have a chance to take a historic step on behalf 
of our country--in fact, on behalf of the entire world. As we prepare 
to consider this important legislation, there is something else we need 
to remember, and that is that global warming is, of course, a huge 
challenge, but it also presents opportunities for our country. It gives 
us the opportunity to develop new technologies, new jobs, and new 
industries. It gives us the opportunity to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil, which just hit another record of $117 per barrel this 
week. It gives us an opportunity to give consumers new, cheaper 
alternatives to fossil fuels. Whether it is an electric car, a hybrid 
car, or looking at what Brazil did with sugar cane, where they became 
energy independent, so they are not dependent on foreign oil, we know 
there are things we can do beyond what we are doing now with 
switchgrass, prairie grass, and all kinds of alternative 
technologies. But we have to set the standards as a government so we 
can encourage that kind of investment. We are not going to have a 
silver bullet here. As we like to say in Minnesota, we will have silver 
buckshot. We are going to have a number of proposals and alternatives, 
but we have to get moving by setting the standards.

  This is an opportunity that we must seize now. I am proud to 
celebrate Earth Day today, to join with my colleagues and millions of 
Americans in honoring our planet. But in the decades since Gaylord 
Nelson sponsored the first Earth Day, the occasion has often turned 
into a symbolic event, a day for teach-ins at our schools and rallies 
at our State capitols. I participated in them myself.
  But today, 38 years after its inception, we have the opportunity to 
return to the original spirit of Earth Day and celebrate the occasion 
with action, the action of investing in the farmers and the workers of 
this country instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast; the action of 
finally doing something to set that investment in place so we can 
develop the next generation of new technology, as we did when we said 
we were going to put a man on the Moon. It was great to put a man on 
the Moon and beat Russia--and look at what came out of that: the CAT 
scan and infrared technology. I remember in the 1970s my family went on 
camping trips with those little chocolate space sticks that came out of 
that trip to the Moon--hundreds and hundreds of new technological 
developments because our Nation put its mind on one goal.
  This is another time to take action. We will have a chance to pass 
this climate change legislation that is forward looking, that is 
bipartisan, and that is pragmatic. We will have the chance to answer 
the call of the people in this country--the little kids with the 
penguin buttons, the hunters of Minnesota who see the changes of their 
wetlands. They see the urgency of this issue. We have a chance to 
regain world leadership on the most pressing environmental challenge of 
our day. We will have a chance to take our place in a great tradition 
of environmental stewardship in the Senate and to renew the promise 
that Americans made on the first Earth Day, 38 years ago.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are 
postcloture and I have up to 1 hour, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend for a moment, please.
  The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S. 1315, but to 
speak in favor of Senator Burr's alternative bill, S. 2640, the 
Veterans' Benefit Act of 2008. As we continue to prosecute the global 
war on terrorism and take care of our veterans who are returning from 
that effort, as well as take care of veterans from all our past 
conflicts, our Nation has an obligation to these veterans and their 
families who make the greatest sacrifices to defend our Nation and 
freedom across the world. This obligation extends to providing our 
brave young men and women with the optimal rehabilitation care, 
compensation packages, and long-term benefits for their service.
  This is a very familiar issue to me, and I was pleased to offer 
several amendments with my Senate Armed Services Committee colleagues 
during last year's markup of the wounded warrior bill, which will go a 
long way to improving the treatment and benefits these wounded warriors 
will receive, both now and in the future. Both of the bills at issue 
today go a long way to further improving the care of our veterans and 
wounded warriors, and it is very clear that both Senator Burr and 
Senator Akaka worked very hard to craft bills that will benefit our 
veterans and their families.
  S. 1315 makes many significant changes in the area of insurance, 
housing, labor, and education benefits for our veterans. However, the 
bill pays for these increased entitlements by reversing a 2006 court 
decision, which would effectively take $2,000 annually from poor, 
elderly, disabled wartime U.S. veterans.
  Also included in the bill's spending is $221 million to create a new 
pension benefit for Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines, all 
of whom are not U.S. citizens and none of whom have any disabilities 
relating to World War II service.
  There are two significant problems with the new spending on Filipino 
veterans. First, it takes money from poor veterans in the United 
States, to in effect create a middle class of non-United States 
veterans residing in the Philippines. Second, it comes at the expense 
of benefit improvements that are needed for our returning combat 
veterans of the war on terror.
  Under current law, a VA pension benefit paid to an individual U.S. 
veteran cannot exceed $11,181 a year, which is roughly 17 percent of 
the United States average household income. S. 1315 would create a new, 
special pension benefit for Filipino veterans in the Philippines that 
will put them at over 87 percent of average household income in the 
Philippines!
  As Senator Burr stated on the floor earlier today, the contributions 
of Filipino veterans during World War II is a

[[Page S3245]]

matter of public record and is without dispute. We do owe them a huge 
debt. They fought on the side of the allies and made a significant 
contribution to the war effort. However, it is not fair to fund a 
pension for these veterans at the expense of poor U.S. veterans, which 
this bill unfortunately does.
  I hope the supporters of S. 1315 will hear me when I say that a vote 
against this bill is not a vote against the contribution that the 
Filipino veterans made to the effort in World War II. Rather, it is a 
vote against taking an existing benefit away from a U.S. veteran.
  Senator Burr's alternative, S. 2640, will provide veterans with 
improved life insurance policies, enhance the veterans mortgage life 
insurance program, improve disabled veterans housing benefits by 10 
percent, as well as index future housing benefits to inflation.
  S. 2640 also provides for automatic annual increases in burial 
benefits for our veterans families as well as improved educational 
opportunities to our National Guardsmen and Reservists who serve for a 
total of 2 years in an active-duty status.
  In relation to Filipino veterans, S. 2640 provides a pension plan to 
Filipino veterans who have resided in the United States and have not 
received any benefits from the Filipino Government. In addition, it 
provides for full disability compensation for Filipinos residing 
anywhere in the world.
  Our Nation's commitment and number 1 priority must rest with taking 
care of our current veterans, particularly those who have disabilities 
resulting from their service, which 2640 provides. I encourage my 
colleagues to support S. 2640, which provides the right compensation 
and the right policies for the right servicemembers.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Burr.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. BURR. I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia.
  I think my colleague put it very well. The big question is, has the 
U.S. Government met its obligation to Filipino veterans? I think that 
is at the heart of what some Members have raised with respect to this 
special pension. Let me say, Filipinos who fought under U.S. command in 
World War II were no doubt invaluable to the victory in the Pacific. 
Yes, they were U.S. nationals at the time, but they were also on a 
timetable to transition to a newly independent, sovereign Philippine 
Union. Thus, their welfare has always been a shared responsibility 
between the U.S. Government and the Philippine Government.
  Here is what the U.S. taxpayer has already funded to meet United 
States commitments to the Filipino veterans. After the war the U.S. 
provided $620 million--that is $6.2 billion in today's dollars--for 
repair of public property, war damage claims, and assistance to the 
Philippine Government. VA compensation for service-related disabilities 
and survivor compensation was also provided, paid at a rate that 
reflected differences in the cost of living in the Philippines.
  Let me suggest, about this cost of living consideration, the first 
time it has been raised is not today by me. It was actually applied in 
the 1940s, at the conclusion of the conflict, to the United States.
  No. 2, the United States provided $22.5 million--$196 million in 
today's dollars--for the construction and equipping of a hospital in 
the Philippines for the care and treatment of Filipino veterans. In 
addition, the United States provided annual grants for operation of the 
hospital which was later donated to the Filipino Government. The grant 
assistance continues to this day.
  Survivors of Philippine veterans who died as a result of service are 
eligible for educational assistance benefits, paid at a rate that 
reflects the differences in the cost of living.
  All of a sudden we have second reference to payments being made in 
the Philippines at the conclusion of the conflict where the cost of 
living differential was considered in what the United States payment 
was.
  Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States are entitled 
to a full rated compensation, full rate cash benefits, full access to 
the VA health clinics and medical centers, and burial in our Nation's 
national cemeteries.
  In addition to that, I have mentioned another hospital at Fort 
McKinley that was donated to the Philippine Government.
  The big question for Members of the Senate and members of the 
Roosevelt administration, the Secretary of War at the time, was how can 
we best help the Filipino people? How can we best help these veterans? 
It was to reconstruct the country. It was to create an infrastructure 
where health care could be delivered. It was to repair roads. It was to 
repair the infrastructure so the Philippines post war could have an 
economy, not dissimilar to the Marshall plan in Europe where the United 
States and others--primarily us--funded the reconstruction of much of 
Europe. That is because we knew a country without an economy, without 
the ability to manufacture something, without the ability for its 
people to earn something, probably would not survive.
  We made the right decision. We pumped into the infrastructure 
billions of dollars by today's standards. We gave them hospitals. We 
built them hospitals. We gave them equipment. We bought them equipment. 
Today we still provide a grant assistance to the Philippines for the 
care of Filipino veterans.
  Some might say if we had a different administration maybe things 
would be different. On July 25, 1997, the Senate Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs heard testimony of Stephen Lemons, Acting Under Secretary for 
Benefits, in opposition to the bill granting full VA benefits to 
Filipinos. It was not the Bush administration, it was the Clinton 
administration. This has spanned 50 years. Think of the numbers of 
administrations. The quote then was:

       Its enactment would upset decades-old policies which have 
     authorized some but not all VA benefits based on this 
     service.

  I go on:

       History shows that the limitations on eligibility for U.S. 
     benefits based on service in these Philippine forces were 
     based on a carefully considered determination of the 
     government's responsibility towards them.

  I also continue:

       Current law appropriately recognizes our two nations' 
     shared responsibility for well-being, and should not be 
     changed as proposed by this bill.

  The Clinton administration lobbied Congress not to do what we are 
considering doing in S. 1315. What is it? To extend a new, special 
pension to Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines, who have no 
service-connected disability, that, along with the Philippine pension 
that is currently in place, would put these individuals at 1,400 
percent over the poverty line and 27 percent over the average median 
income of the Philippine people.
  Now, I went a little bit further. I checked out this book from 1948. 
It is called House Committee Hearings. I want to turn to one section I 
think is pertinent to this debate. Because 1946 was the year we passed 
the Rescissions Act. The Rescissions Act revised the Court's 
interpretation of what were VA benefits. This sheds a tremendous amount 
of light on the difference between my understanding and what those who 
were charged with investigating U.S. obligations at the time were.
  There was a Father Haggerty who testified in front of the committee. 
These are Father Haggerty's words:

       It was constantly promised that as the Ambassador mentioned 
     in radio broadcasts, official American broadcasts to the 
     Philippines during the war, it was definitely promised by 
     General MacArthur, General Wainwright, and also it has been 
     acknowledged, I believe, that Filipino groups recognized the 
     guerillas, acting as members of the United States Armed 
     Forces, were entitled at one time to the complete GI bill of 
     rights; that is, they were included. I believe that is 
     correct, and were later left out.

  Mr. Allen, a member of the committee:

       May I say this, Father, I know you are sincere about it. 
     But I think you are in error there because there are three or 
     four of us here on the committee who were present when the GI 
     bill was written. And I do not think this was ever entered 
     into.
       The chairman: ``It did not come up?''
       Mr. Allen: ``The Filipinos never entered into it.''
       Father Haggerty: ``I am also speaking of the impression 
     that they all had.''
       Mr. Allen: ``We are not responsible for impressions, of 
     course.''

  I said earlier I have tremendous respect for my colleagues who are on 
the

[[Page S3246]]

opposite side of this issue with me. I am sure their recollections--
they served, I did not--are probably as accurate as Father Haggerty, 
who in 1948, voluntarily, I think, went in front of a House committee, 
probably the veterans committee, along with an ambassador, and the 
Ambassador swore: ``This is what I understood.''
  Father Haggerty said:

       This was what I--I heard it, I heard the American 
     Government say it. I heard General MacArthur say it, General 
     Wainwright say it.

  Well, I said earlier to those who were listening, we had testimony 
from the Army that said: We looked at General MacArthur's records. We 
looked at President Roosevelt's records. There was never an intent for 
this to be extended.
  Now, what we find in the Congressional hearing in 1948 is those 
specific questions were asked by members, and Father Haggerty swears 
this was accurate, that we said this, that this was the intent of the 
GI bill.
  And Mr. Allen, a member of the committee:

       May I say this, Father? I know you are sincere about it. 
     But I think you are in error. You are in error because there 
     are three or four of us on this committee who were present 
     when the GI bill was written, and I do not think this was 
     ever entered into.

  I am sure as we go through this, we are going to find others who come 
to the floor and say: Listen, I know this was the intent of Congress. 
It is probably the way they envisioned it today. But when you go back 
to the actual records of the 1940s, when you go back to the 1948 
testimony, when you go back to the 1946 rescissions bill, when you go 
back to 1944, and Senator Hayden, this has been explored over and over 
and over. In every case, with different members, they came to the same 
conclusion. Let me read from a more recent committee hearing, the 
committee hearing that took place last year with Senator Craig, who was 
then ranking member of the committee, as he talked to Mr. Ron Aument.
  He said:

       Ron, let me take off from where the chairman has gone with 
     a couple of questions. If the committee were to structure a 
     pension benefit for those residing in the Philippines that 
     had the same purchasing power that a pension recipient in the 
     United States had, what would be the equivalent maximum 
     pension benefit? Have you ever done any calculations based on 
     S. 57?
       Mr. Aument: Yes, we have, Senator Craig. It has not been a 
     simple calculation because some of the economic statistics 
     that we would be turning to are not as readily available to 
     us. Having said that, if we take a look at what today's 
     pension rate for an American veteran is with one dependent, 
     we mentioned it was around $14,000 annually, and contrast 
     that to the average household income for the most recent 
     census statistic we had at around $46,000 annually, it is 
     around 30 percent of the average household income.
       If we were to compare that to the average household income 
     in the Philippines of around $2,800, we are speaking around 
     $820 annually in the form of a pension.

  So last year, to bring on par with the United States, on what we do 
with special pensions for veterans, we made a commitment that they will 
not live in poverty. What Mr. Aument said was:

       If we calculated today the Filipino pension, that would be 
     identical to the U.S. pension, it would be $820. The existing 
     Filipino pension to the Filipino veterans is $120 a month, 
     which equates to 400 percent above poverty.

  Our own witness early last year basically said that the average 
household income in the Philippines was $2,800, and $820 annually would 
put a Filipino veteran on the same par with an American veteran 
receiving a special benefit, a special pension.
  Yet what we are here to debate over the next several days is whether 
the Senate is going to extend to these Filipino veterans who live in 
the Philippines, who have no service-connected disability, a pension, 
in combination with the Philippine Government, that will equal 1,400 
percent above poverty, that will equal 27 percent above the median 
income in the Philippines.
  We base this all off the belief that we made a promise we are not 
keeping. I gave three specific instances before, I read from the 
committee hearing from last year, that dispel any belief that there was 
ever a promise. The 1948 account I read from the House committee 
hearing is not the only one; it is the 1946 Rescissions Act, it is the 
1944 hearing with Senator Hayden. All of them point to the fact that 
those people who were involved in crafting, writing, and passing the GI 
bill had no intent for this benefit to ever be extended.
  I am hopeful my colleagues will see the priorities we are faced with 
as it relates to our own veterans, that they will look at these 
severely disabled soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines who are 
coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq today, having given their all, 
injured in a way we cannot replace but with an opportunity to 
supplement their quality of life.

  We can supplement that through a number of different fashions. We can 
supplement that by extending and raising the housing provisions for 
their ability to adapt their houses to their disability, $5,000 more 
dollars; we can raise the grant allowance for cars so individuals such 
as Eric Edmundson's family is not stuck with $14,000 out-of-pocket to 
make sure they have a van that his wheelchair can go into, that lifts 
him up, and gives him the ability to have some degree of mobility.
  I think that is the priority. That is the choice tomorrow that 
Members of this body will be given in a substitute that I will propose, 
that still embraces the majority of what Senator Akaka had in his bill 
but eliminates one glaring thing, it eliminates the special pension for 
Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines, with no service-
connected disability.
  It replaces it with an expansion of veterans' benefits for our 
soldiers or our airmen, our soldiers, our marines. I am convinced this 
is not only the right thing to do, that we have a historical blueprint 
that tells us that folks before us who held our jobs have already 
judged that this is not a promise that is broken; that when you look at 
the numbers, I am not sure you can be more compassionate. We are not 
this compassionate to our own troops, to our own veterans.
  How can anybody come to the floor and make a claim that providing a 
pension 1,400 percent above the poverty rate, when our veterans are at 
10 percent above poverty, is equitable or fair; that there should be 
one taxpayer who should be asked to contribute to something that does 
not affect increasing the quality of life of our veterans first and 
foremost.
  I think America would hold a different compassion if the current 
Philippine pension did not provide a cushion between poverty and the 
stipend they get of 400 percent. I think we can make the case that it 
is not a big enough cushion to have American veterans only 10 percent 
above the poverty line.
  But we have an opportunity not to grow it from 400 to 1,400 and to 
use that extra 1,000 percent to actually affect the lives of our 
service personnel who are severely disabled who are coming home every 
single day.
  It is my hope and my belief that tomorrow my colleagues will 
understand the importance of my substitute amendment. It does not 
devalue the contribution the Filipino veterans made to the United 
States and to the war in World War II. What it does is recognize the 
commitment we already made to the Philippines, to its people, 
recognizing the fact that the group that we are talking about was part 
of the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, not the Army of the United 
States; that even though they were commanded by Americans, they were 
part of a military that existed within the Philippines, and to suggest 
that being part of somebody else's Army but commanded by us would 
suggest that most everybody who was under U.S. command in World War II 
in the European theaters would now be eligible if this precedent went 
through for a special pension, that is not the intent of this Congress, 
it is not the intent of past Congresses, and certainly I do not think 
it is the intent of the American people.
  I believe the responsible thing to do is to pass this package that 
has over $900 million worth of benefits, $800 million under the 
substitute that would go to our children and our grandchildren, and 100 
million that would go still to Filipino veterans who live in the United 
States or live in the Philippines but have service-connected 
disabilities.
  We are not an uncompassionate country. We do not believe our 
taxpayers should help to drive an income level of someone else to a 
point that we are not willing to commit to our own. When we have our 
veterans at 1,400 percent of

[[Page S3247]]

poverty, I am willing to come to the floor and talk about putting their 
veterans to 1,400 percent of poverty.
  But those who have held our job before us have already determined 
there is not a promise, there is not an obligation, there is not a 
piece of paper that said we were going to do this. A lot of people 
think there was. But there was not.
  I look forward to the opportunity to debate the amendment and to 
debate in more depth the history of this benefit and this obligation.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a 
cosponsor of S. 1315.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I come to the floor this evening to speak on behalf of 
the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act embodied in S. 1315. This 
legislation passed the Veterans' Affairs Committee in August of 2007. I 
know the work that goes on in that committee because I served on that 
committee with Senator Akaka and many Members. It is an important 
tradition that committee has worked in a bipartisan spirit to make sure 
the United States honors the debt we owe to our veterans, some 25 
million veterans in America and 1.4 million, 1.5 million veterans of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. It is through 
that committee that legislation emerges to make sure the promise this 
Nation makes to its veterans is a promise we keep.
  In my view, the fact that so much time has passed since S. 1315 came 
out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee in August 2007 until we have it 
today on the floor is, frankly, inexcusable. At the end of the day, the 
committee worked to put together legislation to better serve the 
Nation's veterans.
  The legislation before us does some very important things. It expands 
eligibility for traumatic injury insurance. That is very important, 
especially today when we see the kind of trauma and injuries our 
veterans are facing coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. We have now 
over 30,000 veterans who have been grievously wounded in that war. I 
know most of my colleagues have been to Walter Reed or to veterans 
hospitals where they have seen the kind of wounds our veterans are 
experiencing because of explosions of IEDs and other kinds of attacks 
made on our troops. The expansion of traumatic injury insurance is 
important for our men and women who serve.
  The bill also extends the eligibility for specially adapted housing 
units to veterans with severe burns. I know in my visits to those who 
have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have seen many who are in 
burn units who have suffered the scars of this war. This benefit for 
housing units that are specially adapted for those who are suffering 
burn injuries is a very important provision in this legislation that 
will be part of our efforts to make sure we are providing support to 
our veterans who have served.
  This legislation is also important because it increases benefits for 
veterans pursuing apprenticeships or on-the-job training programs. 
Across the country and in my State of Colorado, we know there are many 
veterans who are unemployed. In fact, in most States, about half of the 
homeless population comes from the veterans ranks. So providing on-the-
job training opportunity for these veterans is important. This 
legislation does that.
  For all of the good things this legislation does, we could have taken 
it through this Chamber, through the House of Representatives, and to 
the President's desk, and we could have had that legislation already in 
law. We could have the framework of a law now honoring the veterans of 
America in the way they should be honored. Yet because of one provision 
of this legislation, it has been held up not 1 month, 2 months, but 
since August of 2007, to the point where today it is already April of 
2008, and we are on the floor of the Senate trying to break a 
filibuster over legislation that is supposed to provide a benefit to 
our veterans in important ways.
  The provision which some on the other side have objected to--not all 
of them but some of them--has to do with the treatment of Filipino 
veterans during World War II. I join, proudly, my colleagues--Senator 
Inouye and Senator Stevens--in support of the legislation that would 
restore the benefits to Filipino veterans by granting them full 
veterans' status for the sacrifices they made during World War II.
  Over the last half century, the treatment of Filipino World War II 
veterans, in my view, has been a stain on our national honor.
  The Philippines became a possession of the United States in 1898, 
when it was ceded by Spain following the Spanish-American War. During 
that time period, and for the following 60-some years, the United 
States essentially controlled the territory and the people of the 
Philippines.
  It was in 1934, then, that the Congress enacted the Philippine 
Independence Act. That provided a 10-year timeframe for the 
independence of the Philippines. But it was during that 10-year 
timeframe, when the Philippines essentially were in a commonwealth 
status relationship to the United States of America, that the clouds of 
war and the horrific war of World War II beset the entire globe.
  Between 1934 and 1946, the United States retained powers over the 
Philippines, including the right as a government to call the military 
forces organized by the Commonwealth Government into the services of 
the Armed Forces of the United States.
  On July 26, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued a military 
order calling on the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines to serve with 
the Armed Forces of the United States in the Far East.
  The Filipinos who served were entitled to full veterans' benefits by 
reason of their service under the command of our Armed Forces.
  Of the 470,000--that is 470,000; that is nearly half a million--
Filipino veterans who volunteered, approximately 200,000 served in the 
Philippine Commonwealth Army, the Philippine Army Air Corps, and the 
Philippine Army Offshore Patrol--all under the command of the United 
States of America and our military.
  We, I believe, in America cannot forget the sacrifice of our Filipino 
friends who fought side by side with American soldiers in World War II.
  They constituted the vast majority of the 80,000 soldiers who 
defended the Bataan Peninsula against the Japanese invasion.
  They constituted the vast majority--the vast majority--of the 
soldiers who were forced on the Bataan Death March.
  They fought side by side with American soldiers to defend Corregidor 
in 1942.
  They fought as guerrillas after the Japanese captured the 
Philippines.
  They worked behind enemy lines to provide intelligence to the 
American Army. More than half the battalion that was tasked with 
providing intelligence from the occupied Philippines later received the 
Bronze Star for their heroic service.
  When President Roosevelt signed a bill for the Filipinos to enlist in 
the U.S. Army, the Army stood up two entirely new regiments--the 1st 
and 2nd Filipino Infantry Regiments.
  The 1st and 2nd Filipino Infantry Regiments participated in the 
bloody combat and mop-up operations at New Guinea, Leyte, Samar, Luzon, 
and other major battles in the Philippines.
  Members of the 1st Regiment were also attached to the U.S. 6th Army, 
and they were working often behind enemy lines to help free the Allied 
prisoners from the death camps in 1945.
  In my view, the Filipinos who served in World War II were entitled to 
full veterans' benefits by reason of their service with our Armed 
Forces. Despite all their sacrifices--despite all their sacrifices--
after the war was over, after the Philippines gained officially their 
independence, the Congress passed the Rescissions Act of 1946, now 
codified in our U.S. law.
  The 1946 act precluded most of the Filipino World War II veterans 
from receiving veterans' benefits that were available to them prior to 
1946 and that are available to all other veterans of

[[Page S3248]]

our Armed Forces today regardless of race, national origin or 
citizenship status.
  S. 1315, today, would restore veterans status to those World War II 
heroes and, in particular, it would provide pension benefits to aid 
Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines during their twilight 
years.
  The pension benefits under S. 1315 would amount to less than one-
third--to less than one-third--of the basic pension amount provided to 
veterans living in the United States of America today. The average 
income of persons residing in the Philippines, however, is considerably 
lower than their counterparts in the United States. So the pension 
benefits under S. 1315 would provide a decent standard of living to 
these veterans.
  Our Nation cannot abandon those who have served under our flag and 
who have served under our command. We must rally in support of these 
proven friends of America and act to redeem our Nation's debt in honor 
of their service.
  I urge my colleagues to support S. 1315 in its entirety, and to 
support granting the benefits that the Filipino veterans from World War 
II, in my view, have earned.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of the 
Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill expands much 
needed and long overdue benefits for the men and women in uniform who 
have served overseas in difficult and dangerous circumstances to keep 
America safe.
  We must honor our U.S. soldiers who have died in the name of their 
country. These service men and women are America's true heroes and on 
this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice by bringing this 
bill to the Senate floor. Some have given their lives for our country. 
All have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains 
the land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt 
of gratitude to each and every one of them.
  Our Nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to 
soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As a member of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, I fight hard each year to make sure 
promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These 
promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper 
burial for our veterans.
  That is why I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Veterans' Benefits 
Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill provides an increase in burial 
benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans, which I 
have been fighting for since 2001. This means that service-connected 
burial benefits will increase by $2,100 for a total of $4,100; non 
service-connected burial benefits will increase by $900 for a total of 
$1,200; and, plot allowances will increase by $445 for a total of $745. 
These benefits will increase annually to keep up with inflation.
  I am also proud to support this bill because it takes an important 
step in recognizing the sacrifices made by our men and women of the 
National Guard and Reserve by expanding the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, VA, outreach program. This program provides important 
information about benefits and services that veterans and their 
spouses, children and parents may be eligible for through the VA. By 
expanding this program we are ensuring that our citizen soldiers and 
their families have the resources and help they need to make a 
successful transition back to civilian life after answering our 
Nation's call.
  This bill also recognizes the sacrifices of veterans who are 
suffering from the physical, permanent wounds of war. It expands 
eligibility for traumatic injury insurance and specially adapted 
housing benefits to veterans with severe burns. It also restores 
veteran status to Filipino veterans who served under United States 
command in World War II.
  Whether fighting to defend democracy overseas or standing sentry on 
the home front, America's veterans have been there for us. We have a 
sacred commitment to honor all of the promises made to them when they 
signed up to fight for us. That's why I am fighting hard today and 
everyday in the U.S. Senate to ensure that the federal government 
maintains its commitment to veterans. Promises made must be promises 
kept.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________