[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 68 (Monday, April 28, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3435-S3437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               VETERANS BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased that S. 1315, as reported by 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the proposed Veterans Benefits 
Enhancement Act of 2007, finally passed in the Senate. This 
comprehensive legislation would improve benefits and services for 
veterans both young and old.
  The Veterans' Affairs Committee reported S. 1315 to the full Senate 
in August of last year. At that time, my belief was that debate and 
consideration of this legislation by the full Senate, would take place 
during September. That did not happen. As I described in detail 
yesterday, further action on the bill has been blocked because of 
opposition from the other side of the aisle to certain benefits for 
Filipinos who fought under U.S. command during World War II.
  I will first describe some of the provisions in the bill and then 
will discuss in more detail my views on the provisions relating to 
Filipino veterans.
  This legislation, as reported by the committee, would make several 
important improvements in insurance programs for disabled veterans. It 
would establish a new program of insurance for service-connected 
disabled veterans that would provide up to a maximum of $50,000 in 
level premium term life insurance coverage.
  This legislation would also expand eligibility for retroactive 
benefits from traumatic injury protection coverage under the 
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program. This insurance program 
went into effect on December 1, 2005. All insured servicemembers under 
SGLI from that point forward are covered by traumatic injury protection 
regardless of where their injuries occur. However, individuals 
sustaining traumatic injuries between October 7, 2001 and November 30, 
2005, that were not incurred as a direct result of Operations Enduring 
or Iraqi Freedom, are not eligible for a retroactive payment under the 
traumatic injury protection program. This legislation would expand 
eligibility to these individuals.
  This legislation would also increase the maximum amount of Veterans' 
Mortgage Life Insurance so that a service-connected disabled veteran 
may purchase from the current maximum of $90,000 to $200,000. In the 
event of the veteran's death, the veteran's family is protected because 
VA will pay the balance of the mortgage owed up to the maximum amount 
of insurance purchased. The need for this increase is obvious in 
today's housing market.
  In addition, S. 1315, as reported, would also increase the amount of 
supplemental life insurance available to totally disabled veterans from 
$20,000 to $30,000. Many totally disabled veterans find it difficult to 
obtain commercial life insurance. These are the veterans we are trying 
to help with this legislation by providing them with a reasonable 
amount of life insurance coverage.
  S. 1315, as reported, would also make small but necessary changes in 
existing laws relating to education and employment. First, it would 
restore the funding cap on the amount of support available to State 
Approving Agencies to the fiscal year 2007 level of $19 million. 
Without this restoration, these entities that assist VA in approving 
programs of education would be facing a reduction of more than 30 
percent beginning in this fiscal year. It is particularly

[[Page S3436]]

important as more veterans return to civilian life and begin to use 
their educational benefits that SAAs have adequate resources.

  Second, the pending legislation would update the Special Unemployment 
Study required to be submitted by the Secretary of Labor to the 
Congress by mandating that it cover veterans of post-9/11 global 
operations. It would also require the report to be submitted on an 
annual, rather than a biennial, basis. By updating this report, 
Congress will have more data available on more recent groups of 
veterans--those who served and are serving in the gulf war and post-9/
11 global operations. This will help with assessments of the needs of 
current veterans entering the work force and develop appropriate 
responses.
  Third, the bill would extend for 2 years a temporary increase in the 
monthly educational assistance allowance for apprenticeship or other 
on-the-job training. The current temporary increase expired on January 
1, 2008, and this provision would benefit the 34,000 veterans who are 
suffering through the first benefit rate reduction in the history of 
the G.I. bill. Allowing the temporary increase to be eliminated would 
mean a monthly benefit rate cut for veterans enrolled in this type of 
training and would remove marketable incentive to encourage individuals 
to accept trainee positions they might not otherwise consider.
  S. 1315, as reported, would also improve a variety of housing 
benefits for servicemembers and veterans. I note that title II of this 
legislation was recently passed as part of H.R. 3221, the housing 
reform bill. It is my intent to include these provisions in S. 1315 
until they have become law through another vehicle.
  This legislation would also amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 
to help servicemembers get relief from cell phone contracts when 
deployed overseas. Servicemembers, with all of their responsibilities 
abroad, should not have to worry about being released from cell phone 
contracts.
  Finally, this legislation gives Congress an opportunity to rectify a 
wrong done to Filipino World War II veterans over 60 years ago. In the 
years since the end of the Second World War, Filipino veterans and 
their advocates, especially my distinguished colleague, the senior 
Senator from Hawaii, have worked tirelessly to secure these veterans 
the status they were promised when they agreed to fight under U.S. 
command in defense of their homeland and to protect U.S. interests in 
the region. Today, I am proud to say, many Filipino veterans enjoy 
eligibility for benefits and health care services as U.S. veterans. 
However, there remains a distinction in law between certain groups of 
Filipino veterans. I hope that Congress will take another step toward 
removing that unjust distinction. This Nation has a moral obligation to 
care for those who have served under its flag.
  Although I view veterans' benefits as a continuing cost of war and 
should be funded as such, the provisions in S. 1315 would be paid for 
by an offset that restores the original intent of Congress, which was 
wrongly interpreted in a recent court decision, to provide certain VA 
benefits on the basis of disability and not age. Some of the opposition 
to S. 1315 has centered on a misunderstanding of this provision. Aged 
veterans who are seriously disabled would not be deprived of special 
benefits, but would continue to be eligible for them under the same 
conditions as applied to younger veterans.
  This is not a comprehensive recitation of all the provisions within 
this important veterans' legislation. However, I hope that I have 
provided an appropriate overview of the benefits this legislation would 
provide for America's veterans and servicemembers.
  The sole point of controversy in S. 1315 is a pension benefit for 
Filipino veterans who served under U.S. command during World War II and 
who live in the Philippines. I wish to give my colleagues my 
perspective on why this benefit should be paid.
  The United States has had a relationship with the Philippines since 
1898, when it was acquired as a result of the Spanish American War. In 
1934, Congress passed the Philippine Independence Act, which set a 10-
year timetable for the independence of the Philippines. In the interim, 
the U.S. established a Commonwealth of the Philippines vested with 
certain powers over its own internal affairs. The granting of full 
independence was delayed until 1946 because of the Japanese occupation 
of the Philippines from 1942 to 1945.
  On July 26, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an Executive 
Order ordering all military forces of the Commonwealth of the 
Philippines into the service of the Armed Forces of the United States 
under the command of a newly created command structure called the 
United States Armed Forces of the Far East. According to orders from 
General MacArthur, Philippine units once mustered into U.S. service 
would be paid and supplied from American sources.
  The unique relationship between the Philippines and the United States 
made the Philippine islands particularly susceptible to Japanese 
aggression during the war. Historians agree that the Japanese strategy 
was based upon a plan to destroy or neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet 
at Pearl Harbor, and to deprive the United States of its base in the 
Philippines. Were it not for the U.S. presence, the Philippines would 
not have presented the Japanese with a strategic threat and turned into 
a battlefield.
  The Philippine forces under U.S. command suffered heavy casualties as 
a result of the Japanese invasion. It is estimated that 10,000 
Filipinos died during the Bataan Death March, along with 3,000 U.S. 
soldiers. The Philippines throughout the war suffered great loss of 
life and tremendous physical damage. By the end of the war, the capital 
city of Manila was in ruins and up to 1 million Filipinos had been 
killed.
  All of the military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines 
remained under the command of the U.S. Armed Forces of the Far East 
throughout World War II, and until the Philippines was granted 
independence on July 4, 1946.
  In October 1945, Gen. Omar Bradley, then Director of the Veterans' 
Administration, affirmed that all Filipinos who served under U.S. 
command were entitled to all benefits under laws administered by that 
agency.
  However, in 1946, the U.S. Congress, through the Rescission Acts of 
1946, withdrew veterans' status from certain Filipino veterans of World 
War II.
  Upon passage of the Rescission Acts, President Harry Truman expressed 
his disapproval of the withdrawal of benefits from Filipino veterans. 
He stated, ``There can be no question, but that the Philippine veteran 
is entitled to benefits bearing a reasonable relation to those received 
by the American veteran, with whom he fought side by side.''
  Our Nation has a long history of caring for aging veterans, 
particularly those who served the country during a time of war.
  The sole purpose of the VA pension program is to assist older, low-
income, war-time veterans, so that those who experienced the horror of 
war are not forgotten in their old age.
  Philippine veterans of the Second World War are now in their twilight 
years and many are struggling to make ends meet, especially with global 
food prices on the rise. Now, perhaps more than ever, the modest 
pension benefits that are in S. 1315 are of the greatest value to 
veterans who earned them on the battlefield so many years ago.
  The action by Congress in 1946 to strip Filipino veterans who served 
under the American Flag during World War II of the recognition and 
benefits that were their due was a grave injustice. It is especially 
regrettable that this injustice has existed for so many years. The 
inaction of prior Congresses to correct this wrong does not excuse us 
from the responsibility to take remedial action now.
  The United States has a moral obligation to care for Filipino 
veterans who served under U.S. command in World War II and we must not 
fail in fulfilling that obligation.
  I would like to speak briefly about the purpose of pension benefits 
and more specifically about the pension benefit in the pending bill. 
Veterans pension benefits are provided to allow wartime veterans to 
live in dignity and meet their basic needs.
  The amounts proposed in this legislation would permit Filipino 
veterans, who have been denied their rightful status as United States 
veterans for too long, to finally live in dignity.

[[Page S3437]]

  Unlike other World War II veterans, these veterans have been denied 
pension benefits for over 60 years. It is also important to note that 
these benefits are not retroactive.
  The amounts proposed are sufficient to give aged Filipino veterans a 
payment that would allow them to meet their basic needs for adequate 
nutrition and medicine.
  The flat rate benefit also takes into account the likelihood that 
many of these aged veterans, if living in the United States, would 
qualify for additional benefits based on disability due to their status 
as being housebound or in need of aid and attendance. No additional 
benefits for housebound status or aid and attendance are provided.
  The pension proposed for Filipino veterans is less than one-third of 
the basic amount provided to veterans living in the United States, in 
recognition of the lower cost of living in the Philippines. Measured 
against the aid and attendance standard, the proposed benefit is about 
one-sixth of the amount provided to veterans in the United States.
  The cost of items, such as food and medicine in Manila are about half 
of the cost in the United States, while the cost of housing is 
considerably less expensive.
  For example, a bottle of 100 aspirin tablets costs about $4 in 
Manila, about twice as much in the United States.
  Because the income and asset verification procedures used in the 
United States are not available in the Philippines, and it is not 
feasible to develop an administratively efficient system in the 
Philippines to monitor the income and assets of pension recipients, the 
bill provides a flat benefit amount substantially lower than that paid 
in the United States.
  I believe firmly that the proposed amount is a reasonable benefit 
taking into account all of these factors.
  The people of the Philippines did not shy from the call to fight 
during World War II. They were true brothers in arms who fought 
valiantly under U.S. command in the global struggle against 
totalitarianism. This bill at long last recognizes the valor of all 
Filipino veterans in sacrifice to this noble cause and loyalty to their 
American commanders.
  The proposal put forward by the ranking member fails to honor these 
veterans by denying pension benefits to those who live in the 
Philippines. I understand that there may be different perspectives on 
what pension amounts would be appropriate given the difference in the 
cost-of-living between this country and the Philippines. I am not, 
however, willing to yield on the principle that Filipino veterans 
living in the Philippines deserve to receive veterans benefits in the 
same manner as those living in the U.S. or anywhere else. I reject the 
notion that two veterans, who fought side-by-side and endured the same 
hardships of war, should be treated unequally based solely on their 
place of residence.
  The soldier's creed is to leave no fellow warrior behind. I believe 
in that, and believe that it is important to acknowledge the valiant 
service of those Filipino veterans of World War II who served under 
U.S. command.
  I would like to end my comments tonight by again sharing the thoughts 
of the 33rd President of the United States--Harry S. Truman. In 1946, 
President Truman made a statement concerning provisions in a bill 
affecting Philippine Army veterans--At issue was a legislative rider 
attached to the transfer of $200 million for the pay of the Army of the 
Philippines.
  President Truman said, ``The effect of this rider is to bar 
Philippine Army veterans from all the benefits under the G.I. Bill of 
Rights with the exception of disability and death benefits which are 
made payable on the basis of one peso for every dollar of eligible 
benefits. I realize, however, that certain practical difficulties exist 
in applying the G.I. Bill of Rights to the Philippines.''
  President Truman went on to state, ``the passage and approval of this 
legislation does not release the United States from its moral 
obligation to provide for the heroic Philippine veterans who sacrificed 
so much for the common cause during the war . . . I consider it a moral 
obligation of the United States to look after the welfare of the 
Philippine Army veterans.''
  I agree with the words of President Truman from 60 years ago.
  As I have said time and time again, this legislation would correct an 
injustice that has existed for over 60 years. I, like President Truman, 
believe that it is the obligation of the United States to care for 
those who have fought under the U.S. flag.
  It is past time to right that wrong. As my fellow World War II 
veteran, the Senior Senator from Alaska said yesterday, this is about 
``honor.'' I believe it is the moral obligation of this Nation to 
provide for those who served under the U.S. flag and alongside U.S. 
troops during World War II.
  I thank my colleagues for standing with me, my World War II 
colleagues Senators Inouye and Stevens, and a majority of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, and not accepting the amendment of the Senator from 
North Carolina.

                          ____________________