[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 89 (Monday, June 2, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4889-S4890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

                                 ______
                                 

             REVERSAL OF THE HARTNESS V. NICHOLSON DECISION

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on April 24, 2008, the Senate passed S. 
1315, the proposed Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. Although 
the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 96-1, there are some who oppose 
it, expressing the belief that provisions in the bill misallocate VA 
pension benefits to reward nonveterans. I seek to set the record 
straight on S. 1315.

[[Page S4890]]

  S. 1315 is a comprehensive bill that would improve benefits and 
services for veterans, both young and old. The bill includes numerous 
enhancements to a broad range of veterans' benefits, including life 
insurance programs for disabled veterans, traumatic injury coverage for 
active duty servicemembers, and specially adapted housing and 
automobile and adaptive equipment benefits for individuals with severe 
burn injuries. In addition, the bill includes a provision that would 
correct an injustice done to World War II Filipino veterans over 60 
years ago. It grants recognition and full veterans' status to these 
individuals, both those living inside and outside the United States.
  Many Americans have forgotten that during World War II, the 
Philippines was not an independent nation as is the case today. The 
Philippines, along with Puerto Rico and Guam, was ceded to the United 
States in 1898 following the Spanish-American War. Although plans for 
Philippine independence from the United States were underway when World 
War II broke out, the United States government controlled the defense 
and foreign relations of the Philippines when the war began. It was not 
until 1946, after the end of World War II, that the Philippines became 
an independent nation. As a result of this relationship, Filipino 
veterans who fought under the United States Command were United States 
veterans until that status was taken away by Congress in 1946.
  S. 1315, the bill as passed by the Senate, would overturn a 2006 
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 
the case Hartness v. Nicholson. The Hartness decision provided that 
certain veterans, those who receive a service pension benefit based 
solely on their age, qualify for additional benefits that are provided 
to very severely disabled veterans, a result not intended by Congress. 
The savings generated from overturning this court decision would pay 
for many provisions in the bill, including pension for Filipino 
veterans.
  Despite the fact that the purpose of the provision in S. 1315 which 
reverses the Hartness decision is to do nothing more than restore the 
clear intent of Congress, it has been mischaracterized by some as an 
attempt to withdraw benefits from deserving veterans in order to fund 
benefits to Filipino veterans. That is simply not the case. Such 
accusations fail to appreciate the facts of the matter that led the 
Senate to take corrective action.
  VA nonservice connected disability pension benefits have historically 
been paid to wartime veterans with low incomes who are disabled from 
conditions not connected to their service. Under current law, wartime 
veterans who receive pensions based upon disability are eligible to 
receive certain additional benefits if they are totally disabled and 
are also housebound, blind, or need the aid and attendance of another 
person to perform daily activities.
  The statutory provision involved in Hartness was enacted in 2001 so 
as to provide a service pension, not based on disability, to certain 
veterans. Under this law, older, low income wartime veterans are 
eligible for a service pension at age 65, without the need to 
demonstrate any disability. This service pension, which is similar to 
one provided many years ago to veterans of the Spanish American War, is 
found in the service pension section of the statute, not in the section 
of the law where pension for disabled veterans is found.
  The court in Hartness ruled that elderly persons who are not totally 
disabled, but who receive a service pension based on age, could also 
receive the extra benefits available under the disability pension 
benefit program, even if they did not meet the threshold requirement of 
total disability. In so doing, the Hartness court failed to demonstrate 
an understanding of the difference between a service pension and a 
pension based on disability.
  In passing the service pension law in 2001, Congress clearly created 
a separate program and did not intend the result in the Hartness 
decision. Congress intended that veterans who were disabled would 
receive benefits under the disability pension program, with the 
opportunity to receive the extra benefits if they were more seriously 
disabled. Veterans who met the age threshold, but who were not 
disabled, would receive benefits only under the service pension 
program, with no basis for receiving the extra benefits. The intent of 
this action was to create a bright line distinction between the two 
pension programs, but the actual statutory construction allowed for 
ambiguity, leading the court to misinterpret the law.
  The provision passed by the Senate in S. 1315 would overturn the 
Hartness decision so as to reaffirm that the extra pension benefits are 
only for those severely disabled veterans who receive pension on the 
basis of being totally disabled. This result conforms to the original 
Congressional intent of reserving the special additional benefits for 
those who demonstrate the greatest need based on disability, not simply 
those who attain a certain age. Even with the repeal of Hartness, aged 
veterans who are totally disabled and who are also housebound or in 
need of aid and attendance would still qualify for additional money 
under the nonservice connected disability pension program.
  S. 1315 is now pending in the House of Representatives and there is 
some opposition to the bill that seems to stem from a misunderstanding 
of the purpose of VA pension benefits and the Hartness decision. 
Critics of the bill have suggested that it arbitrarily redistributes 
scarce VA benefits to the benefit of individuals to whom our government 
has no responsibility. These critics fail both to understand the 
history of the provisions construed in the Hartness decision and the 
service of Filipino veterans. Restoring the original purpose of the 
service pension law would provide the savings needed to pay for 
increased benefits for veterans with service-connected disabilities as 
well as justice for Filipino veterans of World War II.

                          ____________________