Mr. President, I am pleased that S. 1315, as reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the proposed "Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007," is finally before the Senate for consideration and action. 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.
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. President, 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 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 two 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 GI 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, Mr. President, 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.
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. President, 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 ten-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 one million Filipinos had been killed.
All of the military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines remained under the command of the United States Armed Forces of the Far East throughout World War II, and until the Philippines was granted independence on July 4, 1946.
In October 1945, General 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."
Mr. President, 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.
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 1/6 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 $4.00 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.
Mr. President, I believe firmly that the proposed amount is a reasonable benefit taking into account all of these factors.
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. President, 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."
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. President, 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.
-END-
