Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will offer veterans more options for refinancing their mortgages. My legislation would raise the guarantee on VA refinance loans and decrease equity requirements for refinancing to a VA loan. These provisions would allow more qualified veterans to refinance their home loans under the VA program. At present, the maximum VA loan guaranty limit for all loans in excess of $144,000, except regular refinance loans, is equal to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit for a single family home. Presently this is $104,250. This means lenders making loans up to $417,000 will receive at least a 25 percent guaranty, which is typically required to place the loan on the secondary market. However, current law limits to $36,000 the guaranty that can be used for a regular refinance loan. This restriction means a refinance over $144,000 will result in a lender not receiving 25 percent backing from VA and probably not making the loan at all. This situation essentially precludes a veteran from being able to refinance his or her existing FHA or conventional loan into a VA guaranteed loan if the loan is greater than $144,000. To assist veterans in overcoming this obstacle in refinancing, this legislation would increase the maximum guaranty limit for refinance loans to the same level as conventional loans--25 percent limit for a single family home. Importantly, this increase would make the maximum VA home loan guaranty equal across the board. This bill will also increase the percentage of an existing loan that VA will refinance from the current maximum of 90 percent to 95 percent, thus allowing more veterans to use their VA benefit to refinance their mortgages. Many veterans do not have ten percent equity and thus are precluded from refinancing to a VA home loan. Given the anticipated number of non-VA adjustable mortgages that are approaching the reset time when payments are likely to increase, it seems prudent to facilitate veterans refinancing to VA loans. In light of today's housing and home loan crises, these further refinancing options will help some veterans to bridge financial gaps and allow them to stay in their homes and escape possible foreclosures. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address personnel issues in the Department of Veterans Affairs. This legislation, proposed Veterans' Medical Personnel Recruitment and Retention Act of 2008, would help ensure that VA has the workforce necessary to serve America's veterans most effectively. Health care providers are the backbone of the VA system. Yet today, the Department faces a shortage of these professionals. Around the country, too many facilities are understaffed, at the cost of services for veterans. A recent report by the Partnership for Public Service gave the Veterans Health Administration poor marks for pay and benefits, and for family support. VHA also rated poorly among younger employees. To be the health care employer of choice, VA must be able to offer competitive salaries, work schedules, and benefits. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I held a hearing on April 9, 2008, that focused on personnel issues within the VA health care system. We heard detailed testimony from VA administrators and health care providers. Their testimony outlined the challenges VA faces, and suggested possible solutions. This legislation would benefit a wide range of positions within VA. Here are some of the challenges VA faces, and the solutions I propose. Local labor markets for health care providers vary widely, and VA must be better prepared to compete in every market. Locality pay surveys are a crucial tool in this effort. However, a recent GAO report on nurse anesthetists revealed a locality pay system that is inconsistent and often dysfunctional. The bill I am introducing would make implementation of locality pay surveys more effective by requiring additional training on proper implementation, and improving transparency to allow for better oversight. This legislation would also encourage retention of experienced professionals by removing salary offsets for retired employees who choose to return to work at VA. In the coming years, a significant portion of the VA workforce will reach the age of retirement. Eliminating the salary offset by the amount of an employee's retirement annuity would encourage these experienced professionals to return to VA. Education benefits are often among the chief advantages of employment at VA, and I believe these benefits can be used for an even greater effect. VA has extensive programs to encourage further education within their workforce, and to provide financial assistance for employees with educational debt. This legislation would increase yearly benefit limits on the Education Debt Reduction Program--EDRP--and would broaden the goals of that program to include retention as well as recruitment. In so doing, the EDRP would be made available to both long-time VA employees and new hires. It would also reauthorize the Health Professionals Scholarship Program, and would broaden eligibility to a wider range of health professions. Further, to make VA more attractive to clinical researchers, this legislation would provide VA with authorities similar to the Loan Repayment Program of the National Health Service Corps. VA would be authorized to use funds from medical services appropriations to help researchers in need of financial assistance to payoff their education loans. This program would compliment EDRP, which is not available to researchers. In recent years, VA has been challenged to retain top administrators, especially those who have spent their careers at VA. Their expert knowledge is indispensable to the effective management of the VA health care system. However, given the high rates of compensation available outside of VA, retention of these professionals is often difficult. This legislation would provide VA with the authority to pay national administrators additional compensation so as to better compete with the private sector. It would also give VA the authority to increase, under limited circumstances, compensation for pharmacists, doctors, and dentists, in order for VA to be more competitive in local labor markets. VA faces many challenges in recruiting and retaining nurses. I have worked with VA administrators and nurses to develop solutions to these challenges. This legislation would give VA more tools to attract and keep these employees. Alternative work schedules are now commonly available in other health care systems. At VA, part-time and alternative work schedules are under-utilized, and as a result, VA loses prospective hires and damages employee morale. This legislation would clarify alternative work schedule and weekend duty rules. By making these schedules easier to implement, it is my hope that VA will expand their use. This bill would also make it easier for VA to hire and retain part- time nurses by limiting probationary periods and expanding eligibility for overtime pay. For nurses who transition from full-time to part- time, this legislation would eliminate the probationary period they are now required to serve. This provision would be extremely helpful in encouraging experienced nurses to extend their careers at VA beyond the customary age of retirement. In many locations, VA cannot compete with other health care systems for many nursing positions, particularly certified registered nurse anesthetists--CRNAs--and licensed practical and vocational nurses. A recent GAO report on CRNAs in VA noted that VA spends thousands of dollars on contract nurses to cover staffing gaps. The use of contract nurses, while appropriate in some situations, is not a permanent solution to the long-term staffing shortfall. The bill I am introducing would raise or eliminate pay caps currently placed on these difficult- to-fill positions. These provisions are derived directly from testimony the Committee heard from VA nurses and administrators at the April 9, 2008, hearing. This legislation would also clarify rules about emergency duty for VA nurses. The use of emergency mandatory overtime has been an issue in many VA facilities, and in other health care systems. I believe this legislation provides a reasonable solution. By standardizing the definition of ``emergency,'' it would facilitate more consistent and equitable use of emergency mandatory overtime. I believe that this legislation will give VA the tools it needs to recruit and retain the best health care professionals in the Nation. I also anticipate that it will improve employee morale, as well as improving transparency and oversight. As we have heard many times, VA faces a looming retirement crisis. The solutions proposed in this legislation seek to address these challenges. I urge my colleagues to support the proposed Veterans' Medical Personnel Recruitment and Retention Act of 2008. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me today to honor Mr. Michael E. Baker as he retires as president of Maryknoll School. I want to express a heartfelt mahalo nui loa--thank you very much--and best wishes with my warmest aloha as he retires after 11 years at the helm of the school with an unsurpassed record of achievements. He leaves a legacy which benefitted students and continues to do so and is appreciated by parents, alumni, and our educational community. His is a legacy of a great leader and educator. As a former principal in our public school system, I agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy contained in Mr. Baker's ``President's Message'' in which he emphasize the critical importance of exceptional teachers in the commencement and development of students, intellectually and spiritually, and to inculcate them with these and all the other attributes necessary to develop into a valued member of our society. He has built on the solid foundation laid by his predecessors and attracted the very best faculty recognized for their excellence locally, regionally, and nationally. As he retires from his stewardship of Maryknoll School to spend more time with his family, I also want to congratulate him for his leadership that made the Maryknoll School Community Center a reality. When completed, this much-needed first-rate center for the school's athletics program will be an important part of the school's curriculum as it continues to build success upon success for its students. Mr. President, I join President Michael E. Baker's family, colleagues, friends, and the community in wishing him Godspeed as he enters the next phase of his life. He has earned the right to enjoy his family and the simple pleasures of life in retirement.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I congratulate the Dream Team, a team of eight students from Farrington High School in Honolulu, HI, for winning the grand prize in the 2007 to 2008 Lexus Environmental Challenge. The Lexus Environmental Challenge is a multiphased national competition between 350 middle and high schools from across the country. The challenge addressed issues from global warming awareness to informing communities about the critical importance of water conservation. Over the course of 7 months, the Dream Team competed against 350 middle and high school teams from across America in challenges addressing local environmental issues. The Dream Team was one of 55 teams invited to compete in the final global challenge where students were asked to develop a program that could potentially change the world. For their final global challenge, the Dream Team took advantage of Hawaii's ethnic diversity to educate people around the world about the benefits of clean renewable energy by creating a video message in 11 different languages ranging from French to Samoan to Tagalog and Arabic. The members of Farrington High School's Dream Team include Genevieve Cagoan, Robin John Delim, Carmina Figuracion, Robin Monzano, Minh Trang Nguyen, Herald Nones, Maria Sheville Lee, and Princes Rosit. The team was led by Ms. Bebi Davis, a Farrington High School chemistry teacher who was the team's adviser. The grand prize for the Lexus Environmental Challenge is $75,000. Ms. Davis will receive $7,000 for various classroom projects, Farrington High School will receive $15,000, and the remaining $53,000 will be split equally among the eight members of the Dream Team. I congratulate the Farrington High School Dream Team for its great accomplishment in capturing the 2007 to 2008 Lexus Environmental Challenge grand prize. I wish all of them the best in their future endeavors, and I urge them to continue to set an example for future generations. I extend the same congratulations to all students and advisers who participated in the 2007 to 2008 Lexus Environmental Challenge.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation concerning the nonprofit research and education corporations--NPCs--that serve the Department of Veterans Affairs. These organizations provide essential support to research and education at VA facilities around the country. My legislation will amend the law which authorizes NPCs so as to better reflect their mission and the needs of VA, as well as strengthen control and oversight of these entities. The legislation which authorizes NPCs was enacted in 1988 to allow the establishment of these entities as flexible funding mechanisms for the conduct of research and education at VA medical centers. In 2006, 85 NPCs expended $227 million in support of over 5,000 VA research and education programs. NPCs give VA the opportunity to access and manage research funds from sources outside of VA, while maintaining VA oversight. Twenty years have passed since the inception of NPCs, and it is time to update the law governing their operation. VA's research needs have shifted and the function of NPCs has evolved. I will highlight a few of the corrections this legislation would make. NPCs are nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations that are entirely dedicated to serving VA research. They efficiently administer VA research funds, and provide access to some funds that VA would otherwise be unable to access. Unfortunately, given their close affiliation with VA, and due in part to various state laws, NPC nonprofit status is in some situations unclear. My legislation would explicitly identify the nonprofit status of NPCs under IRS code. It would also make clear that NPCs are not owned or controlled by the U.S. Government, and are not agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. As the utility and appeal of NPCs have grown, their numbers have expanded. While this growth is positive, it is not always efficient or feasible for a medical center to establish and manage its own NPC. The legislation would create authority for multi-medical center NPCs to be shared among a number of medical centers. Condensing numerous NPCs into one would retain the local affiliations that make them valuable and effective, but would achieve greater efficiency and economy of scale by combining administrative resources. The legislation would make additional adjustments in other areas. It would expand VA's oversight capability. It would clarify existing authority for NPCs to transfer funds among medical centers, and it would clarify reimbursement processes. It would also modify the required composition of NPC governance boards, to allow individuals with a wider range of expertise to serve. I believe these proposed changes would facilitate better working relationships between NPCs and VA, thereby achieving better support of VA research and education. I am confident that these provisions will make an effective source of support for VA even stronger.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the proposed Senior Oversight Committee Extension Act of 2008 The VA and DoD Senior Oversight Committee--the SOC--has been an important component of ongoing efforts to ensure that the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense work together to improve the treatment and care of our Nation's wounded warriors. This bill requires a 3-year extension of the VA and DoD SOC so that it may continue its vitally important oversight function. As a result of the problems identified at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in May 2007, VA and DoD established the SOC to identify corrective actions. It was tasked with reviewing and overseeing the implementation of the recommendations of the various task forces and study groups which were established to study problems related to the transitioning of seriously injured servicemembers. Today, the SOC and its supporting staff continue to work toward implementing policies and procedures to streamline and expedite joint efforts to provide seriously injured servicemembers and veterans with the best care available. The SOC is currently co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. It brings together the most senior VA and DoD officials on a regular basis to ensure that the decisions designed to improve care, recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration of seriously injured servicemembers are made in a timely and efficient manner. It is supported by a full-time joint VA and DoD staff that is responsible for coordinating, integrating and synchronizing the activities of the Committee. The Administration's current plan is for the SOC to hand over its responsibilities next January to the existing VA and DoD Joint Executive Council. However, the Joint Executive Council has neither a full time staff nor the equivalent involvement of senior VA and DoD officials. The JEC staff has neither the resources nor the leverage within the individual Departments to carry out the essential work that the SOC has managed. Veterans' organizations who testified at the April 23, 2008, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing support the need to extend the SOC rather than transfer responsibilities to the Joint Executive Council. Although I am pleased with the progress that has been achieved over the past year on improving VA and DoD cooperation and collaboration, much work remains. I am concerned that, in the future, without the full weight of VA and DoD leadership behind these activities, an ongoing commitment to solving the problems related to the goal of seamless transition and a full time staff to track implementation, there is a very real risk of returning to the bureaucratic lethargy which contributed to the Walter Reed scandal. We have come too far to return to those days. I am a firm believer in the adage that what the boss checks is what gets done. To make sure the boss--in this case, the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Defense--keep an eye on coordination and cooperation between the two departments, I am introducing this legislation to provide the two Secretaries with authority to extend the work of the SOC for 3 years, to ensure the continued existence of a joint body that will serve as the single point of contact for the oversight, strategy and integration of policies and procedures pertaining to the seriously injured. With the upcoming change in Administration, there can be no wavering on the high level of attention that the Departments have brought to issues of coordination and cooperation. I am committed to sustaining this effort for as long as there are servicemembers in combat. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation concerning the nonprofit research and education corporations--NPCs--that serve the Department of Veterans Affairs. These organizations provide essential support to research and education at VA facilities around the country. My legislation will amend the law which authorizes NPCs so as to better reflect their mission and the needs of VA, as well as strengthen control and oversight of these entities. The legislation which authorizes NPCs was enacted in 1988 to allow the establishment of these entities as flexible funding mechanisms for the conduct of research and education at VA medical centers. In 2006, 85 NPCs expended $227 million in support of over 5,000 VA research and education programs. NPCs give VA the opportunity to access and manage research funds from sources outside of VA, while maintaining VA oversight. Twenty years have passed since the inception of NPCs, and it is time to update the law governing their operation. VA's research needs have shifted and the function of NPCs has evolved. I will highlight a few of the corrections this legislation would make. NPCs are nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations that are entirely dedicated to serving VA research. They efficiently administer VA research funds, and provide access to some funds that VA would otherwise be unable to access. Unfortunately, given their close affiliation with VA, and due in part to various state laws, NPC nonprofit status is in some situations unclear. My legislation would explicitly identify the nonprofit status of NPCs under IRS code. It would also make clear that NPCs are not owned or controlled by the U.S. Government, and are not agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. As the utility and appeal of NPCs have grown, their numbers have expanded. While this growth is positive, it is not always efficient or feasible for a medical center to establish and manage its own NPC. The legislation would create authority for multi-medical center NPCs to be shared among a number of medical centers. Condensing numerous NPCs into one would retain the local affiliations that make them valuable and effective, but would achieve greater efficiency and economy of scale by combining administrative resources. The legislation would make additional adjustments in other areas. It would expand VA's oversight capability. It would clarify existing authority for NPCs to transfer funds among medical centers, and it would clarify reimbursement processes. It would also modify the required composition of NPC governance boards, to allow individuals with a wider range of expertise to serve. I believe these proposed changes would facilitate better working relationships between NPCs and VA, thereby achieving better support of VA research and education. I am confident that these provisions will make an effective source of support for VA even stronger.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the proposed Senior Oversight Committee Extension Act of 2008 The VA and DoD Senior Oversight Committee--the SOC--has been an important component of ongoing efforts to ensure that the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense work together to improve the treatment and care of our Nation's wounded warriors. This bill requires a 3-year extension of the VA and DoD SOC so that it may continue its vitally important oversight function. As a result of the problems identified at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in May 2007, VA and DoD established the SOC to identify corrective actions. It was tasked with reviewing and overseeing the implementation of the recommendations of the various task forces and study groups which were established to study problems related to the transitioning of seriously injured servicemembers. Today, the SOC and its supporting staff continue to work toward implementing policies and procedures to streamline and expedite joint efforts to provide seriously injured servicemembers and veterans with the best care available. The SOC is currently co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. It brings together the most senior VA and DoD officials on a regular basis to ensure that the decisions designed to improve care, recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration of seriously injured servicemembers are made in a timely and efficient manner. It is supported by a full-time joint VA and DoD staff that is responsible for coordinating, integrating and synchronizing the activities of the Committee. The Administration's current plan is for the SOC to hand over its responsibilities next January to the existing VA and DoD Joint Executive Council. However, the Joint Executive Council has neither a full time staff nor the equivalent involvement of senior VA and DoD officials. The JEC staff has neither the resources nor the leverage within the individual Departments to carry out the essential work that the SOC has managed. Veterans' organizations who testified at the April 23, 2008, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing support the need to extend the SOC rather than transfer responsibilities to the Joint Executive Council. Although I am pleased with the progress that has been achieved over the past year on improving VA and DoD cooperation and collaboration, much work remains. I am concerned that, in the future, without the full weight of VA and DoD leadership behind these activities, an ongoing commitment to solving the problems related to the goal of seamless transition and a full time staff to track implementation, there is a very real risk of returning to the bureaucratic lethargy which contributed to the Walter Reed scandal. We have come too far to return to those days. I am a firm believer in the adage that what the boss checks is what gets done. To make sure the boss--in this case, the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Defense--keep an eye on coordination and cooperation between the two departments, I am introducing this legislation to provide the two Secretaries with authority to extend the work of the SOC for 3 years, to ensure the continued existence of a joint body that will serve as the single point of contact for the oversight, strategy and integration of policies and procedures pertaining to the seriously injured. With the upcoming change in Administration, there can be no wavering on the high level of attention that the Departments have brought to issues of coordination and cooperation. I am committed to sustaining this effort for as long as there are servicemembers in combat. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

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 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. 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.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold an Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 24, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 24, 2008, at 10 a.m., to conduct a committee hearing entitled ``Turmoil in U.S. Credit Markets: Examining the U.S. Regulatory Framework Assessing Sovereign Investments.''

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 24, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to receive a briefing on a sensitive intelligence matter.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 24, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Addressing Iran's Nuclear Ambitions.''

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 24, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday, April 24, 2008, at 2:15 p.m., in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``An Examination of the Delta-Northwest Merger'' on Thursday, April 24, 2008, at 2 p.m., in Room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The witness list is not yet available.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, how much time do we in the majority have?

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his remarks. Mr. President, on July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order ordering all military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines into service of the Armed Forces of the United States. This happened after a bit of history. In 1898 the Philippines became a colony of the United States. It was on March 24, 1934, that the Tydings-McDuffie Act passed Congress. That provided for independence for the Philippines. It was mandated in that bill that there would be a 10-year period--that is to 1944--when the Philippines would formalize and shape and develop its entity. But what was mandated was that the United States would provide the control and supervision of the national defense of the Philippines, and also of its foreign affairs. This was in that bill in 1934. The 10-year period ended in 1944. So the United States was very much a part of the Philippines. In 1941, under the declaration and Executive Order of President Roosevelt, they served in the U.S. Armed Forces of the Far East. 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. Our Nation has a long history of caring for aging veterans, particularly those who served the country during a time of war. 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. I urge my colleagues to stand with me, with my World War II colleagues, Senators Inouye and Stevens, and a majority of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and not accept the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina. Amendment No. 4576

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time and I ask for the vote.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage and urge my colleagues to support the pending measure.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, under the agreement entered yesterday, I now call up the managers' technicals package and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am very 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. I want to express my huge gratitude to the majority leader, also the minority leader, and especially to my friend, the ranking member, for coming to an agreement for our offering today. This comprehensive legislation would improve benefits and services for veterans both old and young. 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. Now we have a good agreement. As I have described in detail this week, 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, 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 World War II. This bill, at long last, recognizes the valor of all Filipino veterans in sacrifice to this noble cause and loyalty to their American commanders. 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 U.S. 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. 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 Rescissions Act of 1946, withdrew veteran status from certain Filipino veterans of World War II. Upon passage of the Rescissions Act, 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 who is entitled to benefits bearing a reasonable relation to those received by the American veteran, with whom he fought side by side. 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. I wish 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 only 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 the U.S. troops during World War II. The soldier's creed is to leave no fellow warrior behind. I believe in that creed. I believe 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 reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, how much time is left?