|
8/2008 Dedicated
to The American Legion, The U.S. House of Representatives (especially to Rep Steve Buyer)
& others. With some tweaking of the lyrics by M.E. "Pinay", the original song credit belongs to Bob Dylan.
Blowin’ in the Wind
How many more Filipino U.S. WW11 veterans
must die
Before The American Legion can call 'em United
States own?
Yes, 'n' how many times must a Bill the House consider
Before you can call it a Law?
Yes, 'n' how many more foes must slay the Filipino veterans
Before you can say it is enough?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer, indeed is blowin' in the wind.
How many times must Filipino veterans fight
Before they can see the end of the war?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can
hear the Filipino veterans cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many Filipino veterans
have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer, indeed is blowin' in the wind.
How many years can the Filipino veterans' plea exists
Before it's heard by y’all?
Yes, 'n' how many
years can Filipino veterans complain
Before they're allowed to be right?
Yes, 'n' how many times can some politicians
turn their heads,
Pretending they just do not see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer,
indeed is blowin' in the wind.
RE: WW11 Filipino U.S. Veterans
Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:07 AM
From:
"Robertson, Steve A." <srobertson@legion.org>
To:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
Thank you for sharing your letter
to the President concerning Filipino Veterans’ Equity Act.
The American Legion fully
supports the Filipino Veterans’ Equity Act, as does Speaker Pelosi
and many other lawmakers. What The American Legion opposed was how PAYGO rules would have required taking money from
one group of veterans to pay another group of veterans – a terrible precedence.
The inequity is also wrong, but “two wrongs does not make a right.”
I promise, The American Legion will continue it long standing support of the Filipino Veterans’ Equity Act, while
remaining steadfast in protecting all veterans’ earned benefits.
Steve Robertson, Director
National
Legislative Commission
The American Legion
(202) 263-2981
From: m e [mailto:pinay_492001@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:01 PM
To: Robertson, Steve A.
Subject: WW11 Filipino U.S.
Veterans
Mr. Steve Robertson
Dear Mr. Robertson:
Sir, I recently sent President Bush a letter regarding
WW11 Filipino U.S. veterans fight for equity. Since I mentioned The American Legion
in my letter to him, I would not feel comfortable if I do not personally send you a copy of my letter.
Sincerely,
Maria Elizabeth Embry |
-----Original Message-----
From: World Wide Web Server [mailto:xxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 7:24 PM To: Legislative Division Subject: Contact via the legion.org webpage from Maria Elizabeth Embry The contact information is submitted below: Question, comment, or suggestion: Sir/Madam:
I read some news account that you are actively involved in defeating the passage of the S.1315 regarding the Filipino
Veterans Benefits
provision. The news account did not mention the reasons behind your
decision to oppose the bill. I
respectfully ask that you enlighten me
about your position. As a mother of two soldiers who both served in
Iraq, the daughter of a WW11 POW & Death March
survivor, as well as the grddaughter of SpanAm, PhilAm wars & WW1 veteran, niece of Korean & Vietnam wars veterans, I am very concerned to know what made the beloved organization that the
menfolk in my family respected so much to take this kind of position against the WW11 Filipino Veterans. I am pasting here
my e-mail to (my) Congresswoman Hon. Ellen Tauscher
Sincerely,
Maria Embry
RE: Contact via the legion.org webpage from Maria Elizabeth Embry
Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:18 AM
From:
"Robertson, Steve A." <srobertson@legion.org>
To:
pinay_492001@yahoo.com
Thank you for contacting The American Legion concerning S. 1315. The
American Legion fully supports the provision within S. 1315 that deals with the Filipino Veterans Equity Act. In fact,
The American Legion has supported this provision for over 20 years. Unfortunately, what we oppose about S. 1315 is how
Congress plans to pay for the benefits -- by taking earned benefits away from one group of veterans to pay for increased benefits
for other groups of veterans -- we believe is a very bad precedence.
There are other ways for Congress to pay for S.
1315. In fact, if S.
1315 were enacted without taking away benefits from poor elderly
veterans, many Filipino
Veterans would probably qualify for the
additional funding if they were poor and elderly. Congress could easily waive
the Balance Budget Act (like they have done before) and fully fund S. 1315
or they could add S. 1315 to an emergency supplemental appropriations which
is exempt from the Balance Budget Act requirements.
Just because a bad decision was made in 1945 concerning benefits for
Filipino Veterans benefits, doesn't justify making another bad decision by
denying poor, disabled elderly veterans a special benefits (about $200 a month). This applies to veterans' pension for
the poorest of veterans. Ask about Hartness v. Nicholson, the legislation they want to repeal. See if you think
taking money away from poor, disabled veterans makes good sense. VA was not paying is special compensation until it
was challenged in Court. The Court ruled in favor of the veterans, so VA and Congress wants to repeal the law.
Does that really sound like the thanks of a grateful nation?
Thank you for your advocacy. I hope this provides
you with a better
explanation as to why The American Legion opposed repeal of an earned veterans' benefit to pay for another
group of veterans' benefits. Next time it could be more serious and
make every veterans' benefit a bargaining chip.
Steve Robertson, Director
National Legislative Commission
The
American Legion
1608 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
From: m e [mailto:pinay_492001@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008
9:00 PM
To: Robertson, Steve A.
Subject: RE: Contact via the legion.org webpage from Maria Elizabeth Embry
Mr. Steve A. Robertson
Thank you for responding to my e-mail. However, the argument you had presented was already addressed by
the Hon. Sen Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), sponsor of S.1315 and most importantly, the Chaiman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee,
when he issued the statement in the Congressional Record about the misconceptions regarding the cost offset provision in the
S.1315. Allow me to paste at the end of this e-mail Sen Akaka's statement. If the American Legion or anyone else, had
offered a response to the Senator's statement, I would be very appreciative if you could e-mail a copy of the entire
response to me or perhaps you could direct me to an online source.
Sir, if you may recall, S.1315 that pertains to the Filipino veterans was already subjected to much scrutiny
in the Senate. Many valiant warriors had come to it's defense by giving oral testimonies, as well as many others had
fallen on their swords fighting against it. Speaking for myself, I do not believe that the provision of S.1315 is even equitable
to the services done by the Filipino veterans left behind by the United States government to continue fighting for their rights.
However, since it is the only one bill pending passage in the House of Representatives, I decided to join others who had worked
so much, for so long to its cause.
Although, not a lawyer nor an eloquent writer, I however understand the practicality of the issues
involved. Rescission Acts of 1946 is disavowing not only a promise, but more importantly an unwritten contract between
the government (United States of America) and her subjects (the Filipino people). The rights of the subjects for
protection from the state was laid out by other nations long before the U.S. government was created. Even the common
laws of the monarchy recognize this fundamental responsibility.
While the Philippines was a U.S. colony, the Filipinos had served in the United States Armed Forces during
the two World Wars and other military conflicts. In WW1 four thousand Filipino sakadas (contract workers) in Hawaii
were drafted (although some volunteered) in the U.S. military and were sworn to the United States flag at the time it was
seditious for them under the United States colonial laws in the Philippines to display the Philippine flag. This omitted history
of the WW1 Filipino veterans is something that the U.S. military have not acnowledge to this day. To hear others call the
WW11 Filipinos veterans who are non-citizens and non-residents of the United States as "those
foreigners" is simply not acceptable to someone like me whose heritage is both American and Filipino.
Bear in mind, Sir, that not until all the inequities that resulted from the two Rescission Acts
of 1946 had been addressed will the Filipinos quit from holding the United States government responsible. We are loyal to
our veterans' cause as they had been loyal to us. We are steadfast in defending them, as they had been steadfast in defending
us. Sir, we could do no less.
AKAKA CLARIFIES OFFSET PROVISION IN VETERANS BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Daniel
K. Akaka (D-HI), Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, made the following statement in the Congressional Record this
Monday, addressing misconceptions regarding the cost offset provision included in S. 1315, the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007:
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
non-veterans. I seek to set the record straight on S. 1315.
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. President, VA non-service 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 non-service connected
disability pension program.
Mr. President, 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.
RE: Contact via the legion.org webpage from Maria Elizabeth Embry
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:46 AM
From:
"Robertson, Steve A." <srobertson@legion.org>
To:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
With all due respect, we are in total agreement on the Filipino Veterans Equity Act.
What we are in disagreement on is how to pay for it – taking benefits away from one group of veterans
– in this case, poor elderly veterans – to give the benefit to another group of veterans. This would set
a terrible precedence – never before have we seen this done.
As I mentioned before, there may be many Filipino Veterans who are eligible for benefits under the Hartness
decision. The American Legion fully agrees with the Court’s ruling in Hartness. VA doesn’t
and has asked Congress to change the law. Because of PAYGO requirements under the Balance Budget Act, if Congress repeals
this law then they can use the money for other programs. That would end the benefit for all other eligible veterans,
including Filipino Veterans, from receiving this additional benefits for poor, elderly veterans. The American Legion
believes there is a better way to fund the Filipino Veterans Equity Act, while protecting Hartness eligible
veterans.
Chairman Akaka talks about the intent of Congress – it was the intent of Congress that created the
inequity experienced by Filipino Veterans since 1946. It was the intent of Congress that did not reverse that inequity
for over 60 years. Only now, after the Court ruling in Hartness v. Nicholson, the Congress understands
that the law they wrote, debated, and passed -- signed by the President -- was not what they meant to write? What about
“putting veterans first”? What about “the benefit of the doubt”? Congress has oversight
of every Federal statute and has every right to correct mistakes – they are so quick to correct Hartness
and so slow to correct the Filipino veterans inequity. Hartness would apply to poor elderly veterans for
generations to come.
The Filipino Veterans Equity Act could pass tomorrow as a stand-alone bill on its own merit, but it has
never been advanced as such. It has been paid for over 60 years in “millions of dollars in windfall savings on
mandatory appropriations” because Congress never reversed the 1946 decision.
I would encourage you to find out what it takes to qualify for a VA pension and how much an eligible veteran
receives. Then find out how much the additional benefit that the Hartness decision provides. We
are talking a minimal benefit for the poorest elderly veterans – some may even be Filipino veterans.
The American Legion fully supports the Filipino Veterans Equity Act, but adamantly opposes reducing earned
veterans’ benefits.
Sincerely,
Steve Robertson, Director
National Legislative Commission
The American Legion
1608 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
RE: Contact via the legion.org webpage from Maria Elizabeth Embry
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:56 PM
From:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
To:
"Robertson, Steve A." <srobertson@legion.org>
Mr. Steve A. Robertson
Dear Mr. Robertson,
Since you had stated that the American
Legion totally agree with the Filipino Veterans Equity Act and in fact, had supported it for twenty years, therefore
the only course of action available to The American Legion to execute this desire and support is to exert all its political
muscle to let the passage of S.1315 and fight against the repeal of Hartness v. Nicholson. Sir, you had enumerated
various funding strategies for the Congress to accomplish both. Therefore, it is crucial that you respond to Hon. Daniel Akaka’s June 4, 2008 statement for the Congressional
Record.
Determination of the Congressional intent in the two Rescission Acts of 1946 is problematic. However, to determine The American Legion’s intent
pertaining to the fate of the Filipino Veterans Equity Act is something that must never be cloak with any ambiguities.
The WW11 Filipino Veterans are United States ’ own. They are United
States Veterans. They are United States Soldiers. They did not take a half-measure pledge to defend the United States , therefore
they should never be given a half-measure treatment regarding their status and their military benefits. Moreover, it
is just proper that the passion The American Legion spend in looking after the interest of the Filipino veterans, regardless
of their citizenship status, national origin or country of residence should be equal to the passion spent in the welfare of
the other veterans. Anything less is suspect. Let there be no Division. Heaven forbid that The American Legion
would have a role in frustrating the quest of the Filipino veterans for justice by aggressively fighting for the passage of
S. 1315 in the House of Representative.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Maria Elizabeth Embry
RE: Contact via the legion.org webpage from Maria Elizabeth Embry
Thursday, August 14, 2008 5:15 AM
From:
"Robertson, Steve A." <srobertson@legion.org>
To:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
Thank you for expressing your views on this issue.
The American Legion testified in support of the Filipino Veterans Equity Act before
in was made a provision of S. 1315. In fact, The American Legion supports all of the provisions of S. 1315, with the
exception of the repeal of Hartness v. Nicholson. It is extremely frustrating to have lobbied so long
and so hard on an issue only to see it compromised by being included in a provision that The American Legion cannot support.
Here is a summary of S. 1315:
Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 - Title I: Insurance Matters - (Sec. 101)
Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) to grant level-premium, term life insurance to each veteran less than
65 years old who has a service-connected disability and who seeks such insurance, with a maximum coverage amount of $50,000.
Reduces the coverage amount by 80% once the veteran turns 70 and prohibits charging a premium in such a case.
(Sec. 102) Allows administrative costs of the Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance program
to be paid through premiums.
(Sec. 103) Includes all (currently, only certain active-duty) members of the Individual Ready
Reserve under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program.
(Sec. 104) Increases from $20,000 to $30,000 the maximum amount of supplemental service disabled
veterans' insurance for totally disabled veterans.
(Sec. 105) Amends the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006 to
provide retroactive traumatic injury coverage under SGLI for members of the Armed Forces who, between October 7, 2001, and
December 1, 2005, incurred a traumatic injury in the line of duty. (Current law allows retroactive coverage, during the same
period, for members who incurred a traumatic injury in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom.)
(Sec. 106) Allows the schedule of payments under SGLI for a traumatic injury to distinguish
between the severity of a loss of a dominant hand and a non-dominant hand.
(Sec. 107) Requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a form for the designation of a recipient
of funds for traumatic injury coverage under SGLI in cases where the member is mentally incapacitated or experiencing an extended
loss of consciousness.
(Sec. 108) Increases from $90,000 to $150,000, then to $200,000 after January 1, 2012, the
maximum loan guarantee amount under the veterans' mortgage life insurance program.
Title II: Housing Matters - (Sec. 201) Authorizes the Secretary, in the case
of a member determined to have a total and permanent disability incurred or aggravated in the line of active duty, to furnish
home improvements and structural alterations for the member for such disability while the member is hospitalized or receiving
outpatient care, medical services, or treatment, if the Secretary determines that the member is likely to be discharged or
released from the Armed Forces due to the disability.
(Sec. 202) Makes eligible for specially adapted housing benefits and assistance: (1) members
of the Armed Forces with certain severe service-connected disabilities; and (2) veterans with such disabilities who are residing
outside the United States.
(Sec. 203) Authorizes the provision of specially adapted housing assistance for a disabled
veteran whose disability is due to a severe burn injury.
(Sec. 204) Authorizes the provision through 2011 of specially adapted housing assistance for
disabled members residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member.
(Sec. 205) Authorizes the Secretary, whenever a payment for specially adapted housing benefits
for a disabled veteran is made, to pay such individual supplemental assistance, within limits depending on the severity of
the disability, for such acquisition or adaptation. Provides for an annual inflation adjustment of the maximum available amount
of such supplemental funds. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 206) Directs the Secretary to report to the congressional veterans' committees on the:
(1) adequacy of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) authorities for providing specially adapted housing assistance for disabled
veterans; and (2) advisability of providing such assistance for individuals who reside on a permanent basis in housing owned
by a family member.
Title III: Labor and Education Matters - (Sec. 301) Directs the Secretary to
ensure the coordination of educational course approval activities by state approving agencies with approval activities performed
by the Departments of Labor and Education and other appropriate entities. Requires a report from the Secretary to the veterans'
committees on actions taken to establish outcome-oriented performance standards and a tracking and reporting system for resources
for approving agencies.
(Sec. 302) Sets $19 million as the maximum amount per fiscal year, after FY2008, for reimbursement
to state and local agencies administering veterans' education benefits.
(Sec. 303) Authorizes the Secretary to waive, for public interest purposes on a case-by-case
basis, the residency requirement for a Director for Veterans' Employment and Training.
(Sec. 304) Includes veterans of the Post 9/11 Global War on Terror within an annual (currently,
biennial) veterans' unemployment study.
(Sec. 305) Amends the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004 to extend through 2009 an
increase in benefits for veterans pursuing apprenticeships or on-job training.
Title IV: Filipino World War II Veterans Matters - (Sec. 401) Deems certain
service performed before July 1, 1946, in the organized military forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Scouts as active
military service for purposes of eligibility for veterans' benefits through the VA. Makes such amendment effective with respect
to the payment or provision of benefits on or after April 1, 2009.
(Sec. 402) Entitles children of Filipino veterans to the same rate (currently, 50%) of educational
assistance entitlement as children of other veterans.
Title V: Court Matters - (Sec. 501) Eliminates the 180-day per-year limit on
service of retired judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) who voluntarily return to such service.
Establishes a three-tiered retirement pay structure for Court judges appointed after the enactment of this Act. Requires recalled
judges to receive the pay of current judges during the period of recall, less the amount of any applicable annuity. Prohibits
recall service in excess of five years for judges recalled involuntarily.
(Sec. 502) Removes the $30 annual limit on practice and registration fees for those admitted
to practice before the Court. Requires any fees charged to be reasonable.
(Sec. 503) Requires an annual report from the chief judge to the veterans' committees summarizing
the Court's workload.
(Sec. 504) Expresses the sense of Congress that the Court should be provided with appropriate
office space, without undue disruption, inconvenience, or cost. Requires a report from the Administrator of General Services
to the veterans' committees on the feasibility of leasing additional space for the Court, and on using the entire building
in which the Court is housed as a Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center.
Title VI: Compensation and Pension Matters - (Sec. 601) Adds osteoporosis to
the list of diseases presumed to be service-connected (and therefore compensable) with respect to former prisoners of war
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
(Sec. 602) Establishes an annual cost-of-living adjustment, by the same percentage as increases
under title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) of the Social Security Act, for the temporary payment of dependency
and indemnity compensation (DIC) to a veteran's surviving spouse with one or more children under age 18.
(Sec. 603) Provides that veterans who qualify for a service pension based upon age (65) are
not therefore automatically eligible to receive a special monthly pension based upon disability, but instead must qualify
for the latter pension under the criteria of being totally and permanently disabled, housebound, or requiring aid and attendance.
Title VII: Burial and Memorial Matters - (Sec. 701) Authorizes and directs the
Secretary to pay a supplemental benefit for the burial and funeral expenses of veterans. Makes such benefit an additional:
(1) $900, in the case of a non-service-connected death; or (2) $2,100, in the case of a service-connected death. Prohibits
any additional payment if funds appropriated for such purpose have been expended. Provides for an annual increase in such
benefit, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Requires the Secretary to periodically estimate, and report to the veterans'
and appropriations committees on, the funding needed to provide such benefit. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 702) Authorizes and directs the Secretary to pay a supplemental burial plot allowance
for veterans eligible for the current allowance. Makes such benefit an additional $445, adjusted annually based on the CPI.
Requires the Secretary to periodically estimate, and report to the veterans' and appropriations committees on, the funding
needed to provide such benefit. Authorizes appropriations.
Title VIII: Other Matters - (Sec. 801) Authorizes the provision of specially
adapted housing assistance for disabled veterans whose disability is due to a severe burn injury.
(Sec. 802) Authorizes the Secretary to pay a supplemental benefit, for assistance in the purchase
of automobiles and other conveyances, for disabled veterans currently eligible for such assistance. Provides a cap of $22,484
per veteran for the total of the current and supplemental assistance, with an annual adjustment based on the average retail
cost of new automobiles. Requires the Secretary to periodically estimate, and report to the veterans' and appropriations committees
on, the funding needed to provide such benefit. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 803) Revises provisions concerning the VA's program of outreach to veterans to: (1)
include members of the National Guard and reserves; and (2) define "outreach" as the proactive provision of information, services,
and benefits counseling to veterans, and to the spouses, children, and parents of veterans who may be eligible to receive
benefits through the VA.
(Sec. 804) Amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow members of the Armed Forces
who are called to active duty for a period of not less than 90 days to cancel or suspend their cell phone contracts without
incurring early termination or reactivation fees if their ability to fulfill the service contract will be materially affected
by such deployment.
(Sec. 805) Directs the Medical Follow-Up Agency of the Institute of Medicine of the National
Academies to maintain and manage the assets (including electronic data files and biological specimens of study participants)
transferred to the Agency from the Air Force Health Study. Authorizes the Agency, during FY2008-FY2012, to conduct additional
research on such assets toward the goal of understanding the determinants of health, and promoting wellness, in veterans.
Requires an Agency report to Congress assessing the feasibility and advisability of conducting additional research on such
assets after the end of FY2012. Provides funding.
(Sec. 806) Requires: (1) the Secretary to contract with the Institute, above, to conduct a
comprehensive epidemiological study to identify any increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis as a result of service
in the Persian Gulf or in the Post 9/11 global operations theaters; and (2) an interim and final results report from the Institute
to the Secretary and the veterans' committees.
(Sec. 807) Directs the Comptroller General to report to the veterans' and appropriations committees
on the adequacy of DIC for surviving spouses and dependents of veterans who die from service-connected disabilities.
To pay for all of these benefits, Congress recommends a repeal of Hartness v. Nicholson.
The American Legion believes these are earned benefits for honorable military service. Congress finds ways to bail out
savings and loans, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, forgive loans to foreign governments, and the list goes on and on, but for these
veterans’ benefits, their only option is to repeal Hartness? Sorry, I just don’t believe that.
Taking benefits away from one group of veterans to pay another group of veterans sets a terrible precedence.
S. 1315 has already passed in the Senate. Senator Akaka and
his professional staff understand our concerns with the repeal of Hartness. It passed over The American
Legion’s objections. In is now in the House awaiting action. The American Legion remains steadfast in opposition
to the repeal of Hartness.
The amount of money to be paid to Filipino veterans and their dependents is finite – it will end
at some point in time; however, Hartness is a benefit that poor elderly veterans, to include Filipino veterans,
will continue to qualify for long after the last Filipino veteran or survivor has died.
I have discussed this face-to-face with Chairman Filner and his
Chief of Staff. They clearly understand our opposition, but don’t agree. They believe we should just lobby
for increased funding for pension, but that brings us back to the same question with regard to S. 1315 --where does the money
come from to pay for it? If repeal of Hartness occurs that sets the precedence of deciding what other
veterans’ benefit should be repealed. In this case, we are talking about mandatory (VA compensation and pension)
rather than discretionary (the rest of the VA budget) appropriations.
I hope this helps you better understand The American Legion’s position.
Steve Robertson, Director
National Legislative Commission
The American Legion
1608 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
RE: Contact via the legion.org webpage from Maria Elizabeth Embry
Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:41 PM
From:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
To:
"Robertson, Steve A." <srobertson@legion.org>
Sir, allow me to explain why I consider The American
Legion position regarding the WW11 Filipino U.S. Veterans shallow and indefensible
Undeniably, since its foundation in 1919, The American Legion had been involved
in so many noble acts that truly lived to its mission statement “to consecrate and sanctify our comradeship by our devotion to mutual helpfulness”. However, like any noble, heroic yet imperfect human
endeavor The American Legion had failed to live to such lofty idealism and took the path in
promotion of causes that will be deemed later as less than heroics like the internment of the Japanese population during
WW11, breaking of labor activism to name a few. Sir, I strongly believe that The American Legion in regards to the WW11 Filipino
veterans is once again embarking on a journey that will take The American Legion to the path that will once more stain and
mar its reputation.
Truly, The American Legion had the unique opportunity
to spearhead a movement in preventing the passage of the two Rescission Acts of 1946, because after all, this is the situation
of comrades (WW11 Filipino U.S. Army Veterans) being left ignominiously in
the battlefields of life and in dire need of mutual helpfulness from The American
Legion. Sir, it is not enough that The American Legion testify to support the WW11 Filipino veterans. Although, there
is a very short list of Filipinos who are recipients of the Congressional Medal
of Honor, however witnesses are many to the valor & sacrifices of the WW11 Filipinos soldiers, especially among
non-Filipinos who had written memoirs about their military and civilian experiences during WW11.
Sir, The American Legion throwing the S.1315 under the bus to protect the repeal of Hartness v.
Nicholson is not comradeship, neither it is devotion to mutual helpfulness.
Allow me to relate to you briefly
some of the incidents which I believe are incidents of comradeship and mutual helpfulness:
Undeniably it is the unique devotion
and comradeship between Gen. Douglas MacArthur and the Filipino soldiers.
I am sure you are familiar with
the tireless crusades of Senators Daniel K. Akaka & Daniel Inouye, Congressman Filner, and many others
who are non-Filipinos who I am sure have also conflicts of interest in embracing the cause of politically
weak constituents like the Filipinos, but never did they wavered in their resolve to do it.
Now, that is comradeship, that is devotion.
Perhaps, you have seen the photos of elderly Filipino WW11 veterans who showed up in wheelchairs to support S.1315, many not for their own benefit,
but for the sake of their comrades left in the Philippines AKA ” foreigners”. That is comradeship.
That is mutual helpfulness.
I am sure that you had heard the legendary heroism of a Lt. Col Edwin Ramsey
who testified on the behalf of the WW11 Filipino veterans. Let me also share with you that more than a couple of years ago,
when I sent him a query via e-mail, that the first thing he asked is- if the Veterans
Administration is looking after the welfare of my father, a 26th Cavalry Bataan
& MIA survivor. Now, that is comradeship. That is mutual helpfulness.
What I believe is needed from The American Legion is not only to go back
to its roots when it was founded under its original mission” to consecrate and sanctify our comradeship by
our devotion to mutual helpfulness”, but additionally it must keep pace with the changing society. The American Legion
must embrace diversity, otherwise, it will begin to lose its relevance. President
George Washington stated that:
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly
proportional to how they perceive how the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation”.
Many students who advocated for the WW11 Filipino veterans are becoming truly disenchanted and frustrated
with all these inactions. Bear in mind, that this is the pool that will serve in the military, that this is also the pool
that The American Legion membership will come from. These are the students who attend workshops, write essays that will catch
the attention and will drive others to activism.
It is really ironic that you challenge me to find out the hardship of filing
for a military pension. Let me ask you this- do you know that thousands of Filipino U.S. veterans had died
without their military services being recognize, although they fought as hard and in some cases harder than those who got
compensated? Do you realize that this has been going on for the last six decades. Can you even imagine how many veterans had
their military claims buried with them? Importantly, should The American Legion succeed in blocking the passage of S.1315,
I want you to imagine how many more will die before they would have an answer to their pension claims. Like Bob Dylan song
goes- “the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind”, the answer indeed is
blowin' in the wind.
Sincerely,
Maria Elizabeth Embry
RE: Contact via the legion.org webpage from Maria Elizabeth Embry
Friday, August 15, 2008 10:40 AM
From:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
To:
"Robertson, Steve A." <srobertson@legion.org>
Mr. Steve A. Robertson,
Dear Mr. Robertson,
Sir, this is a continuation of the e-mail I sent last night. I was running late & was on my way to my niteshift job
that the following was left out.
ok, here goes:
I would like to request a copy of the membership mandate of The American
Legion National Resolution that supported full recognition & benefits to Filipino veterans. If you have
it in the internet, please let me know the website where I could access it. BTW, I am not a member of any subscription
services and could only access simple search.
Additionally, I would like to request a resolution or anything that backs up what Hon Steve
Buyer stated on 8/24/2007 when he commended the membership of the American Legion for opposition...I think I just better
paste that particular webpage @ the end of this e-mail.
Actually, what I am getting @ is- how does the American Legion resolve what appears to be a Solomonic dilemna? Here,
you have what you had described a 20 years support for the Filipino WW11
Veterans Equity rights with a membership mandate in the form of a National Resolution (date?). Then here it comes in
a sort of a head-on collision with the proposed repeal of Hartness v. Nicholson. Does The American Legion by-laws come into
play with these conflicting dynamics? I am sure that a chartered organization like The American Legion, existing since 1919
has a system that deals with something like this. For whatever its worth, I just feel I need to understand stuffs like this.
Again, if information is online, a simple directiom from you would be more than satisfactory.
Sincerely,
Maria Elizabeth Embry
REPUBLICAN PRESS RELEASE
August 24, 2007
Buyer commends The American Legion for ‘principled’
opposition to veterans’ benefits cuts
Washington
D.C. — House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Ranking Member Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) today commended the membership of The American Legion for their opposition to a bill which would cut nearly
$1 billion in benefits for elderly, disabled and financially disadvantaged wartime veterans.
file4Filipino.pdf - Adobe Reader
Monday, August 18, 2008 11:03 AM
From:
"Robertson, Steve A." <srobertson@legion.org>
To:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
Message contains attachments
Per your request.
Attached is a copy of the resolution passed for the 110th Congress. This is a reaffirmation
year at this year’s national convention. Resolution, with legislative intent, are only good as long
as the life of that Congress. When Congress adjourns, all resolutions die along with all legislation not enacted
Files: |
 |
|
| XXXXXX |
|
|
NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
OF
THE AMERICAN LEGION
OCTOBER 18-19, 2006
RESOLUTION
NO.: 4
SUBJECT:
SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO GRANT
FILIPINO WORLD WAR 11 VETERANS
EQUAL VA BENEFITS
COMMITTEE: VETERANS
AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION
WHEREAS, In 1941, at the
outbreak of World War 11, Filipinos were
considered nationals of the United States
and thousands were conscripted to serve with the U.S. Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE)
under the command of U.S. officers headed
by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, by order of the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt;
and
WHEREAS, These
Filipino World War 11 soldiers served and died with
courage, loyalty and dedication to stop the Japanese
invaders in Bataan and Corregidor, walked the famous Death March together with their American comrades-in-arms and continued
guerilla warfare against the Japanese until the U.S. forces recaptured the Philippines in 1944; and
WHEREAS, Immediately after WW11,
Filipino veterans were given benefits equal to U.S. soldiers, but the U.S. Rescission Act of 1946 took away these benefits by
declaring that service of Filipino WW11 veterans was not valid service and reduced their
benefits to the rate of fifty (50) cents to the dollar to what U.S. veterans are receiving; and
WHEREAS, Because of this
injustice, since 1946, Filipino veterans have asked the U.S. Congress to fully restore their benefits for their ww11 service,
to be equal to those of U.S. veterans;
and
WHEREAS, Acknowledging the injustice done to these loyal Filipino veterans,
the U.S. Congress later allowed them to be naturalized as U.S. citizens, granted them compensation for
disability, health care and burial benefits equal to those received by U.S. veterans, provided they resided in the U.S., but
those residing in the Philippines were denied equal benefits; and
WHEREAS, The American Legion National has deplored the fact that aging,
sickly Filipino WW11 veterans are treated as second class U.S. veterans; now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED, By National Executive Committee of The American Legion in Regular meeting assembled in Indianapolis, Indiana, on October 18-19, 2006,
That The American Legion support legislation that will grant
Filipino World War 11 Veterans equal VA benefits.
Re: file4Filipino.pdf - Adobe Reader
Monday, August 18, 2008 12:47 PM
From:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
To:
"Robertson, Steve A." <srobertson@legion.org>
Mr. Robertson,
Thank you so much for your response. I am somewhat familiar about legislation dying. I already counted 11 of those Acts
about the Filipino WW11 veterans without doing any vigorous research, just getting my info from wikipedia.
I will try not to be a burden to you anymore. Anyways, I am gonna be busy. I believe that H.R. will calendar S. 1315 soon,
so I need to work more diligently.
Sincerely,
Maria Elizabeth Embry
###########################################################
http://www.philippineembassy-usa.org/PRAmericanLegion07Mar08.htm
On 04 March 2008, Philippine Ambassador to the United
States Willy C. Gaa met with officials of the American Legion headed by Mr. Phil Riley, the Legion’s Director
of National Security and Foreign Relations, to secure their continued support for the Filipino Veterans Equity Bills now pending
in both Houses of the U.S. Congress and to discuss ways to move this bill forward for the benefit of all parties concerned.
Mr. Riley was accompanied by Mr. Steve Robertson, Director
of the American Legion’s Legislative Division, and Mr. Joseph Grassi, Assistant Director for the National
Security and Foreign Relations Division of the America Legion.
During the meeting the American Legion said that they
support the rights of Filipino WWII veterans to benefits and hopes that Congress will find the suitable and appropriate sources
for these funds
PHOTO: (Left) Ambassador Gaa greeting Mr. Steve Robertson,
Director of the American Legion’s Legislative Division. (Right) Ambassador Gaa discussing the Filipino Veterans
Equity Bills with American Legion officials Mr. Steve Robertson
(second from right) and American Legion Director for National Security and Foreign Relations, Mr. Phil Riley (far right)
#############################################################
Who is sinking Filipino vets: Pelosi or Palin??
Monday, September 15, 2008 9:19 AM
From:
"Am. Coalition for Filipino Vets." <us.filvets@verizon.net>
To:
"Eric Lachica ACFVeterans" <us.filvets@verizon.net>
Subject: Who is sinking Filipino vets: Pelosi or Palin??
ACTION:
Have you emailed AND called Speaker Nancy Pelosi??
Phone: 415 556-4862 or 202 225-0100
Urge Pelosi to SCHEDULE A VOTE NOW to pass
S. 1315 including the Filipino WWII Veterans!
"Speaker, you made a promise to Filipino WWII vets. Keep it!"
11 DAYS LEFT.
-------------- fair use-------------- http://www.asianweek.com/2008/09/11/who-is-sinking-filipino-vets-pelosi-or-palin/Who is Sinking Filipino Vets: Pelosi or Palin?
By: Emil
Guillermo, Sep 11, 2008 In Denver at the Democratic Convention, Felix Magalong, 89, a Filipino Scout Captain who fought for the U.S. in
World War II, was in his wheel chair lobbying any congressman he could find
to vote for the current Filipino veterans equity bill on the table, S. 1315. Magalong, both a former POW and a Bataan Death March survivor,
may not survive the incredible politics behind passing a simple bit of legislation that could help 11,000 Filipino veterans
living abroad and 7,000 here in the U.S. They're dying at a rate of 10 a day. But the bill has until Sept. 26 to get
passed before Congress adjourns. If there's no passage, S.1315 dies and the bugler can play "Taps." The bill needs
fewer than 40 votes to reach the needed 218 majority votes.
It's still not veto proof (that would take 287 votes), but would President
Bush really want to be known as the guy who put the final nail on the Fil-Vets' coffin?
This summer, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi told supporters she would put the bill before a vote once the September session resumes. But the dynamic has
changed with the emergence of Sarah Palin.
McCain's Purple
Pill
Everyone it seems loves Palin, the little queen of half-truths. To me, she's the "Bridge to Nowhere."
But her addition to the ticket makes her the Viagra in what was a stone-dead McCain candidacy. Now the senator can't seem
to go anywhere without his purple Palin.
The Palin effect is so great that not only has it changed both the gender
and the change issues in the race, but it has also impacted the Filipino vets issue.
With such a tight presidential
race, the politics of protecting congressional seats is now a priority. What was a slam-dunk feel good vote in the Senate
has now become a hot potato for House members up for re-election.
For some members, money is the big issue. Others
are more xenophobic, saying money shouldn't go to "foreign" veterans.
Foreign veterans? These men were drafted in 1941
by FDR, only to have Congress pass the Rescission Act of 1946 that stripped
these warriors of the same rights afforded to U.S. GIs.
The xenophobes want to make a case that giving money to the
11,000 living outside the U.S. is a slap to all living veterans in the U.S. of A. A little bit of post-Sept.11 thinking helps
fan the flames.
All told there are another 7,000 Filipino WWII vets in the U.S. that would get $10,000 or less if S.1315
passes (a sum that won't exactly buy a new Lexus). Put it all together and you get 18,000 Filipino vets at most.
Compare that to the more than 23 million vets living in the U.S.
The Filipino vets are so small in number that
money can't be the issue, not when the vets represent a finite and diminishing benefit that terminates with their death.If
the money is there for war, it should be there for those who fought them.
But the money issue is the reddest of herrings. What we have here is a lack of political will.
A Simple Solution
"There is no reason they can't pass this," said Steve Robertson,
director of the American Legion's National Legislative Commission. At
the DNC, Robertson was adamant about two sure-fire ways to bypass the fears of some congressmen all in a tizzy about how benefits
to the Fil-Vets would somehow shortchange our Iraqi war vets.
First, Congress could simply waive the budget rules,
which is done all the time. Second, it could attach S.1315 to an emergency supplemental bill or a continuing resolution, which do not fall under the provisions
of the Balanced Budget
Amendment.
There's definitely a way to pass S.1315. It's not impossible. It may have been
impossible years ago when supporters couldn't even get a congressional hearing. Now the bill is fewer than 40 votes short
of full passage. But if the bill fails because of the bogus money argument, it would just heap more tragedy on the more than
60 years of indignity endured by the vets.
For Magalong, it's not about the money. "It's the recognition," he told
me in his loudest whisper.
It's also about the U.S. keeping its promise to those who would give up their lives.
So
Madame Pelosi: It's up to you.
There are roughly 90 Democrats yet to come into the fold. There are about 160 or so Republicans you can lure. Fewer than
40 votes give you a majority. Will you remember Magalong and his gang of brave warriors? Or will you let Sarah Barracuda
eat up the political will and use the vets to spread fear into the hearts of insecure politicians up for re-election? Madame Speaker, it's time to restore order-and keep your promise and America's promise to the Filipino veterans.
Your
Filipino American
supporters and the Asian American community are watching. Email emil@amok.com. amok.asianweek.com-------------fair use-------------
Salamat po!
ERIC LACHICA
Executive Director
American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc.
841 South Glebe Road - Arlington, VA 22204
Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Who is sinking Filipino vets: Pelosi or Palin??
My Answer to Your Question Who is Sinking Filipino Vets?
Key: Opposition from THE AMERICAN LEGION |
On Mon, 9/15/08, Am. Coalition for Filipino Vets. <us.filvets@verizon.net> wrote:
From: Am. Coalition for Filipino
Vets. <us.filvets@verizon.net>
Subject: mabuhay kayo!
To: "m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday,
September 15, 2008, 12:28 PM
Dear Maria:-)
Salamat po for your courage to speak truth to power!
The simple equity solution will depend upon Speaker Pelosi's guts & leadership. The American Legion, I was informed, will go along with her decision.
Keep up the fire going.
Eric Lachica
ACFV executive director
Re: mabuhay kayo!
Monday, September 15, 2008 1:23 PM
From:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
To:
"Am. Coalition for Filipino Vets." <us.filvets@verizon.net>
Dear Mr. Lachica,
I hope for the sake of our long-suffering WW11 Filipino U.S. Veterans that Mr. Robertson made a 180 degrees turn-around
from his e-mail wherein he stated the following:
"S. 1315 has already passed in the Senate. Senator Akaka and his
professional staff understand our concerns with the repeal of Hartness. It passed over The American Legion’s
objections. It is now in the House awaiting action. The American Legion remains steadfast in opposition to the
repeal of Hartness."
There are simply so many conflicting statements from him, that I hope he realize that The American Legion
is not in any position to prefer defending the cause of other U.S. veterans over that of the Filipino U.S. veterans without
running into antidiscrimination policies or laws for that matter since The American Legion is a Congressionally chartered
organization, not to mention that the veterans in The American Legion membership need to know Mr. Robertson's
apparent double dealing. These stuffs should never be swept under the rug, only the truth will save us all.
Good luck to you & to all the tireless efforts you are doing on the behalf of our beloved beteranos.
Sincerely,
Maria Elizabeth Embry
http://filipinos-ww2usmilitaryservice.tripod.com |
From: m e <pinay_492001@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:37:12 -0700 (PDT) To:
<emil@amok.com> Subject: The American Legion main stumbling block to S.1315
On Thu, 9/11/08, emilamok@gmail.com <emilamok@gmail.com> wrote:
From: emilamok@gmail.com <emilamok@gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: The American Legion main stumbling block to S.1315
To: "m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, September
11, 2008, 2:57 PM
Your email is an eye opener. Robertson is playing politics for sure. But he's found his way of trying
to satisfy all. As you described he is somewhat disingenuous. But his suggestion would get the job done. Not easy but he does
provide alternatives to a true sense of solidarity from the AmLegion.
Emil
Re: The American Legion main stumbling block to S.1315
Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:16 PM
From:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
|
I am sorry, but I do not agree that Robertson get off the hook that easy The
American Legion is congressionally chartered, siding w/ one group of veterans against another group of veterans (should I
say it again-Filipino U.S WW2 veterans) is a form of discrimination & that's
not what The American Legion should be all about. I bet that even w/ the American Legion membership, Robertson is not telling
the truth about the role of American Legion in all of these legislative acts that died in the committees. Why do you
think both Obama & Mccain were no-shows during the Senate passage of S.1315? Answer-pressure fromThe American Legion.
Read that portion of Robertson e-mail to me-that S1315 passed (in the Senate) over American Legion's objection &
that they remain steadfast against it-translation w/ Rep Buyer the hired gun.
Thanks for your attention to this matter. I decided to send the e-mail to you after I read your article w/ Robertson
on it.
Sincerely,
Maria Elizabeth Embry
|
######################################################################
On Wed, 9/10/08, Doy Heredia <press@naffaa.org> wrote:
From: Doy Heredia <press@naffaa.org>
Subject:
Call To Action: Contact Members of The House to Support Filipino Veterans
To: pinay_492001@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday,
September 10, 2008, 10:28 AM
Call To Action: September 10, 2008
Contact Members of The House to Support Filipino
Veterans
This legislation
enjoys support from a wide array of allies, including: The
American
Legion,
Vietnam Veterans of America,
Catholic War Veterans,
Jewish War Veterans, the National
Education Association, the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the
National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens.
Re: Call To Action: Contact Members of The House to Support Filipino Veterans
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:14 PM
From:
"m e" <pinay_492001@yahoo.com>
To:
Dear Mr. Doy Heredia,
Re: your statement that: The American Legion is supporting S.1315 is correct, EXCEPT The American Legion does not support the provision for the Filipino WW2 U.S. veterans, because
of the funding issue with the repeal
of Hartness v. Nicholson.Please read my
e-mail exchanges (I am pasting below) with The American Legion Legislative Division, wherein Mr Robertson admitted that
S.1315 was passed in the Senate over The American Legion's objections & that they remain steadfast in their position.
I had circulated countless e-mails regarding this issue that The American Legion is the main stumbling block in the passage
of S.1315 provision for WW2 Filipino U. S. veterans.
Sincerely,
Maria Elizabeth Embry
2101 Hamlin Court
Antioch Ca 94509
|
#############################################################
Letters of Support from American Legion Membership:
from Chicago, Illinois; the
full membership’s signed letter of the American Legion Post, headed by Pastor, Cdr. T. Yague: “Comrade Col.
Quesada, warm greetings from all our comrades here in Chicago, Illinois. On behalf of the American
Legion, Fil-Am Post 509, we the undersigned officers and members, categorically state that we fully support
the Filipino Veterans Full Equity crusade for justice and fairness. We are strong and steadfast supporters of the VFP’s
position such that we, the bona-fide WW-II veterans are strongly determined to handle our own official veteran’s
lobby in Washington DC.
And ss veterans with vested rights and property interests in our collective demand for full equity settlement. We denounce
all those without any legal standing in our veteran’s crusade, We are capable in handling our own honest advocacy along
with the Philippine government which we have appointed as our conduit with the US
Congress and the White House. We will not stop in demanding full settlement of our legitimate demands until the last
surviving WW-II veterans who would die bare and naked of our rightful unpaid compensation and benefits by the U.S. government. We abhor those present “:Makapilis”
(enemy collaborators here - who side with the oppressors in government and who want all of us to die so they could keep our
money for their pork. We express our hurt in strong language which the oppressor and collaborators will comprehend. They have
cheated us for over 60 years, therefore they truly deserve our strong condemnation and denunciation. Also, we keep a record,
and also denounce our perfidious kababayans, and those unauthorized parties who are against our honorable crusade. We equally
denounce those pretenders hiding behind bogus organizations sheltering un-recognized veterans, and who are not our true allies
. We speak for the total majority of Fil-Am veterans here in Chicago and Illinois residing in this State. Comradely yours," Telesforo B. Yague, Commander.
Source: BALITANG BETERANO: AM-LEGION, POST 509 CHICAGO'S RESOLVE by Frank
Quesada
MANILA, February 1, 2005 letters of support for HR-677, sponsored by Reps: B.
Filner (D-CA) and R. Cunningham (R-CA) with the bi-partisan support of over 200 solons members of the Veterans Federation
of the Philippines (VFP) and the American Legion both in the Philippines and here
in the U.S. have lodged their legitimate demand for full equity settlement developments.
Three powerful organizations (the American Legion, AMVETS and the National
Association for Uniformed Services) have joined in opposition to a House bill that would pay for new benefits for WWII Filipino
veterans by cutting benefits for elderly U.S. veterans with low incomes.
Army, Air Force, Navy & Marine Corps
Times, September 24, 2007
U.S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE
ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS,
Health
Care for Filipino World War II Veterans
6/13/2002:
excerpt:
RICHARD JONES
AMVETS NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR
brave
and historic contributions made by Filipino nationals
during World War II. Their actions as part of the allied effort are legendary… VA funding for the current year is extraordinarily
tight…already forced the Department to the brink of curtailing services affecting American veterans… we believe the interests of American veterans must continue to come first…we believe that our longstanding
commitments to our own veterans should take priority
…the common theme in efforts to provide appropriate health care for our veterans today and into the future is that our veterans are indeed special.
Website Under Construction
|
