Rodel E. Rodis, December 21, 2007
When I was in Washington DC last February, I sensed a palpable excitement among the veterans and their ardent supporters that the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill would be passed by the US Congress in 2007.
This optimism was fueled by the appointment of the two principal sponsors of the bill in the Senate and in the House, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Bob Filner (D-California), as chairs of the veterans committees of their respective chambers, thanks to the Democratic sweep in the November 2006 elections.
By April of 2007, both Sen. Akaka and Rep. Filner had conducted hearings on their respective equity bills and had garnered their committees’ approval. It had never advanced to this stage before and many believed that it would be just a matter of time before the bills are brought to a floor vote in the Senate and House.
The principle was one thing but the principal was another. How much should the Filipino WW II veterans (“Filvets”) receive in monthly pension benefits? Should Filvets residing in the US receive more than those in the Philippines?
Because of the difference in the costs of living, some contended that Filvets in the US should receive $800 a month while Filvets in the Philippines should get $100 a month pension. But many Filvets supporters opposed the proposal on the basic principle that there should be no difference in pension based on geography.
A significant compromise was reached when the veterans and their supporters agreed that all Filvets should receive the same amount – a minimum of $200 a month. Filvets in the US receive about $800 a month in SSI benefits anyway which would not be affected by the additional $200 pension while Filvets in the Philippines would receive the equivalent of the average monthly salary there.
Under Akaka’s guidance, the Filvets bill (S.57) was tacked on to an omnibus veterans bill (S.1315) that would cover other veterans issues. Akaka stressed that “as a matter of fundamental fairness and justice, Filipino veterans' benefits should be similar to those of other veterans.”
"S-1315 would fix a historical wrong,” Akaka said, “Filipino veterans served under the command of the US military during World War II. They were considered by the Veterans' Administration, the predecessor of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, to be veterans of the US military, naval and air service until that status was revoked by the Rescission Acts of 1946.”
At the Senate hearing last April, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), the former chair of the Senate Veterans Committee, opposed the bill because he calculated the price tag of the bill to be almost $1 billion over ten years which he believes the US government cannot afford when “there are other pressing bills pending before the Committee especially benefits for veterans of the War on Terror.”
The US Department Of Veterans Affairs (DVA) under Secretary Jim Nicholson contended that additional benefit costs including medical and memorial benefits of $510 million in the first year would total more than $4 billion over ten years.
But the key to passing the Filvets bill was Sen. Craig. How could he be convinced to drop his strident opposition? Perhaps it would be too much to hope that he would just resign so the bill could pass.
On June 11 of this year, Sen. Craig went to the men’s room of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and did something there that led to his arrest by an undercover officer for lewd and lascivious conduct . On August 1, Sen. Craig pled guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge hoping no one would notice. But when news of the gay solicitation charge broke, which GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell described as “unforgivable”, Sen. Craig had no choice but to announce his resignation from the US Senate effective September 30.
This was the break the Filvets needed. Unfortunately, this was too much to ask as Sen. Craig reneged on his promise to resign.
On December 12, when Sen. Craig was asked to agree not to filibuster the bill so that S.1315 would not need 60 votes to pass, Sen. Craig refused to oblige.
Reflecting the anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner sentiment of many in his party, Sen. Craig spoke against providing benefits to Filvets in the Philippines. "First of all, they do not live in this country, they are not US citizens. They are taking money away from our veterans. That is the 'Robin Hood in reverse' effect. At least Robin Hood, when he took money, left it in Nottingham. He spread it out amongst his own. Here we are taking money from our own and sending it all the way to the Philippines," Sen. Craig the Grinch charged.
Perhaps the most eloquent response to Sen. Craig was the selfless sacrifice of seven of the grandsons of these “Robin Hoods” who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in the service of the United States just in the last six months: Army Pfc. Victor M. Fontanilla, 23, Stockton, CA (5/17/07), Army Spc. Mark R. C. Caguioa, 21, Stockton, CA ( 5/24/07), Army Sgt. Richard V. Correa, 25, Honolulu, HI (5/29/07), Army Staff Sgt. Greg P. Gagarin, 38, Los Angeles, CA (6/3/07), Marine Sgt. Michael E. Tayaotao, 27,Sunnyvale, CA (8/9/07), Army Pfc. Paulomarko U. Pacificador, 24, Shirley, NY (8/13/07), and Army Specialist Lester Roque, 23, Carson, CA (11/10/07).
Sen. Craig should be reminded of what George Washington said in 1789: "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 the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation."
Will young Filipino Americans be as willing to serve and die for the US in future wars when their grandfathers who served honorably in WW II are disrespected by the US government?
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to www.rodel50.blogspot.com/) or send your letter to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800.