Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Wartime Parity and Justice Act of 2001, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 619. Among other things, the bill provides restitution to Latin Americans of Japanese ancestry who were brought to the United States, then interned in Immigration and Naturalization Service camps during World War II. Between December, 1941, to February, 1948, more than 2,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry were relocated from thirteen Latin American countries to the United States. During World War II, the United States had these individuals shipped to the United States to be traded with the Japanese Government for American prisoners of war. Of this number, approximately 800 were traded for American prisoners of war. The remaining individuals were placed in internment camps throughout the United States. The governments of those thirteen Latin American countries cooperated with the United States because they received millions of dollars in monetary compensation for their assistance. Much like their Japanese American counterparts in the United States, these people were selected merely because of their ethnic origin. The big difference, however, is that the United States made an effort to redress the wrong committed against the Japanese Americans. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed into law by President Reagan, allowed for monetary compensation of $20,000 and an apology from the United States Government to all Japanese Americans interned in camps throughout the country. More than 120,000 Japanese Americans were placed into these internment camps because they were a ``threat'' to national security. To this day, not one case of sabotage or espionage by Japanese Americans during World War II has been uncovered by the United States Government. Japanese Latin Americans were not an eligible class under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 even though they suffered under the same conditions experienced by their Japanese American counterparts. In 1996, Japanese Latin Americans sued the United States Government in Mochizuki v. the United States of America. Through the settlement of this case, the Japanese Latin Americans were eventually awarded $5,000 each, along with a letter of apology signed by President Clinton. The settlement agreement explicitly allows for further action by Congress to fund Japanese Latin American redress, in light of the fact that Japanese Americans were allowed $20,000 under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. My bill will allow us to correct this inequity by offering $20,000 to eligible Japanese Latin Americans. The Japanese Latin Americans who chose to accept their $5,000 award would be offered up to an additional $15,000 each. This bill would also reauthorize the educational mandate in the Act to continue research and education efforts, ensuring the internees' experiences will be remembered, and hopefully, to prevent recurrences.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Wartime Parity and Justice Act of 2001, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 619. Among other things, the bill provides restitution to Latin Americans of Japanese ancestry who were brought to the United States, then interned in Immigration and Naturalization Service camps during World War II. Between December, 1941, to February, 1948, more than 2,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry were relocated from thirteen Latin American countries to the United States. During World War II, the United States had these individuals shipped to the United States to be traded with the Japanese Government for American prisoners of war. Of this number, approximately 800 were traded for American prisoners of war. The remaining individuals were placed in internment camps throughout the United States. The governments of those thirteen Latin American countries cooperated with the United States because they received millions of dollars in monetary compensation for their assistance. Much like their Japanese American counterparts in the United States, these people were selected merely because of their ethnic origin. The big difference, however, is that the United States made an effort to redress the wrong committed against the Japanese Americans. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed into law by President Reagan, allowed for monetary compensation of $20,000 and an apology from the United States Government to all Japanese Americans interned in camps throughout the country. More than 120,000 Japanese Americans were placed into these internment camps because they were a ``threat'' to national security. To this day, not one case of sabotage or espionage by Japanese Americans during World War II has been uncovered by the United States Government. Japanese Latin Americans were not an eligible class under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 even though they suffered under the same conditions experienced by their Japanese American counterparts. In 1996, Japanese Latin Americans sued the United States Government in Mochizuki v. the United States of America. Through the settlement of this case, the Japanese Latin Americans were eventually awarded $5,000 each, along with a letter of apology signed by President Clinton. The settlement agreement explicitly allows for further action by Congress to fund Japanese Latin American redress, in light of the fact that Japanese Americans were allowed $20,000 under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. My bill will allow us to correct this inequity by offering $20,000 to eligible Japanese Latin Americans. The Japanese Latin Americans who chose to accept their $5,000 award would be offered up to an additional $15,000 each. This bill would also reauthorize the educational mandate in the Act to continue research and education efforts, ensuring the internees' experiences will be remembered, and hopefully, to prevent recurrences.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on July 25, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in room 216 Hart Senate Building to conduct a hearing on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on July 24, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. in room 485 Russell Senate Building to conduct a business meeting on pending committee business, to be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 266, a bill regarding the use of trust land and resources of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on July 19, 2001, at 10 a.m., in room 485 Russell Senate Building to conduct a business meeting on pending committee business. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on July 18, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 Russell Senate Building to conduct a hearing on ``Indian Tribal Good Governance Practices As They Relate to Tribal Economic Development.'' Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251. Committee on Indian Affairs

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, in the managers' package is contained an amendment which provides for the repeal of section 819 of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act. In my view, this is a matter that is more appropriately addressed in the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Indian Affairs. Accordingly, I intend to work with my colleagues to see that this proposed repeal of a section of authorizing legislation is removed from the Interior appropriations bill and addressed in the appropriate forum.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I yield 3 minutes.

Mr. INOUYE. On behalf of the committee, I move to table the amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Yes, if I may.

Mr. INOUYE. I wish to advise my colleagues that in crafting this supplemental bill we considered two criteria, and both of them were requested by the Republican administration, requested by the Department of Defense. First, any program receiving supplemental funding must be able to execute this funding during the current fiscal year. The current fiscal year ends in 2\1/2\ months, just a few days away. Second, that the funding could not wait until fiscal year 2002. It is the view of President Bush that the supplemental request has satisfied this objective. I believe the modest changes made by the committee have improved this measure, increasing readiness and health care funding by $229 million. I will remind the Senate that from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 2001, the Congress added $49 billion to the DOD budget, much of it for various programs that concern the distinguished Senator from Missouri, in some cases operation and maintenance funds appropriated for the same activities identified in the supplemental request, such as spare parts, base operations, and depot maintenance. My point is, the Defense Subcommittee has a demonstrated record of considering both the funded and the unfunded requirements of the Department before marking up a piece of legislation. The funding provided in this bill, most respectfully, I believe meets the urgent needs of the military within the funding constraints set by the budget resolution for fiscal year 2001 approved by this body. This act avoids emergency spending to demonstrate fiscal restraint. Much of the funding proposed by this amendment could not be spent responsibly in 2\1/2\ months. The Department would struggle to obligate the funds before the end of the fiscal year. Some would even be obligated to cover workload at the maintenance depots that would carry over to next year in violation of the Department's own restrictions. I point out to the Senator from Missouri that the Appropriations Committee has addressed programs that he seeks to fund with his amendment. Specifically, runway repairs for the Masirah Airfield in Oman are addressed in the military construction section. The committee has addressed the Army's second destination transport costs. Those funds were reduced in the bill passed by the House. It seems that the unfunded requirement list submitted to the Senator is currently outdated. So for all the above reasons, Madam President, I therefore must oppose this amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I realize that time is limited. If I may, I will quote from the letter dated July 10, 2001, from the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, GEN James L. Jones. I believe this one paragraph, the third paragraph, says it all: As you know, Senator Stevens, the V-22 Osprey is the Marine Corps' number one aviation priority. It will revolutionize combat assault in a manner not seen since the introduction of the helicopter more than 50 years ago. The V-22 Osprey is the only vertical lift assault weapon aircraft that provides the combination of range, speed, and payload, which fulfills the Marine Corps' medium lift requirement. The Osprey met or exceeded all Marine Corps' key performance requirements. . . . It carries three times as much, five times as far, twice as fast as the Vietnam era CH-46 Sea Knight it is replacing. The V-22 Osprey is a key enabler, allowing Marine expeditionary forces to rapidly respond to unpredictable, unstable situations throughout the world.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment will wipe out the V-22 program, and if at a later time we find it necessary to revive that program, it will cost billions. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska for yielding time. I wish to remind my colleagues, in crafting this supplemental bill the Department of Defense considered two criteria. These requirements were that any program receiving supplemental funding must be able to execute this funding during the current fiscal year, and the current fiscal year has just about 2\1/2\ months remaining, and that the funding cannot wait until fiscal year 2002. I also wish to remind the Senate that from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 2001 the Congress of the United States added $49 billion to the Department of Defense budget, much of it to the very programs that concern Senators from Arizona. Some of the unfunded requirements addressed by the Senator in this amendment were identified by the services in January and February before the Bush administration began its own defense review. And some of these items are funded in the fiscal year 2002 request. We are committed to working with the Defense Department to avoid a supplemental next year and fund all legitimate requirements. Many of the items identified by the distinguished Senator will be funded in fiscal year 2002 or through the omnibus reprogramming request. We understand the Senator's amendment seeks to fund anticipated costs that DOD expects to materialize later this year. I wish to underline ``anticipated costs'' because the intent of the Senator's amendment to cover this cost is very meritorious. However, the committees of jurisdiction, the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee, have yet to receive this request. We have not received a request from the Department of Defense. The increases in question have not been scrutinized by either of these committees. Therefore, we cannot validate to our colleagues this day that the amounts identified by the distinguished Senator from Arizona are the ones that the Department of Defense truly needs. We understand and support the concept that the Senator offers in the amendment, but we do not believe we can support the amendment until the committees have had a chance to study, to scrutinize the specific details of the request. Until such time, we cannot advise our colleagues that this is what DOD really needs. Therefore, I must stand in opposition to the McCain amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment will wipe out the V-22 Osprey program. One of the best-kept secrets in the United States is the role the U.S. Army has played in the battle against AIDS. The U.S. Army, Department of Defense, has spent more money than all the moneys spent by other countries on the battle against AIDS. Our research has come closest to victory. We have, in the next fiscal year, 2002, the full amount requested by the administration. We have not forgotten the problem. Yes, the United Nations has passed a resolution, but we are still waiting for other countries to come forth with their moneys. Our country will come forth with our money but not at the expense of the V-22 Osprey.

Mr. INOUYE. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has consistently been a strong supporter of, and advocate for, the National Guard. We have historically provided significant additional funding for the National Guard where critical shortfalls were identified. As my distinguished colleague from Delaware is aware, we have only recently received the budget request for the Department of Defense and there are ongoing discussions as to what the top line will ultimately be for fiscal year 2002. However, we have appropriated additional funding for National Guard Blackhawks for several years; for example, in fiscal year 2001, the Defense Appropriations Committee added funding for the purchase of 6 additional Blackhawks for the Guard and for 11 aircraft in fiscal year 2000. I agree with you that the National Guard must be provided sufficient funding to carry out their important responsibilities and aviation missions and we will do all that we can to address your concerns in the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations bill.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the Wellstone amendment, dealing with the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, is a very noble goal. I have no quarrel with this goal but, most respectfully, this matter has been addressed in this bill. The amendment that is proposed would cut funding for the Department of Defense by $150 million at a time when we are trying our best to increase funding. The amendment would allow the Secretary of Defense to choose which programs under his jurisdiction would be curtailed. None of us wants to curtail readiness, but this blank check to administrative programs would force the Secretary to identify those that he considers of lower priority. I always ask myself: In a Senate of 100 Members, can we ever agree upon what is of more priority? Most respectfully, I inform my colleagues that the Secretary could take funding from several items that this body has supported over DOD's reluctance, and we have done this for many years. For example, we have a fund for the Youth Challenge Program which takes high school dropouts and turns their lives around. It is a most successful program that is under the auspices of the National Guard. It has saved our Nation countless millions of dollars. We have kept these young students out of prison. We have kept them out of crime. I do not think any one of us would want to cut off that program. This amendment could very well force the Secretary to stop programs to clean up the environment. One may ask: In what environmental program is the Defense Department involved? Over the years, we have been closing bases, and all of our military bases, because of the nature of the work, are polluted. We have unexploded ordnance in the target ranges. There is oil pollution all over the place because we have had oil dumps. If the communities want to use these bases, how can they go about it under our laws? They have to be clean before people of the United States can utilize the bases that have been closed by the action of Congress. Do we want to stop that program? Then we speak of our cultural heritage. The Department of Defense now has a Legacy Program which protects cultural heritage. There is a program I am certain the author of this measure wants to see continued, and that is the program which supports Native American tribes. For example, at this moment, we are closing clinics and hospitals, not only here but in Europe. We constantly find that our Native Americans do not have proper hospital facilities, and so we get these old, secondhand beds, old secondhand operating tables, and old secondhand x ray machines to help the first citizens of this land. Is that high priority or low priority? Then we come to the National Guard. This has been a battle from day one. Is the National Guard of low priority or is it of high priority? These are the types of programs the Secretary is likely to curtail or cut out to carry out the intent of this amendment. I argue that we are already underfunded in the Department of Defense. That is why we are hopeful this Senate will approve this measure which will add $5.5 billion to the Department. This amendment is a noble one, but I believe it aims at the wrong target. Others can speak more knowledgeably about the adequacy of funding. I know it is a worthwhile program, but understand, it is already fully funded for this fiscal year. I have had people ask me: Why is the Department of Defense spending money for defense when we do not use an aircraft, when we do not use the carriers, when we do not use the submarines? Thank God, Madam President, we do not use the submarines. Thank God we do not have to use the bombers. Thank God we do not have to use the carriers because if we were using them, we would be at war. But since we are prepared, potential adversaries think twice before they decide to get into action with us. Much as I admire the purpose, much as I admire the noble goal, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. I yield back any time remaining.

Mr. INOUYE. How much time do we have?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on July 12, 2001, at 10 a.m. in room 485 Russell Senate Building to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on the goals and priorities of the member tribes of the Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council for the 107th session of the Congress. Those wishing additional information may contact Committee staff at 202/224-2251.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 830

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Corzine, to introduce the Stop Tuberculosis Now Act of 2001, a bill that responds to the dire need of the United States and the rest of the world to stop the terrible infection that is threatening citizens in every country of the world. Tuberculosis is the biggest killer of young women and people with AIDS in the world today, and two million people will die of tuberculosis this year alone. Although tuberculosis is preventable and treatable, last year there were more than 17,000 new cases of tuberculosis in the U.S. Among these cases were new strains of tuberculosis that are resistant to many traditional antibiotics that were very successful in the past. Due to its infectious and resistant nature, tuberculosis cannot be stopped at national borders, and virtually every international airport in the U.S. therefore is a port of entry for carriers of tuberculosis. Thus, it will be impossible to control tuberculosis in the U.S. until we control it worldwide. Because of this dire situation, we are introducing the ``Stop Tuberculosis Now Act,'' which calls for a U.S. investment in international tuberculosis control of $200 million in 2002, with a focus on expanding the proven, low cost direct observation therapy system, DOTS, tuberculosis treatment for countries with high rates of tuberculosis infection. DOTS tuberculosis treatment involves a health worker observing and ensuring tuberculosis patients take their prescribed medication that is needed to stop a tuberculosis infection successfully. The current projection for implementing an international tuberculosis treatment program is $1 billion. The U.S. share of this program would be $200 million. This is a small price to pay in order to stop this terrible infectious disease which brings such misery and death, to the U.S. and the rest of the world. This bill would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and declare that a major objective of the U.S. foreign assistance program is to control tuberculosis. Congress would designate the World Health Organization and other health organizations to develop and implement a comprehensive tuberculosis control program, including expanding the use of the strategy of DOTS tuberculosis treatment method and strategies to address multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. The particular focus of this program would be in countries with the highest rates of tuberculosis infection. The program would set as goals the cure of at least 95 percent of tuberculosis cases detected and the reduction of tuberculosis related deaths by 50 percent, by December 31, 2010. I ask unanimous consent that the test the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Corzine, to introduce the Stop Tuberculosis Now Act of 2001, a bill that responds to the dire need of the United States and the rest of the world to stop the terrible infection that is threatening citizens in every country of the world. Tuberculosis is the biggest killer of young women and people with AIDS in the world today, and two million people will die of tuberculosis this year alone. Although tuberculosis is preventable and treatable, last year there were more than 17,000 new cases of tuberculosis in the U.S. Among these cases were new strains of tuberculosis that are resistant to many traditional antibiotics that were very successful in the past. Due to its infectious and resistant nature, tuberculosis cannot be stopped at national borders, and virtually every international airport in the U.S. therefore is a port of entry for carriers of tuberculosis. Thus, it will be impossible to control tuberculosis in the U.S. until we control it worldwide. Because of this dire situation, we are introducing the ``Stop Tuberculosis Now Act,'' which calls for a U.S. investment in international tuberculosis control of $200 million in 2002, with a focus on expanding the proven, low cost direct observation therapy system, DOTS, tuberculosis treatment for countries with high rates of tuberculosis infection. DOTS tuberculosis treatment involves a health worker observing and ensuring tuberculosis patients take their prescribed medication that is needed to stop a tuberculosis infection successfully. The current projection for implementing an international tuberculosis treatment program is $1 billion. The U.S. share of this program would be $200 million. This is a small price to pay in order to stop this terrible infectious disease which brings such misery and death, to the U.S. and the rest of the world. This bill would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and declare that a major objective of the U.S. foreign assistance program is to control tuberculosis. Congress would designate the World Health Organization and other health organizations to develop and implement a comprehensive tuberculosis control program, including expanding the use of the strategy of DOTS tuberculosis treatment method and strategies to address multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. The particular focus of this program would be in countries with the highest rates of tuberculosis infection. The program would set as goals the cure of at least 95 percent of tuberculosis cases detected and the reduction of tuberculosis related deaths by 50 percent, by December 31, 2010. I ask unanimous consent that the test the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on June 28, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. in room 485 Russell Senate Building to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on the goals and priorities of the Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council for the 107th session of the Congress. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on June 26, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in room 485 Russell Senate Building to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on the goals and priorities of the Great Plains Tribes for the 107th session of the Congress. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Filipino Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2001. This bill provides our country the opportunity to right a wrong committed decades ago, by providing Philippine-born veterans of World War II who served in the United States Armed Forces their hard-earned, due compensation. Our Nation is now at peace, and our prosperity has reached levels never before seen by any Nation in history. We are on the top of the world in terms of economic power and military might, and much of this unprecedented success is due to the tremendous sacrifices made by our fighting forces during World War II. We trampled tyranny in Europe and in the Pacific, and when we raised our flag proudly over hostile lands, we were greeted enthusiastically by the millions we liberated from the grasp of terrible aggression. I take this opportunity today to remind everyone of an injustice that persists as a blemish on one of history's greatest success stories. The Philippines became a United States possession in 1898, when it was ceded from Spain following the Spanish-American War. In 1934, the Congress enacted the Philippine Independence Act, Public Law 73-127, which provided a 10-year time frame for the independence of the Philippines. Between 1934 and final independence in 1946, the United States retained certain powers over the Philippines, including the right to call all military forces organized by the newly-formed Commonwealth government into the service of the United States Armed Forces. On July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order calling members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army into the service of the United States Armed Forces of the Far East. Under this order, Filipinos were entitled to full veterans' benefits. More than 100,000 Filipinos volunteered for the Philippine Commonwealth Army and fought alongside the United States Armed Forces. The United States Armed Forces of the Far East fought to reclaim control of the entire Western Pacific. Filipinos, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, fought in the front lines of the Battle of Corregidor and at Bataan. They served in Okinawa, on occupied mainland Japan, and in Guam. They were part of what became known as the Bataan Death March, and were held and tortured as prisoners of war. Through these hardships, the men of the Philippine Commonwealth Army remained loyal to the United States during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, and the valiant guerilla war they waged against the Japanese helped to delay the Japanese advance across the Pacific. Despite all of their sacrifices, on February 18, 1946, Congress betrayed these veterans by enacting the Rescission Act of 1946 and declaring the service performed by the Philippine Commonwealth Army veterans as not ``active service,'' thus denying many benefits to which these veterans were entitled. Then, shortly after Japan's surrender, Congress enacted the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 for the purpose of sending American troops to occupy enemy lands, and to oversee military installations at various overseas locations. A provision included in the Recruitment Act called for the enlistment of Philippine citizens to constitute a new body of Philippine Scouts. The New Scouts were authorized to receive pay and allowances for services performed throughout the Western Pacific. Although hostilities had ceased, wartime service of the New Philippine Scouts continued as a matter of law until the end of 1946. On May 27, 1946, the Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act, which included a provision to limit veterans' benefits to Filipinos. This provision duplicated the language that had eliminated veterans' benefits under the First Rescission Act, and placed similar restrictions on veterans of the New Philippine Scouts. Thus, the Filipino veterans that fought in the service of the United States during World War II have been precluded from receiving most veterans' benefits that had been available to them before 1946, and that are available to all other veterans of our armed forces regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status. The Congress tried to rectify the wrong committed against the Filipino veterans of World War II by amending the Nationality Act of 1940 to grant the veterans the privilege of becoming United States citizens for having served in the United States Armed Forces of the Far East. The law expired at the end of 1946, but not before the United States had withdrawn its sole naturalization examiner from the Philippines for a nine-month period. This effectively denied Filipino veterans the opportunity to become citizens during this nine-month window. Forty- five years later, under the Immigration Act of 1990, certain Filipino veterans who served during World War II became eligible for United States citizenship. Between November, 1990, and February, 1995, approximately 24,000 veterans took advantage of this opportunity and became United States citizens. For many years, Filipino veterans of World War II, who are now in their twilight years, have sought to correct the injustice caused by the Rescission Acts by seeking equal treatment of their valiant military service in our Armed Forces. They stood up to the same aggression that American-born soldiers did, and many Filipinos sacrificed their lives in the war for democracy and liberty. Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored, so let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much. Many of the Filipinos who have fought so hard for us have been honored with American citizenship, but let us now work to repay all of these brave men for their sacrifices by providing them the full veterans' benefits they have earned.