GUAM Delegate Madeleine Bordallo’s push for Guam war reparations has once again been blocked before it could even make it on the House floor.
Last Friday, Bordallo’s proposed amendment in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, labeled number 45, was removed in its entirety. Her amendment included H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, as well as a provision that would offset the cost of war claims using additional Section 30 funds received in excess of the Fiscal Year 2012 levels.
The latter provision was a recent inclusion after the U.S. Department of Treasury amended its policy to allow Section 30 reimbursements, or federal taxes, out of service members’ pay to be directly paid to the Treasury of Guam regardless of the length of stay on-island.
The recent agreement between the Department of Defense and the Treasury as part of the military realignment is expected to increase the amount of Section 30 funds, Bordallo said.
Disappointed
“I am disappointed the Republican-led Rules Committee has once again prevented H.R. 44 from a vote on the House floor as an amendment to the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013,” said the incumbent Democrat delegate.
Bordallo added she had been working with the House Natural Resources Committee to hold a hearing on her war reparations bill, which occurred in July. In fact, at the request of the Resources Committee, she identified an offset that would not require additional funding.
However, the five-term Guam Delegate said her bill has yet to move out of committee for further consideration on the House floor.
“It is time for this Congress to afford the people of Guam the right to have an up or down vote on this important legislation,” Bordallo said.
According to Bordallo, Republican leadership, during a closed-door meeting of the Rules Committee, expressed concern that the war reparations language had not gone through regular order in the House Committee on Natural Resources, where the bill was referred to shortly after introduction in the 112th Congress. This was the same concern some lawmakers had last year during deliberations on the 2012 NDAA, she said.
“Despite this setback, I would like to thank my colleagues, Resources Ranking Member Edward Markey and Congressman McGovern, for their efforts in working to include H.R. 44 in the NDAA. I appreciate their continued support, and I will seek every opportunity to bring war claims to the floor, either as stand-alone legislation or as an amendment to another bill,” Bordallo said.
Dizon statement
Meanwhile, congressional candidate Karlo Dizon issued a statement calling into question the future of Bordallo’s administration.
“The war reparations claim has been the centerpiece of the Congresswoman’s agenda for the last decade, but her approach has failed to deliver. This issue goes beyond money – it is a testament to the perception in Congress of our value,” Dizon said. “Guam deserves better. We need a force for change on the national stage.”
Comments
Quote: Weak and incongruent argument. The lives the U.S. lost were of volunteer soldiers who were trained for war. The civilian losses of the people of Guam were not of their choice.
Quote: You have spent nothing. But if you want a nullifying retort; as a tax payer, I think I have not spent enough.
Quote: Unbelievable.
cont . . .
I was lead to believe some very brave Chamorro’s fought and help the US during the war to take back Guam. The US did not ask to be in this war either. The US knew Guam was not defendable against the large force coming. So if we had stayed and lost more people that would somehow have changed something? We lost enough. If this was your home during the war for that very reason you were part of this war. Your right we bombed the crap out of the Island. And the spent billions of dollars on it since. Guam knew when they signed the Guam Organic Act of 1950 they lost the right to sue Japan. I don’t care if your grateful to the US for the lives we lost liberating this island. I just think as a tax payer I have spent enough.
That, I believe, is the true question to the issue: Who are the ultimate receivers of reparation monies?
Not: Are reparations in order?
Tell that to the living survivors of your "ancient" war. 1940s versus 1860s. Really?
Edit: In addition, all those examples you cited are of enemy combatants. The people of Guam were innocent participants between two enemies, The U.S. and Japan. The analogy is muddied because of that.
There is more to the story than what has been portrayed and should be taken into heavy consideration in future comments.
The U.S. Navy abandoned Guam days before the attack because of full knowledge that the Japanese were on their way. They left the island exposed for invasion.
Then on the way back, the U.S. demolished the island with their bombs (understandably ) to avoid taking the island the same way they did Saipan in order to avoid foot soldier losses; indiscriminate mass bombings mind you.
When the Japanese surrendered, the U.S. specifically absolved Japan from paying any kinds of reparations thus leaving it to their (U.S.) responsibility.
The rebuilding of Guam is separate from reparations to individuals because the U.S. was responsible for the massive destruction. Reparations is the U.S. responsibility since they gave Japan absolution (but, I believe, should have retained that responsibility) .
Nobody on Guam asked to be involved in a war that they were never a party to. Two powers at the time used this island to their benefit without regard to the citizens of Guam.
"Don't demand that I be grateful for the wheelchair you have provided when it was you who chopped off my legs."
At present, most people in the mainland see WWII as an ancient, historic war, just like the US Civil War that ran 1861 to 1865.
During the US Civil war, Union troops burned Atlanta, Georga to the ground three times. Most other southern cities got burned to the ground at least twice.
The problem is that if the US has to compensate Guam in the hundreds of millions for blowing up the real estate during WWII, then the US has to compensate Atlanta, Georgia in the trillions for burnng it to the gound three times during the US Civil War. The rest of the south would get compenation in the tens of trillions.
Then there's the war of 1812, Washington, DC got burned to the ground by the British. Then there's the revolutionary war in 1776, the British burned New York City to the gound.
Where is all that compensation money going to come from?
"blocked" is also misleading. Congress offered "compensation" to those who endured the oppressive occupation of enemy forces during WW II and the delegate declined the offer, insisting that money be given to people who were not there and did not suffer occupation. This was sheer greed that disrepects those who suffered occupation and those who suffered liberating the island. The blame lies entirely on island and will surely affect Guam's credibility when it comes to asking for future handouts of any type.
RSS feed for comments to this post