[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON H.R. 100, H.R. 2370, AND S. 210
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 100
GUAM COMMONWEALTH ACT, TO ESTABLISH THE COMMONWEALTH OF GUAM, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
H.R. 2370
GUAM JUDICIAL EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 1997, TO AMEND THE ORGANIC ACT OF GUAM
FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARIFYING THE LOCAL JUDICIAL STRUCTURE AND THE
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
S. 210
TO AMEND THE ORGANIC ACT OF GUAM, THE REVISED ORGANIC ACT OF THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS, AND THE COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION ACT, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
----------
OCTOBER 29, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC.
----------
Serial No. 105-78
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-318 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
T.E. Manase Mansur, Republican Professional Staff
Marie J. Howard-Fabrizio, Democratic Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held October 29, 1997.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Abercrombie, Hon. Neil, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii, prepared statement of..................... 10
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., a Senator in Congress from the State
of Hawaii.................................................. 7
Becerra, Hon. Xavier, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Christian-Green, Hon. Donna M., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virgin Islands, prepared statement of.... 37
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of American Samoa, prepared statement of......... 36
Hill, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Montana, prepared statement of.......................... 100
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., a Senator in Congress from the State
of Hawaii, prepared statement of........................... 39
Kennedy, Hon. Patrick J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Rhode Island, prepared statement of........... 39
Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii............................................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement of...................... 37
Smith, Hon. Robert F. (Bob), a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oregon, prepared statement of............ 40
Underwood, Robert A., a Representative in Congress from the
Territory of Guam.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska, prepared statement of........................... 20
Letter to President Clinton.............................. 20
President Clinton's answering letter..................... 23
Statement of Witnesses:
Ada, Hon. Joseph F., former Governor of Guam................. 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 169
Ada, Thomas C., Senator, and Guerrero, Lou Leon, Senator,
24th Guam legislature, prepared statement of............... 257
Apuron, Anthony S., Archbishop, Archdiocese of Agana......... 89
Prepared statement of.................................... 331
Arriola, Joaquin C. Jr., President, Guam Bar Association,
prepared statement of...................................... 238
Barrett-Anderson, Hon. Elizabeth, a Senator from Guam,
prepared statement of...................................... 347
Blaz, Hon. Anthony, Vice Speaker, Guam Legislature........... 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 187
Blaz, Hon. Ben, former Delegate, U.S. House of
Representatives............................................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Calvo, Hon. Paul M., former Governor of Guam................. 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 138
College of the Marshall Islands and Palau Community College,
prepared statement of...................................... 309
Cristobal, Hope A., Organization of People for Indigenous
Rights..................................................... 86
Doss, Darrell O., prepared statement of...................... 99
Draft Guam Commonwealth Act, Sections A through D............ 407
Filipino-American President's Club of Guam, prepared
statement of............................................... 304
Forbes, Hon. Mark, Senate Majority Leader and Chairman,
Senate Committee on Federal Affairs, Guam Legislature...... 65
Prepared statement of.................................... 192
Garamendi, Hon. John R., Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
the Interior............................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 104
Guam Chamber of Commerce, prepared statement of.............. 288
Guam Commission on Self-Determination, prepared statement of. 370
Guerrero, Hon. Carlotta Leon, Senator, Guam Legislature,
prepared statement of...................................... 258
Prepared statement of.................................... 396
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 98
Guevara, Jose, Vice President, Filipino Community of Guam.... 90
Gutierrez, Hon. Carl T.C., Governor of Guam.................. 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 147
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 381
Howard, Chris Perez, Chairman, Organization of People for
Indigenous Rights.......................................... 87
Prepared statement of.................................... 319
Lamorena, Hon. Alberto C., III, Presiding Judge, Superior
Court of Guam.............................................. 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 221
Lujan, Pilar C., prepared statement of....................... 233
McDonald, Hon. Paul M., Mayor, President, Mayor's Council of
Guam, prepared statement of................................ 176
Moses, Susan J., President, College of Micronesia-FSM,
prepared statement of...................................... 84
Nicolas, Frank C. San, Tamuning, Guam, prepared statement of. 344
Organization of People for Indigenous Rights, prepared
statement of............................................... 313
Pangelinan, Hon. Ben, Senate Minority Leader, Guam
Legislature................................................ 67
Prepared statement of.................................... 199
Quinata, Debtralynne K., Nasion Chamoru...................... 91
Prepared statement of.................................... 333
Quinene, Frederick R., GMF, Guam, prepared statement of...... 299
Rivera, Ron, prepared statement of........................... 98
Siguenza, Hon. Peter, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Guam... 69
Prepared statement of.................................... 100
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 211
Staymen, Allen, Director, Office of Insular Affairs, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 134
Troutman, Charles H., Attorney General of Guam (Acting),
prepared statement of...................................... 240
Tydingco-Gatewood, Hon. Frances M., Judge, Superior Court of
Guam, prepared statement of................................ 236
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 526
Unpingco, Hon. Antonio R., Speaker, Twenty-Fourth Guam
Legislature, prepared statement of......................... 389
Additional material submitted:
Title 48, United States Code Annotated....................... 102
HEARING ON: H.R. 100, GUAM COMMONWEALTH ACT, TO ESTABLISH THE
COMMONWEALTH OF GUAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
H.R. 2370, GUAM JUDICIAL EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 1997, TO AMEND THE ORGANIC
ACT OF GUAM FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARIFYING THE LOCAL JUDICIAL STRUCTURE
AND THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
S. 210, TO AMEND THE ORGANIC ACT OF GUAM, THE REVISED ORGANIC ACT OF
THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND THE COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION ACT, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rick Hill
presiding.
Mr. Hill. [presiding] The Committee on Resources will come
to order.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on
legislation affecting the insular areas, including measures
providing for increased self-government for Guam. The pending
legislation being considered today includes H.R. 100, the Guam
Commonwealth Act, H.R. 2370, the Guam Judicial Empowerment Act,
and S. 210, the Omnibus Territories Act.
Under Rule 4(g) of the Committee rules, any oral opening
statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the
Ranking Minority Member. This will allow us to hear from our
witnesses sooner and help members keep to their schedules.
Therefore, if other members have statements, they can be
included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.
It is a pleasure today to welcome the distinguished
witnesses for today's hearings on certain measures affecting
some of our United States territories and the separate,
sovereign freely associated States. These issues affecting U.S.
Nationals and citizens in the territories, as well as residents
of the Pacific freely associated re-
publics, are part of the unique and important jurisdiction of
the Committee on Resources for the insular areas. That is why
Chairman Young scheduled these hearings on matters which could
provide for increased local self-governance for the people of
the insular areas.
Let me thank the witnesses from the distant Pacific islands
for agreeing to appear before the committee. You've traveled
thousands of miles to testify, and your efforts are
appreciated. You are providing a substantial set of information
for the committee record. Your statements have been provided
for review by all of the committee members and will be
available for all of those in the Congress, as well, who are
not members of the committee or are not here today.
One of the primary purposes of this hearing is to assist
the insular areas, including Guam, in advancing toward greater
local self-government. The statements by the witnesses today
will help Congress in evaluating the merits of the proposals
contained in S. 210, the omnibus territories act, H.R. 2370,
the Guam Judicial Act, and H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth Act.
I will now recognize the ranking member for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to welcome
everyone to the committee, and I appreciate, certainly, the
appearance of not only a very large delegation from Guam, but
also three members of the body.
Mr. Chairman, today is a momentous day for the people of
Guam after a long and sometimes erratic journey. The proposal
of the people of Guam for a new Commonwealth agreement has come
back to the committee where its disposition will ultimately be
determined.
I will leave it up to the many fine speakers today, most
especially the elected leadership of Guam, to explain the
details of the proposal and the trials and tribulations the
proposal has endured since its ratification by the people of
Guam in 1987.
The proposal in its current numbering in the 105th Congress
is H.R. 100, in commemoration of the fact that next year marks
the centennial of the raising of the American flag over Guam.
When that flag was raised in 1898, it was raised over a few
Spanish nationals and the indigenous people of Guam. Since that
time, the people of Guam have endured U.S. military rule, a
cruel Japanese occupation, the taking of large tracts of land,
and the violation of many of the democratic principles we hold
dear.
But the people of Guam have also prospered in spite of the
obstacles, they have learned the lessons of American democracy
even if they could not fully implement them, and have enjoyed
much political progress. The people of Guam are ready to go to
the next stage in their political development. There is no more
appropriate place in Washington where these issues and those
challenges should be fully explored than in this committee
room. There is no other location in Washington which displays
the flags of the insular areas as a critical part of the room.
The Resources Committee alone has the responsibility to
deal with insular issues. The people of Guam come to this
committee as partners in the democratic experiment we call
America. They appeal to you as arbiters of their fate. The
message will be that the people of Guam want Commonwealth, and
that they are frustrated by the lack of clarity in the process.
Some messages will be strong, some will be strident, and some
won't even be in support of H.R. 100, but all messages are
being delivered to the right location--the Resources Committee
of the House.
Many of us are familiar with various quotations which are
on the walls and ceilings of the Capitol Building. My favorite
is from William Henry Harrison, who said in his Presidential
inaugural address on March 4, 1841 that, quote, ``The only
legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from
the governed.''--unquote. We all know that this is not the case
with the territories, and maybe President Harrison knew
something of this experience. As the elected representative of
the Northwest Territory, he was the first territorial delegate
to be elected President. So it can happen for even territorial
delegates, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your leadership in holding
this hearing this morning, and I thank the members of the
committee for their attention. And on behalf of the people of
Guam, [speaking in Chamorro] ``Dangkolo na si Yu'os ma'ase.''
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert Underwood, a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of Guam, on H.R. 100
Mr. Chairman, today is a momentous day for the people of
Guam. After a long and sometimes erratic journey, the proposal
of the people of Guam for a new, Commonwealth agreement with
the United States has come back to the Committee where its
disposition will be ultimately determined.
I will leave it up to the many speakers today, most
especially the elected leadership of Guam, to explain the
details of this proposal and the trials and tribulations the
proposal has endured since its ratification by the people of
Guam in 1987.
The proposal in its current numbering in the 105th Congress
is H.R. 100--in commemoration of the fact that next year marks
the Centennial of the raising of the American flag over Guam.
When that flag was raised in 1898, it was raised over a few
Spanish nationals and the indigenous people of Guam, the
Chamorros.
Since that time, the people of Guam have endured U.S.
military rule, a cruel Japanese occupation, the taking of large
tracts of land under military courts and the violation of many
of the democratic principles we hold dear. But the people of
Guam have also prospered despite obstacles, learned the lessons
of American democracy even as they could not fully implement
them and enjoyed much political progress. In 1898, not too many
could have imagined that the people of Guam would have the
vibrant democracy in gubernatorial and legislative elections
that are now a regular feature of life.
The people of Guam are ready to go to the next stage in
their political development. Cognizant of the fact that the
ultimate decision for full integration as a state or separate
sovereignty may be a little distant, the people of Guam have
crafted an innovative approach to the implementation of
democracy in a small territory on the other side of the
international dateline. The proposal admittedly raises many
Constitutional issues and challenges us to think counter
intuitively about the relationship between the territories and
the Federal Government.
But there is no more appropriate place in Washington where
these issues and these challenges should be fully explored than
this Committee room. There is no other location on Capitol Hill
which displays the flags of the insular areas as a central part
of the room. The Resources Committee alone has a responsibility
to deal with insular issues. The people of Guam come to this
Committee as partners in the democratic experiment we call
America. They appeal to you as the arbiters of their fate. The
message will be that the people of Guam want Commonwealth, but
that they are frustrated by the lack of clarity in the process.
Some messages will be strong, some will be strident and some
won't even be supportive of H.R. 100, but all messages are
being delivered to the right location--the Resources Committee
of the House.
Many of us are familiar with various quotations which are
on the walls and the ceilings of the Capitol Building. My
favorite was from William Henry Harrison, who said in his
Presidential inaugural address on March 4, 1841, that ``the
only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power
from the governed.'' We all know that this is not the case with
the territories. Maybe President Harrison knew something of
this experience. As the elected representative of the Northwest
Territory, he was the first territorial delegate to be elected
President.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your leadership in holding
this hearing this morning. I thank the other members of the
Committee for their attention and on behalf of the people of
Guam--Dangkulo na si Yu'os ma'ase.
------
Statement of Hon. Robert Underwood, a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of Guam, on H.R. 2370
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that H.R 2370 is being heard by
the full Committee this morning. H.R 2370, the Guam Judicial
Empowerment Act will do much to correct current defects in the
Organic Act of Guam relative to the Judicial Branch of the
Government of Guam. As you know, the Organic Act of Guam
afforded Guam a certain degree of local self-government. Over
the years, the Act was amended to provide the people of Guam
with an elected Governor, has improved other systems of local
self-government, and has made accommodations for an elected
Board of Education.
My legislation is consistent with this development. It
seeks to affirm that the Supreme Court of Guam is the head of a
unified judiciary. It confirms that the Supreme Court has
authority over the administration of the Court System,
including the subordinate courts of Guam. But most of all, it
ensures that the judiciary is separate and co-equal to the
other branches of our government. It affords the Judiciary the
same Organic Act status given the Legislative and executive
branches. It is necessary to pass this bill, to remove the
possibility of political influence over the judiciary.
Currently, the local law which created the Supreme Court can be
repealed by the local legislative process. It is unconscionable
that there remains an opportunity to influence Court decisions
and so it is imperative that we invest integrity in the Guam
judiciary.
The legislation brings the Guam Courts to a level that is
standard with the other states and territories. It establishes
a framework that is consistent with the powers of the other
branches of Guam's government and does much to empower our
people.
There is wide public support for this legislation. The Guam
Bar Association, which is a non-profit organization that
represents all attorneys licensed in Guam, has endorsed this
section and has submitted an official statement. The
legislation is also endorsed by Charles Trouhnan, the Guam
Compiler of Laws and the Acting Attorney General; the Honorable
Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood of the Superior Court of Guam;
and the Honorable Pilar C. Lujan, former Guam Senator and
sponsor of the law that established the Supreme Court of Guam.
The second part of my bill seeks to empower the Guam
Legislature to provide the people of Guam with an elected
Attorney General. Mr. Chairman, several months ago, my office
conducted a questionnaire on this issue. Although the
questionnaire is only a measure of public opinion on this
matter, my office received nearly four thousand responses. Of
those responses, 32 percent were in favor of language that
would mandate an Elected Attorney General, 37 percent were in
favor of language that would authorize the Guam Legislature to
create an Elected Attorney General, and 24 percent were in
favor of continuing the current system, an appointed Attorney
General.
I firmly believe that the decision to provide the island
with an Elected Attorney General should be made in Agana rather
than in Washington. I do not support mandating an Elected
Attorney General and I believe that this language will directly
empower the people of Guam.
I am pleased that the Administration is in support of this
legislation. I hope that the Committee will take expedient
action on this critical measure. I look forward to working with
you to advance the legislation and I thank my dear colleagues,
Congressmen George Miller and Neil Abercrombie for agreeing to
be original co-sponsors of the legislation. I encourage my
other colleagues to do the same.
------
Statement of Hon. Robert Underwood, a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of Guam, on S. 210
Mr. Chairman, Section 4 of S. 210 addresses the issue of
the return of excess lands to Guam. I introduced similar
legislation in the 104th Congress and again in the current
Congress. Senator Murkowski, the Chairman of the Senate
oversight committee for the territories, also included a Guam
land return provision in the Omnibus Territories legislation
which nearly passed the Senate last year. Both my bill and
Senator Murkowski's bill are significant in that, for the first
time ever, Congress will extend authority to the Government of
Guam to have the right of first refusal of any real property
declared excess by the Federal Government.
The Guam land return provision of S. 210 is important also
in that it establishes a reasonable process for dealing with
excess lands now and in the future. The lands taken were used
to promote national security interests during and after World
War II. Now that the cold war is over and the military has been
downsizing in the past several years, there has been an
assumption in Guam that the lands declared excess to military
needs would be returned to Guam.
The passage of this provision of S. 210 is necessary in
order to change current law governing the disposal of excess
lands. Current law allows other Federal agencies to take any
available excess lands in the Federal Government's inventory.
This is nothing more than a repeat of the post World War II
takings engaged in by the U.S. military. S. 210 would avoid
this continuing injustice by putting Guam ahead of any Federal
agency for acquiring these excess lands.
In previous hearings on land issues and in numerous
meetings which I have had with military officials in Guam and
in Washington, the military clearly stated that they are not in
the business of being landlords once they declare lands excess
to their defense needs. Once the declaration of excess is made,
the title should transfer directly to Guam not to a Federal
agency.
Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize two major concerns I have
with the land provision in the Senate-passed version of S. 210.
Firstly, I strongly oppose the condition of transfer which
requires that Guam pay fair market value for excess lands for
other than public purposes. Neither my bill, nor the original
version of S. 210, impose the payment of fair market value.
Given the historical takings of land in Guam and the fact that
real property is scarce in a small island such as ours, the
people of Guam oppose the payment of fair market value.
Requiring Guam to pay for the lands today ignores the
historical land takings. At the time of the land takings, the
island of Guam was under a military justice system. The
civilian community was at a marked disadvantage and many of the
land transactions were suspect. To continue to promote fair
market value reflects a myopic view of the land takings on Guam
and does not take into account the cultural values associated
with the ownership of land.
When the Committee takes up this legislation, I will work
to delete or amend the fair market provision. If this provision
is not changed in committee or on the House floor, I will
oppose the land return provisions of S. 210.
Secondly, I urge the Committee to clarify the definition of
public benefit use. The legislative history for the return of
excess lands to Guam should reflect that once title transfers
to the Government of Guam, Guam makes the decision as to the
appropriate public benefit use of the land. Such a decision may
permit the consideration of local customs and local needs.
Currently, S. 210 points to the statutory definition of public
purpose found in Section 203 of the Federal Property Act and to
other public benefit uses provided under the Guam Excess Lands
Act (Public Law 103-339). What is not clear in the proposed
legislation is what types of actions the Government of Guam can
undertake to provide the resettlement of the local people who
were displaced by the earlier Federal takings of land. We need
to clarify whether the Chamorro Land Trust Commission can be
the recipient of the returned excess lands and whether the
commission can devise a resettlement program for original
landowners which can adequately address the inequities of the
original land takings.
The decision on what constitutes public benefit uses of the
returned lands is properly the responsibility of the Government
of Guam. Guam has local needs based upon local customs and
values. This will provide Guam with the flexibility to devise a
number of acceptable uses which will benefit the people of
Guam. This also will put the original landowners' concerns
among the mix of how Guam implements its land policies and its
land use plan.
Mr. Chairman, the people of Guam must strongly object to
the exemptions called for in Section 4, subsection (d)(l). This
section deals with lands currently leased to the Coast Guard
from the U.S. Navy, as well as lands they have identified for
expansion. Over the past four years our people have endured the
pain of a downsizing military complex. It never occurred to
many in Guam that the military would ever reduce its presence
in the area. However, the Base Alignment and Reuse Committee
(BRAC) ruling required the Navy to re-align its activities to
become more efficient. Try as we could to save the only U.S.
Naval shipyard in the western Pacific, SRF Guam was slated for
closure.
Today, the fruits of a cooperative effort between Guam's
Local Reuse Authority (LRA) and the Navy has resulted in the
shipyard's conversion to a privately run facility. Over the
course of several months, LRA and Naval officials worked in
close cooperation to develop a reuse plan which would meet the
needs of both entities. Both parties were quite aware of the
regulations governing each step in the process as outlined in
BRAC law. BRAC law was created by the Congress as a means by
which needs assessment reviews of existing military bases could
be conducted without political influence. Both Navy and the LRA
continue to work within this framework.
Part of the process in planning for the reuse of BRAC
properties required the Navy to provide for Federal Screening
which notifies other Federal entities of the Navy's intention
to declare lands excess. This was in fact completed with no
responses. It was not until well after the expiration of the
screening process that the Coast Guard indicated its wish to
acquire additional properties. With this knowledge, the LRA
contacted the Coast Guard in writing with a proposal to enter
into a long-term lease agreement at no cost for all the
properties that the Coast Guard currently occupies as well as
any additional properties they need, but apparently that has
not satisfied them. Ownership of the property seems to be the
only rationale for the Coast Guard's pursuit of a change in law
calling for the exemption from the Federal screening process.
It is our view that the provision be denied. The issue is
not whether the Coast Guard is deserving of the property. The
issue boils down to whether they should be exempted from the
provisions of law with which every community facing a base
closure must comply. From Guam's perspective, the Navy made
great efforts to become more efficient. Victor Wharf was
declared excess and Federal screening took place with no
expression of interest from any quarter. The Coast Guard has
decided, after the fact, to acquire land and they come before
Congress now with special interest legislation. This isn't
right. It also opens Congress' door to similar legislation by
other Federal agencies who have also missed the boat. The
Government of Guam fully intends to cooperate with the Coast
Guard; there is written documentation that bears this out. But
Mr. Chairman, the Government of Guam feels that the long term
needs of the Coast Guard would be better served if Guam retains
ownership of the properties in question and grants the Coast
Guard a long-term, no-cost lease.
Mr. Chairman, on S. 210's provision regarding compact-
impact reporting, there is general agreement that the current
procedure governing the preparation and submission of the
report of adverse impact as a result of the Compacts of Free
Associations has been extremely problematic for all the insular
territories. This amendment would now shift the responsibility
for the preparation of the report of adverse impact, from the
Administration to the Governor's of any Territory; Commonwealth
and the State of Hawaii. The proposal identifies the Department
of Interior as the agency responsible for filing the report
with Congress to include comments from the administration. The
Department of Interior would be responsible for funding, either
directly or through their technical assistance mechanism, a
census of Micronesians no greater than five (5) years from each
decennial United States census or every fifteen (15) years, at
a cost of not more than $300,000 in any year.
Mr. Chairman, the people register their objection to the
proposal as currently written. Shifting the burden for the
preparation of the report from the Department of Interior would
be acceptable if it included the provision that would mandate
that the report be filed with the appropriate authorizing and
appropriating committee in Congress with a recommended level of
funding. This amendment fails to identify a mechanism where
impacted jurisdictions would petition for the financial
reimbursement of any adverse impact. The mere filing of the
report without identifying the appropriate committee in
Congress to accept and dispose of the report findings leaves
much to assumption. Furthermore, given the long interval
between census taking (30 years); limiting funding for the
census to no more than $300,000 may be too restrictive in that
it is hard to project economic forces that may adversely affect
the Department of Interior's ability to perform the census.
Finally Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce my intention
to seek a transfer of title of property currently held jointly
by the U.S. Department of Education and the Guam Community
College. I will pursue this in the form of an amendment to S.
210. The property in question was deemed excessed by the
Department of Defense years ago. Title was granted to both the
U.S. Department of Education and the Guam Community College for
a new campus. Although Guam Community Col-
lege continues to plan construction for this new campus, it
currently does not have the financial resources to begin
immediate construction. As a result, the U.S. Department of
Education has given the Guam Community College several options.
The U.S. Department of Education has suggested that Guam
Community College give up joint title of the property or be
assessed rental fees. It is important that the property is
safeguarded for the future use of the Guam Community College
and that may be accomplished by a clear transfer of title.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your consideration and your
willingness to engage Guam in these matters. I appreciate your
disposition concerning Federal lands and hope that the
legislation will be properly amended.
Mr. Hill. I thank the gentleman. I will now introduce our
first panel of witnesses: Senator Daniel Akaka, Congresswoman
Patsy Mink, former Delegate Ben Blaz, and when he arrives,
Congressman Xavier Becerra.
I'd like to remind the witnesses that under our committee
rules they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but
their entire statements will appear in the record. We'll also
allow the entire panel to testify before questioning the
witnesses.
The Chair will now recognize Senator Akaka to testify.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL K. AKAKA, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Chairman Hill, and I
thank the members of the committee for holding this hearing. I
am delighted to be here this morning to add my voice to this
bill.
I also want to welcome our friends from Guam, The Honorable
Carl Gutierrez, Governor of Guam; also, The Honorable Joseph
Ada, former Governor; The Honorable Paul Calvo, also a former
Governor; The Honorable--of course, good friend up there--
Robert Underwood, the congressional delegate, and The Honorable
Ben Blaz, the former congressional delegate, and many others
from Guam, those for and those who are probably against this
bill. It's great to have all the voices here this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I'm here to urge the members of this
committee to support Guam's efforts to improve its political
relationship with the Federal Government by seeking
Commonwealth status. I come here as a fellow Pacific islander
and someone who cares deeply about the political future of the
island of Guam and the people of Guam.
Much has been said over the last decade about unresolved
provisions in the Guam Commonwealth Act, yet, little has been
said about the contributions and sacrifices that the people of
Guam have made to this country and to the need for the Federal
Government to be honest about Guam's political future. It is
incumbent upon the Congress to deal frankly with the people of
Guam and let them know where things stand and what can and
cannot be done at this point in time.
The people of Guam should not be held hostage by changing
U.S. negotiators under different administrations. While the
Clinton administration has made progress on Guam Commonwealth
negotiations, discussions on political status should be
conducted in a more timely fashion. It is notable that Guam is
represented today by several Republican and Democratic leaders,
including present and past Governors and delegates. Such
bipartisanship on an issue should be commended.
It should also send a signal to the Federal Government that
the people of Guam are united, united in their quest for
Commonwealth status. As this nation commemorates the 100th
anniversary of the U.S. acquisition of Guam next year, it would
be fitting if we provide the people of Guam with a better
process to pursue Commonwealth negotiations. I look forward to
working with you and other Members of Congress to move this
process forward.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add my support
for provisions in S. 210, of which I am a co-sponsor, which
provide for the transfer of Federal excess lands in Guam.
Congressman Underwood and Governor Gutierrez have done a
tremendous job advocating for the transfer of Federal excess
lands to the people of Guam. With one-third of Guam controlled
by the Defense Department, I think that its people have more
than shouldered their burden as part of national security in
the Asia-Pacific region.
But fair is fair. Guam is just a little over 200 square
miles in size. It is 30 miles long and 9 miles wide. It is high
time that the Federal Government provide the Government of Guam
with the flexibility to utilize lands that are no longer needed
for national security purposes. I have visited Guam numerous
times since World War II. Most recently, I visited the island
last year with Senator Murkowski. I'm impressed with the level
of political and economic development which has allowed the
local government to be less dependent on Federal assistance,
while providing greater economic opportunities for its people.
This is what our country is all about.
I encourage members of this committee to visit Guam and
find out for yourselves how Federal policies affect this
Pacific territory. You will find a proud and industrious
people, and will come to better understand the frustration that
they face with the Federal Government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to provide
support to Guam's pursuit of Commonwealth status and for the
Federal excess land provisions in S. 210. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hill. I thank you, Senator Akaka. The Chair now
recognizes Congresswoman Mink.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the subcommittee. I'm pleased to be here today to lend my
support to the consideration of H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth
Act, sponsored by my dear friend and colleague, Congressman
Robert Underwood, who serves as Vice Chair of the Asian-Pacific
Congressional Caucus.
The right of self-determination is among the most sacred
rights in our country, itself founded upon the principles of
freedom and liberty. The Guam Commonwealth Act seeks to
implement a decision by the people of Guam to pursue a greater
self-determination through a new Commonwealth status with the
United States.
Over a decade ago, the people of Guam voted in a referendum
to seek Commonwealth status, and since 1988 Guam's delegates to
the U.S. Congress have introduced legislation to implement this
decision. However, a final resolution to their request has not
been ac-
complished. Many have worked on this effort--Mr. Underwood's
predecessor, both the Bush and Clinton administrations--but
Guam's question of Commonwealth status remains unresolved.
I understand that this is not an easy task. The issues
raised in this effort are not simple, and a final agreement
between the United States and Guam will have lasting effects,
not only for the people of Guam, but for the United States as a
whole and the other territories and entities which continue to
associate themselves with the United States.
This is precisely why this issue should be deliberated in
the Congress. We have the responsibility to consider this
proposal brought forth by the people of Guam, assess its
impact, not only on Guam, but the entire United States, and,
finally, come to a conclusion on Guam's pursuit for a
Commonwealth status.
The final implementation document of Guam's Commonwealth
status must reflect Guam's desire for greater self-
determination and self-governance, balanced with their desire
to remain a part of the United States, including all the rights
and responsibilities that go along with this relationship.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, you have a
challenging task ahead, and I urge you to move forward in this
deliberation on H.R. 100 and work toward the implementation of
the wishes of the people of Guam. Thank you very much.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee,
that I need to leave, as I am serving as a ranking member on
another committee matter before Education and the Workforce,
but thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Mink follows:]
Statement of Hon. Patsy T. Mink, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii
Mr. Chair, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am here today
to lend my support to the consideration of H.R. 100, the Guam
Commonwealth Act, sponsored by my dear friend and colleague,
Congressman Robert Underwood.
The right to self-determination is among the most sacred
rights in our country--itself founded upon the principles of
freedom and liberty. The Guam Commonwealth Act seeks to
implement a decision by the people of Guam to pursue greater
self-determination through a new Commonwealth status with the
United States.
Over a decade ago the people of Guam voted in a referendum
to seek Commonwealth Status and since 1988 Guam's Delegate to
the U.S. Congress has introduced legislation to implement this
decision. However, a final resolution to their request has not
been accomplished. Many have worked on this effort--Mr.
Underwood's predecessor, both the Bush and Clinton
Administrations--but Guam's question of Commonwealth status
remains.
I understand this is not an easy task. The issues raised in
this effort are not simple and a final agreement between the
United States and Guam will have lasting effects not only for
the people of Guam, but for the United States as a whole, and
the other Territories and entities which continue to associate
themselves with the United States.
This is precisely why this issue should be deliberated in
the Congress. We have the responsibility to consider this
proposal brought forth by the people of Guam, assess its impact
not only on Guam but on the entire United States, and finally
come to a conclusion on Guam's pursuit for Commonwealth status.
The final implementation document of Guam's Commonwealth
Status must reflect Guam's desire for greater self-
determination and self-governance, balanced with their desire
to remain a part of the United States, including all of the
rights and responsibilities that go along with this
relationship.
Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, you have a
challenging task ahead. I urge you to move forward on your
deliberations on H.R. 100 and work toward the implementation of
Guam's Commonwealth Status. Thank you.
Mr. Hill. I thank you very much for that testimony,
Congresswoman Mink. I now note that----
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. May I submit a
statement for the record?
Mr. Hill. Without objection.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abercrombie follows:]
Statement of Hon. Neil Abercrombie, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Hawaii
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit my
views on Guam Commonwealth. Let me first commend you for
holding a hearing on H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth Act. H.R.
100 is representative of the political aspirations of many
people on Guam, my Pacific neighbors. It is my hope that the
Committee will seriously engage the political leadership of
Guam in considering the question of Commonwealth status.
It is my understanding that the Guam Commission on Self
Determination has been involved in discussions with both the
Bush and Clinton Administrations on Guam Commonwealth. I look
forward to hearing the position of the Clinton Administration
on Guam Commonwealth, but I am most interested in receiving
testimony from Guam's people. It is my observation that the
Guam Commonwealth question has always been a bipartisan issue.
That aspect is important for us to reflect upon as we review
the Commonwealth proposal today.
Mr. Chairman, the people of Guam have long expressed an
unwavering commitment and loyalty to the United States. As we
approach the centennial anniversary of the Spanish American
War, we must also reflect on the long road that the people of
Guam have tried to secure and advance self-government in their
island home. No better example can be made of the need for
self-government than the other pieces of legislation that the
Committee will be hearing. Both the Guam Judicial Empowerment
Act, which I have co-sponsored, and the Guam Land Return
provision of S.210, deal with issues that are the consequence
of Guam's current territorial status.
Those of us who have the Constitutional authority to
establish policies over the territories must take our
responsibilities seriously. We must engage the political
leadership of Guam and pursue a positive resolution to the
issues they have raised. We must review the current system in
place and acknowledge the need for clarity and change in the
Federal-territorial relationship. The aspirations of the people
of Guam should establish a foundation for the Committee's
consideration and I am pleased that we are here today to
initiate that process.
Mr. Hill. I now note that Congressman Becerra is here, and
I will recognize Congressman Becerra.
STATEMENT OF HON. XAVIER BECERRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Becerra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
the members of the committee. Let me first state that I, too,
am a supporter of H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth Act, and I
want to thank the gentleman from Guam, Congressman Robert
Underwood, for his diligent efforts on behalf of the people of
Guam.
Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to come before you and the
full Committee on Resources to support Guam's quest for
Commonwealth status. As you know, next year marks the
centennial anniversary of Guam becoming an American territory,
and it is a most appropriate opportunity for the Congress to
consider legislation that seeks to improve the political
relationship between the Federal Government and Guam.
It has been 15 years since the people of Guam set out on a
course to obtain Commonwealth status, yet the people of Guam
continue to be statutory U.S. citizens and cannot vote for the
President of the United States. This situation certainly is
unfair and unneces-
sary--and Congress must recognize the importance of this
issue--and I hope that the committee will work closely with the
leadership of Guam to make Commonwealth for Guam a reality. Our
Constitution charges Congress with matters relating to the
territories, and I believe that it is our responsibility to
consider the will of the people of Guam and work toward Guam
Commonwealth status.
Since 1990, the leadership of Guam has been engaged in
serious discussions with both the Bush and Clinton
administrations regarding the island's political status
movement. It is now time for Congress to obtain an appraisal of
this work and to act accordingly. We have to remind ourselves
that every significant change in Federal policy is rooted here
in the House of the people. We must be engaged and willing to
consider taking bold steps that are of mutual benefit to the
United States and the people of Guam.
Having been colonized by Spain more than 200 years ago, it
is clear that the Chamorro people share a close cultural
affinity with many of the people of America--citizens of
America--who are of Latino descent. It is for these reasons
that I take particular interest in the issues affecting Guam.
As a Member of Congress of Latino descent, I will watch this
process closely and will be willing to work and participate
meaningfully in the positive resolution for Guam's quest for
Commonwealth status.
I look to the leadership of this committee, and Congressman
Bob Underwood, to work on this issue, and I hope that a sincere
effort will be made to accommodate Guam and its noble people.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I will submit my statement. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Becerra follows:]
Statement of Hon. Xavier Becerra, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Mr. Chairman, it is my personal privilege to come before
you and the full Committee on Resources to support Guam's quest
for Commonwealth status. As you know, next year marks the
centennial anniversary of Guam becoming an American territory
and it is a most appropriate opportunity for the Congress to
consider legislation that seeks to improve the political
relationship between the Federal Government and Guam. It has
been fifteen years since the people of Guam set on a course to
obtain Commonwealth status. Yet, the people of Guam continue to
be statutory U.S. Citizens and cannot vote for the President of
the United States. This situation is unfair and unecessary. The
Congress must recognize the importance of this issue, and I
hope that the Committee will work closely with the leadership
of Guam to make Commonwealth for Guam a reality.
Our Constitution charges Congress with matters relating to
the territories and I believe that it is our responsibility to
consider the will of the people of Guam and work toward Guam
Commonwealth status. Since 1990, the leadership of Guam has
been engaged in serious discussions with both the Bush and
Clinton Administrations regarding the Island's political status
movement. It is now time for Congress to get an appraisal of
this work and to act accordingly. We have to remind ourselves
that every significant change in Federal policy is rooted here
in the House of the people. We must be engaged and willing to
consider taking bold steps that are of mutual benefit to the
United States and the people of Guam.
Having been colonized by Spain for more than two hundred
years, the Chamorro people share a close cultural affinity with
Latino people. It is for these reasons that I take particular
interest in the issues affecting Guam. As a Latino member, I
will watch this process closely and will be willing to
participate meaningfully in the positive resolution of Guam's
quest for Commonwealth Status. I look to the leadership of the
Committee and Congressman Bob Underwood to work on this issue
and I hope that a sincere effort will be be made to accommodate
Guam.
Mr. Hill. I thank you, Congressman Becerra, and I would now
like to recognize former Delegate Ben Blaz.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BEN BLAZ, FORMER DELEGATE, U.S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Ben Blaz. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, and members of the
committee. First let me thank you for giving me the opportunity
to testify on behalf of H.R. 100.
I must say that the view from the beachhead down here is a
bit different from the pompous head up there. The configuration
here does look like part of a coliseum, and you wonder why the
witnesses from time-to-time feel like gladiators--the Caesars
sit up there. But there's something interesting about this
particular setting. The banner behind you, Mr. Chairman, is
star-spangled, and the supporting colors around it include my
beloved Guam. We're in friendly territory, and I feel very
comfortable, thank you.
A hundred years ago, when Henry Glass, Captain Henry Glass
of the Navy, sailed into Guam, after a couple of days he
probably sent this message: ``Guam captured. Spanish prisoners
under control, but the natives keep asking me what their status
is.'' It is likely that the response came back rather tersely
and probably stated: ``Political status is not your domain.
Proceed to Manila. Join Admiral Dewey.'' And you know the rest
of the story.
But whether or not political status was the domain of the
Navy for the ensuing 50 years, it dominated Guam. So much so,
Mr. Chairman, that when I graduated from Notre Dame and was
commissioned an officer and I wanted to go home and strut my
uniform and medals before my village friends, I couldn't go
because I did not have the proper security clearance. Following
that, we were transferred to the Department of the Interior and
there, often, we felt like wards, and often the administrators
acted like wardens.
We're now 100 years into this situation. What I'd like to
point out is that in areas where the people of Guam have
control in what they do, they have done exceedingly well. When
we speak about self-determination, we instantly associate
political self-determination, but gone unnoticed, and to the
credit of the people of Guam, they have done exceedingly well
in trying to preserve their identity, their culture, and their
language, and they have kept themselves from being a mere
footnote in history. They have attained cultural self-
determination.
And despite the plethora of regulations and instructions
and laws that were written for other places at other times,
they have managed to succeed and attain a very significant
measure of economic self-determination, but the one thing that
is needed to solidify the foundation is beyond the capability
of the people of Guam themselves, and that is political self-
determination.
I know we have limited time, and earlier today Congressman
Underwood gave us the 2-minute warning without any timeouts. So
it's kind of difficult, quite frankly, to cover 100 years in
100 seconds. So I'll take more than 100 seconds and say to you
that in this body, which uses from time-to-time the logic, or
de-logic, that this cannot be done, because it will set
precedence--if you can't set precedence in the House of
Representatives, there ain't no place on earth where you can
set precedence. If you can take--I don't have any quotations
from legislature to show the legislative intent as to why we're
in this situation.
So let me just end my presentation by getting a quotation
from a Founding Father, and here's the quotation: ``I am not an
advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but
laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of
the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more
enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered
and manners and opinions change, with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with
the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the
coat which fitted him as a boy, as civilized society to remain
ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.''
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that what Guam
is asking, it has been asking not since 1987, but in every
decade of this century. A hundred years is a long time to wait
in line. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ben Blaz follows:]
Statement of Ben Blaz, Guam, former Delegate from Guam
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 100, the Commonwealth Act for
Guam.
I am Ben Blaz. I am a Chamorro, a native son of Guam. I am now
retired from Public Service, having served 30 years in the Marine Corps
and 8 years in the House of Representatives as the Delegate from Guam
(1985-1993). I will be seventy years old in a few months, on the 100th
anniversary of the incident that triggered the Spanish-American War in
1898. Although it lasted less than 4 months, its impact is felt to this
day by both Spain and the United States and, most especially, by the
entities that were ceded to the United States as prizes of the war.
It has been a while since I have been in this room. Were I to send
a message back in the manner that I used to do in my days as a soldier
of the sea, it would read something like this:
Landing successful. No hostile fire. Advise all units that
there is wide open terrain in immediate front which is elevated
at other end. Be further advised that the center pole flies the
stars and stripes of our country surrounded by flags of
supporting units including the flag of Guam. Friendly forces
now in sight; link-up imminent. Advise all units to move
smartly.
About a century ago, the U.S.S. Maine, anchored in Havana Harbor,
was blown up under mysterious circumstances. The incident gave birth to
the war cry, Remember the Maine, To Hell With Spain. About 4 months
later, Captain Henry Glass, in command of the U.S.S. Charleston,
received orders to sail to Guam, capture it, and report back when that
has been accomplished.
On the morning of June 22, 1898, Captain Glass most likely sent a
message along these lines: Mission accomplished. Guam captured; enemy
soldiers under my control. What am I to do with the thousands of native
Chamorros who are inquiring about their status? The response was
probably: Civil Administration is not a matter of your concern. Proceed
to Manila Bay. Report to Commodore George Dewey for duty in connection
with the Philippines campaign.
In the ensuing 50 years, Guam had a rocky relationship with U.S.
military governance. In 1950, it was placed under the cognizance of the
Secretary of Interior where it has remained for almost half a century.
In those 100 years, Guam has indeed enjoyed the benevolence of the
United States in terms of financial assistance. At the same time,
however, the people of Guam have become increasingly frustrated by the
benign neglect of its persistent quest for a well defined,
participatory policy, with respect to its relationship with the Mother
Country.
The bill before Congress today has been characterized as something
relatively new but the history books reveal otherwise. They are replete
with references of attempts by the local population in every decade of
this century to improve our relationship with our country. I recall
vividly a letter I received from my father while I was a student at
Notre Dame in 1950. He was greatly troubled by the modified version of
American citizenship that was envisioned in the Organic Act. He argued,
and rather strongly, that the Organic Act for Guam, if enacted, would
lock in law a sta-
tus that he said would make us Associate Americans, or, as he stated it
another way, Americans with an asterisk. He was adamant in his belief
that he would rather not be a citizen at all than be a half hearted
one. He feared that it would take another fifty years to change that
status, if at all, once it is etched in the stone tabloids of Public
Law. His stance on the issue did not endear him to his contemporaries
who had campaigned so fervently for U.S. citizenship. He went to his
grave with his sentiment unaltered. In time, his reservations proved
eerily prophetic.
Significantly, the sitting Governor of Guam and the two former
Governors who will testify today, are all grandchildren of men who were
very active at the turn of the century in their efforts to rid Guam of
the designation, possession, and all that the term implies, and bring
about a closer relationship with America. While the designation was
modified at mid-century to unincorporated territory, the meaning has
remained unchanged: Guam is not an integral part of the United States.
This fact was made very clear to me during the 8 years I served in
the House of Representatives. I was listed as a Member of Congress but
I was not considered one of its Members. Although there was an attempt
in recent years to elevate the status of the five Delegates to the
Congress by giving them the right to cast a vote on the floor, that,
too, had an asterisk with an exclamation point indicating that when
their votes counted in the outcome, they are voided. In other words,
when they counted, they didn't.
But we have been included repeatedly in the areas that really
count. In the most dear, the most precious, and the most basic of all
tests to one's loyalty to one's country, our people have been present
and accounted for in every war in which our country has fought in this
century. I have traced with my own fingers the seventy names on the
Vietnam Wall of the Guamanians who were killed in action in that
conflict, a number notable for its size with respect to the population
from which they came. My father's generation was given to saying that
we are equal in war, but not in peace. When viewed from the perspective
of casualties in war on a per-capita basis, the proportion is not in
our favor. We cannot even claim equality in war.
While the term Self-Determination has more or less been taken to
mean political Self-Determination, there are two other areas in this
category that have gone essentially unnoticed. The first of these has
been the conscious effort of my people, the Chamorros of Guam, to
preserve their language and their culture as a distinct people on the
face of the good earth. This insures that we do not end up as a
footnote in the history books as an extinct people. In this area we
have succeeded in achieving Cultural Self-Determination.
Similarly, Guam has attained a significant measure of economic self
sufficiency while gingerly picking its way through a plethora of
inhibiting laws and regulations, many of which were written for other
places at other times.
Nevertheless, Guam has managed to get closer and closer to
achieving another milestone--Economic Self-Determination.
The enduring quest for the part that would give us a solid
foundation upon which to build as we prepare to enter the 21st century,
is one that is beyond the capability of the people of Guam to
accomplish by themselves--Political Self Determination. On the
particulars of the bill before the Committee today, and, in deference
to their respective offices, I yield to the leadership--our
distinguished Governor, Carl Gutierrez, and my esteemed successor,
Congressman Robert Underwood.
Earlier this month, I had the privilege of escorting 50 veterans
celebrating the 46th anniversary of our commissioning as Second
Lieutenants in the Marine Corps. No one in the group had ever been to
the House floor and few had ever visited the Capitol but all indicated
a desire to do so and to say a prayer in silence in the House of the
People. When we reached the floor, the group gave thanks for being
spared our lives and expressed appreciation for the privilege of
serving the United States in the field of battle. I stood in awe of my
aging comrades whose sense of love and devotion to America was
strengthened, not weakened, by the passing years.
It was a precious moment that tugged the heart and wet the eyes. As
I watched these old warriors look about the House chamber with great
pride and admiration, I lamented the fact that I could not share the
moment with my former colleagues. It was a very inspiring and
reassuring scene to witness on the House floor. We have often heard the
question, how did we happen to have a wonderful country such as this?
The answer is that we have great citizens such as these. And among them
are the people of Guam.
Understandably, the U.S. Constitution was specifically designed to
apply to the States of the Union. Provisions were made to insure
uniform application of laws to all states and to territories that are
embryonic states. Imbued with the notion of preserving the Union at all
costs, there prevailed a kind of circle-the-wagons syndrome in the
early days of the nation punctuated by pronouncements that the United
States was not interested in aggrandizing itself with land acquisitions
abroad. That feeling was not shared by many influential people who
wanted to acquire strategically located islands in the Atlantic and the
Pacific for use as forward bases to protect the homeland in North
America. The Spanish-American War provided America the opportunity to
make the acquisitions it needed and, as a consequence, acquired Cuba
and Puerto Rico in the Atlantic and the Philippines and Guam in the
Pacific.
Cuba and the Philippines left the family a long time ago.
Significantly, the citizens of both places continue to comprise a very
large proportion of the immigrants to the United States. Similarly,
Puerto Ricans and Guamanians also migrate to the U.S. mainland but they
arrive as American citizens, having acquired them through collective
naturalization decades earlier. These resettlements from Guam and
Puerto Rico come about primarily in pursuit of opportunities and
services not available in their home islands. For the longest time,
many people believe that many of the benefits that they do not receive
in their island communities was due to prejudice against island people.
This, of course, is not an accurate view. Were, say, Members of the
Natural Resources Committee to establish residency on Guam, they, too,
would no longer enjoy some of the rights and privileges that they
received as residents of States of the Union.
The plenary powers of the Congress have been upheld over the years
in the way that it ``administers'' the off-shore territories.
Unfortunately, because the Uniformity Clause does not apply to the flag
territories, it has resulted in an aggravating lack of uniformity in
the application of U.S. laws and regulations that often defy reason and
logic. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld Congressional
actions in the past and can be expected to continue to do so in the
future. A paraphrasing of a passage in the Bible aptly describes the
existing condition: Congress giveth, Congress taketh away.
What Guam seeks is an arrangement whereby its relationship with the
United States is based on a mutually agreed document that is fair to
both entities and without prejudice to either. For those who feel that
the status quo is sufficient and are riveted to making no changes, the
words of one of the greatest of America's early leaders seem
particularly appropo:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions
but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the
human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new
discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions
change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance
also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to
wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to
remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
The author of these words once prompted President Kennedy to tell a
group of American Nobel Prize winners who were being honored at a White
House dinner that there had not been such a collection of genius
gathered under its roof since Thomas Jefferson dined there alone. We
take great pains today to insure accuracy of entries in the record of
colloquies and verbatim accounts of debates to establish clearly
legislative intent behind various pieces of legislation.
(Not Available.) very accurate indications of their thoughts as
they pondered nation-building. Even in the days of the American
Revolution, Jefferson foresaw the need for changes in laws and
institutions to go hand in hand with the human mind as new discoveries
are made and we become more enlightened.
You are likely to hear today a cacophony of voices from the
witnesses but I urge you not to misread their meaning. Multiple layers
of disappointment, discouragement, and frustration have been building
up for many years over the issue of Guam's relationship with America.
What have been very difficult to fathom are the contradictions and
disparities in the way we do things at the national level.
For a nation that has won the respect and envy of peoples
everywhere for its willingness to commit its resources, human and
material, to fight in foreign lands in the name of freedom and
democracy on short notice, it reverts to glacial speed in its handling
of affairs of its own citizens. For a nation that is widely acclaimed
internationally for welcoming immigrants to its shores, it struggles
trying to accommodate those under the American flag who live in the
land of their own nativity: Indians, Eskimos, Hawaiians, Samoans,
Chamorros. For a nation that reserves huge acreage of land on islands
for the day when birds return, it does little to eliminate the snake
that eats the eggs which come first. For a nation that devotes so much
money and energy for the protection of fishes and birds, it has a
bureau for the Indians and drawers for other Native Americans. It is
against this background that one can begin to appreciate the tone and
tenor in which the witnesses present their arguments in behalf of a
different relationship with the United States.
Guam has both the fortune and misfortune of being located where it
is--13 degrees North, and 144 degrees East. Because of that
happenstance, Ferdinand Magellan's ships with its emaciated and
diseased crewmen had the good fortune of drifting into Guam on the
waves of the Equatorial Current in 1521. Unfortunately, over the
centuries since, Guam has found itself in harm's way as nations fight
for possession of it because of its importance as an anchorage and
refueling station for ships from elsewhere headed somewhere.
Mother Nature has not been very kind to Guam either. Located as it
is in the typhoon belt, it receives more than its share of typhoons
and, occasionally, earthquakes to rearrange a few buildings. Like the
legendary Phoenix of Greek mythology, however, Guam rises from the
ashes and starts all over again and it now appears we are on the good
fortune cycle.
Guam's very location geographically, which has been its damnation
in a manner of speaking, has become its blessing. As the whole world
sharpens its focus on the Pacific and Asia as we enter the 21st
Century, Guam finds itself no longer a doormat, but a turnstile, to the
Asian mainland. The visit to America this week by President Jiang Zemin
of China punctuates the enormous significance of a cooperative
relationship between our nation and China. A prosperous and stable Guam
under the U.S. flag would serve the best interests of the United States
and the people of Guam.
Extending the symbolism of good fortune into the future, Guam is
virtually perfectly located in the world to bring about a monumental
reality. Its location along the equatorial line with a constant sea
surface temperature of around 80 degrees in the proximity of the
deepest deep in the world, makes it the ideal location to harness the
sun's energy via the sea. With unlimited supply of sea water and
tropical sun, and the technology to do this economically, an alternate
source of energy which is environmentally pure is staring at us from
Guam.
Guam has been referred to as a ward of the U.S. in years past. And
those who have had jurisdiction over the island have acted as wardens.
But that was yesterday. It is now tomorrow. And, as Mr. Jefferson so
eloquently stated, ``as new discoveries are made, new truths are
discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the
times.''
Over the years, we have heard a thousand nays. What Guam hopes to
hear today are a few ayes. I urge you to find a way to say yes to
Guam's plea for a closer relationship with the United States. That is
what the people of Guam opted for in a plebescite a few years ago. If
the Congress has the power to extend the provisions of the U.S.
Constitution selectively to say no, the question then becomes, could
the Congress use the same argument to say yes? I think it could.
It's time. A hundred years is a long wait in line.
Mr. Hill. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the panel for
their testimony, and I want to remind members that committee
Rule 3(c) imposes a 5-minute limit on questions.
The Chair also wants to inform members that Deputy
Secretary Garamendi has to leave shortly to catch an airplane,
so let me first see if there are any questions on the majority
side.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Chairman, I'm Billy Tauzin from Louisiana.
I have to chair a hearing in just a couple of minutes in
another very important committee, the Commerce Committee, but I
came specifically to let the people of Guam know--and
particularly the three living Governors who are here who have
traveled so far to be at this hearing--of the fine work that
Congressman Underwood is doing on behalf of the pursuit of
Commonwealth status for the people of Guam.
You should know that he has not only helped convene this
hearing and organize this very important learning experience
for all of us in Congress, but he has personally visited with
each one of us in our offices to educate us on the issues and
to bring us into full appreciation of the wishes and
aspirations of the people of Guam.
I want to commend our colleague Robert Underwood for the
great work he is doing, and beg his indulgence to the fact that
I must go chair another hearing, but that we will evaluate
carefully, the written testimony that we have before us. And I
want to thank him on behalf of our committee, and those of us
who have to make important decisions like this, for his great
efforts at educating us and preparing us for the decisions we
make on the future status of Guam.
Robert, a job well done, and I commend you for this
hearing, sir.
Mr. Hill. I thank you, and any questions from the majority?
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to pay a
special welcome to Ben Blaz. I just think it's terrific to see
him again. His contributions here in the Congress over the
years are well recognized by those of us who had the privilege
of knowing him, serving with him, and learning from him. And I
particularly appreciate both the content and the passion and
the history behind his comments today.
Mr. Hill. I thank the gentleman. Any other questions from
the minority?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to say a
few words, and especially to welcome our good friend,
Congressman Becerra, for his presence, and also a very
distinguished former colleague of this committee and a Member
of this body, former Congressman Ben Blaz, as Neil had stated
earlier, for his presence.
If there's anything that I would like to pay a special
tribute to, to former Congressman Blaz, it is a statement that
pretty well applies not only to the good citizens of Guam, but
certainly to all our Pacific Islands community. And I've quoted
this statement by Congressman Blaz because I think it's so
apropos, even in our hearing today, and I would like to restate
it again as a reminder to my colleagues in the committee.
And Congressman Blaz said, as far as Pacific Islanders are
concerned and as something for members of this committee and
Members of this body to consider seriously, he said, ``You
know, it's a funny thing about Pacific Islanders, the fact that
we're U.S. citizens, we owe allegiance to the United States. We
are equal in war, but not in peace.''
And I think the consideration of H.R. 100 personifies
exactly what Congressman Blaz has said over the years. And the
fact that we fight and die in all wars in defense of this great
Nation, yet we see some 175,000 U.S. citizens living in the
territory of Guam being denied the very essence of what
American democracy is all about.
Now Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the members of our
committee realize, this is since 1982 that the people of Guam
voted by more than 75 percent in favor of a Commonwealth status
relationship with the United States. And then, 15 years ago--15
years ago--this took place in that referendum. Eight years
ago--eight years ago--we held a hearing on this very same
issue.
And Mr. Chairman, I have your copy of some 100 pages that
were written by former Secretary of the Interior, Mannie Lujan,
a former Member of this Congress, dated August 1, 1989,
containing the memorandum of the very essence of all of the
provisions of the things we're discussing today. Eight years
ago--and now we're here today and we have not even moved an
inch.
This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, Mr.
Chairman. This is not an issue between liberals and Democrats.
This goes to the very heart and soul of what American democracy
is all about, and I commend my good friend, the gentleman from
Guam, for pur-
suing this, as much as for what Congressman Blaz had tried 8
years ago--that we still have not paid attention. We just don't
seem to get it.
And we're at the height of condemning and doing all that we
can--talking about human rights violations and Jiang Zemin's
current visit here in Washington--and yet we're denying this
very fundamental right to our own citizens--to our own
citizens--who don't vote for the President and who are willing
to die and fight for the defense of our nation.
So those are just a couple of my observations at the
hearing. And I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, I'm very happy with
the Republican majority. We're killing two birds with one
stone--H.R. 100 and Senate bill 210--and I think it's
fantastic, and I commend the chairman of our committee, Mr.
Young, for taking these two pieces of legislation both in hand
and hope that we'll get it out of here. I sincerely hope that
we'll even mark up these two pieces of legislation after the
hearing, as has been the practice of our majority friends. I
think this is the best way to do legislation.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. But I want to commend the chairman of the
committee for bringing these two pieces of legislation that are
not only important to our friends from Guam, but certainly
important for the other insular areas. And I want to thank you,
Mr. Chairman, and look forward to hearing from our members,
both of those from the administration, and also the good people
and the leaders of Guam. Thank you.
Mr. Hill. I thank the gentleman. If there are no further
questions, then I would like----
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have----
Mr. Hill. The gentleman is recognized. I would just remind
the gentleman that the Deputy Secretary does have to leave here
shortly for an airplane, if we want to hear his testimony.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. All right, I will be short, brief. I
just wanted to greet our friends here and our colleague, Xavier
Becerra, and former Member, Ben Blaz--I've never served with
him, but I've heard very good things about him--and thank you
for being here with us today.
And as being from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, I
understand all the frustrations that you have in Guam and that
all the other territories have. We are still also striving for
our right to vote, our right to representation, and I'm sure
that our chairman, Mr. Young, also remembers the frustrations
when Alaska was not a State, and so did our previous two
persons who testified, Senator Akaka and Congresswoman Patsy
Mink, who also remember when Hawaii was not a State, and there
were territories.
And sometimes we're asked whether we are U.S. citizens.
When I was a Governor of Puerto Rico, I remember I made a
recommendation to the Agency for International Development for
someone to be appointed who met all the requirements for the
person that they were looking for for the position, and I got
back a letter from the director of the Agency thanking me for
my interest and saying that it was a very highly qualified
person, and that he probably would have appointed him had it
not been for the fact that he could only appoint U.S. citizens.
So, this is from the head of an agency; this is a continuous
frustration that we do have.
And right now, when Congress has approved health care
insurance for all children of America, all the statements that
were made during all the hearings and publicly by everyone
involved with the bill that was passed on health care insurance
for the children of America--it said for all the children of
America. But in the final moments, when the bill was adopted,
in the negotiations between the Congress and the President, it
turned out that Puerto Rico and the territories were given a
different treatment, and we were not given equal participation.
So there's even discrimination against the children in
something like health care. When some things like that happen,
something has to be done.
So, this is why I'm very glad that we're here today, and I
commend my colleague, Bob Underwood, for the job that he has
done. There are so many issues that are similar to those of
Puerto Rico. Some of the things I see that Guam wants, we're
rejecting in Puerto Rico--some of us are, some are accepting
it.
But it's a very, very intricate issue, and it's very
complicated, but there is one overriding concern. And that is
that, as U.S. citizens, in this day and age, our Nation and our
President and our Congress cannot go about bragging about this
example of democracy throughout the world because we are
remiss. There are millions of citizens, including 3.8 million
in Puerto Rico who are U.S. citizens, who are disenfranchised,
and that has to be solved.
So, I think these hearings are very, very important, and
I'm glad to be here and have the opportunity to be a member of
this committee and participate in this hearing. Thank you very
much for your presence here.
Ms. Christian-Green. Mr. Chairman, could I just--I would be
very brief.
Chairman Young. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hill. I thank the gentleman. I would like to recognize
the Chairman of the committee.
ChairmanYoung. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the people
in the back of the room, if you would like to immediately come
up here and fill these chairs up so the ones in the hall can
come in. Let's do some movement here. I want those people in
the hall up here--out by the door. Come on in; move it up. Fill
these seats so that now those in the hall can come in. After
all, as Mr. Farr says, they've been flying 18 hours. As long as
you're not press, now--I'm not talking about press.
[Laughter.]
All right. You didn't fly 18 hours--no, she's from Guam.
Now, those out in the hall, come on in, as many as you can.
Mr. Hill. I thank the chairman. If there are no further
questions for this panel, I could excuse this panel, and we
could ask Mr. Garamendi to move forward. And as soon as the
room calms down, we can begin with his testimony.
Chairman Young. There are still some seats up here, if
there's anybody out in the hall. You can act like you're
Congress people for a short period of time.
Mr. Underwood. Can we mark this up and vote now, and
include these people?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. I think he's got a majority here.
Chairman Young. But we've got the gavel.
Mr. Hill. The Chair would remind members that Deputy
Secretary Garamendi has to leave shortly, and so he's going to
offer his testimony, and then Mr. Staymen will be staying on to
answer questions.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Young. I'd just like to--because I have another
Transportation Committee to go to--I want to compliment Mr.
Underwood and other members of the committee for their interest
in this legislation. It is my hope that we will have a group in
Guam in February, and hope that everybody recognizes we'll have
a better understanding--and also, hopefully, to American Samoa.
And I want to congratulate all of you who came this far on this
very historical and very important time of the hearing on Guam,
and I do thank you. And for the record, I'd like to submit my
written testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alaska
As Chairman of the Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives
with jurisdiction over insular affairs affecting the U.S. territories
and the freely associated states, I consider increasing self-governance
in the insular areas to be one of the top priorities of the Committee
on Resources. During this and the prior Congresses, the Committee has
devoted considerable effort to advance self-government in the insular
areas, and in particular, the most populous American territory in the
Caribbean, Puerto Rico. The Committee has been formally petitioned in
three successive Congresses by the Puerto Rico Legislature for action
to establish in Federal law a process to resolve Puerto Rico's ultimate
political status.
It is significant to note that the people of Puerto Rico have
enjoyed local self-government under a constitution since initially
authorized and then amended and approved by Congress in 1952. Puerto
Rico has operated under its constitution, wherein they named their new
government the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, for over 45 years without
being required to ask Congress for approval to changes to its
constitutional government. Now, this Committee recently approved
legislation defining in Federal law a process to advance toward a final
political status.
At the end of last year, I wrote to Present Clinton about certain
areas of concern regarding Guam Commonwealth. In my letter of December
11, 1996, I explained that Guam already has the authority to enact a
``Commonwealth of Guam'' structure for local constitutional self
government, which Congress authorized in 1976. As that communication is
relevant to the legislation before the Committee, I am submitting a
copy of the President's reply and my letter.
The Guam Legislature recently enacted an important resolution which
is also related to the above communication and the current legislation
before the Committee. Guam Legislature Resolution No. 85 enacted
September 15, 1997, (copy included) requested that the 105th Congress
modify existing Federal law
``To confirm that the adoption of a Constitution establishing
local government shall not preclude or prejudice the further
exercise in the future by the people of Guam of the right of
self-determination regarding the ultimate political status of
Guam.''
It is significant to point out that a number of provisions in
legislation being considered today which require changes to the Organic
Act of Guam, would not require action by Congress if Guam were to in
fact enact a constitution as already authorized in Federal law.
Congress' 1976 authorization for constitutional government for Guam and
the United States Virgin Islands is codified in Title 48 of the United
States Code Annotated, Chapter 12, Historical and Statutory Notes (see
attached).
In response to Guam Resolution No. 85, Congress would amend the
existing authorization for a Guam constitution to qualify in Federal
law that the people of Guam would not prejudice or preclude their
further right to self-determination. In addition, Congress could
specifically state that Guam is authorized to develop a Commonwealth of
Guam constitution for local self government. It appears that judicial
decisions since enactment of the original authorization by Congress may
now require a separate Federal law approving the draft constitution,
rather than just a 60 day review period.
Increasing self-governance in the territories is a political
evolutionary process that culminates when the area becomes fully self-
governing, either as a separate sovereign outside of United States
sovereignty with separate nationality and citizenship, or as an
incorporated part of the United States. Over this century, for those
territories or trust territories which haven't sought and attained
separate sovereignty, this advancement in self-government has occurred
to varying degrees in the territories to include some, and in the cases
of the most politically developed, all of the following: extension of
U.S. citizenship, application of the U.S. Constitution, inclusion in
the U.S. customs territory and free trade agreements, establishment of
a republican form of government with three functioning local branches
of government, the authorization and establishment of local
constitutional government, direct election of Governor, election of a
representative in Congress, as well as the inclusion in U.S. defense,
monetary, fiscal, postal, and telecommunication spheres. As each
territory has its own set of economic, political, and social
characteristics, it is up to each area to determine the pace and
direction of its self-governance.
I believe this hearing has the potential to assist the insular
areas, including Guam, in advancing toward greater local self-
government. The statements by the witnesses today, including Senate and
House colleagues, the Administration, and leaders from Guam and the
freely associated states, will help Congress to objectively consider
the diverse measures in the three bills before the Committee today, S.
210, the Omnibus Territories Act, H.R. 2370, the Guam Judicial
Empowerment Act, and H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth Act.
______
Letter to President Clinton by Hon. Don Young
Don Young, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC,
December 11, 1996
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I recently have seen press reports and reviewed public statements
by local officials in the U.S. territory of Guam regarding current
political status consultations between the Deputy Secretary of the
Interior and representatives of the territorial government's
``Commission on Self Determination.'' I am quite familiar with the saga
of Guam's quest for a new political status. and some real concerns
arise from the information we are receiving.
For most of the last decade Congress and the executive branch have
passed the buck back and-forth without responding to Guam's proposal
for a ``Commonwealth of Guam'' in a manner that suggests a legally
sound, politically feasible and intellectually honest alternative
approach to achieving local self-government and defining options for
resolving the status question. At this stage in the process, the only
thing worse than further dithering would be to make commitments on
behalf of the Federal Government that can't be kept.
I remain optimistic that the U.S. and Guam can define and jointly
implement a process to establish constitutional self-government. In
addition, if Congress, the Administration and the territorial
government are serious about the decolonization of Guam as contemplated
by Article 73 of the U.N. Charter, 1997 can be the year that we start
down that path by defining a legitimate self-determination process
based on legally valid options for ultimately ending unincorporated
status in favor of full self-government.
Of course, under Public Law 94-584 Guam has had the ability since
1976 to establish a ``Commonwealth of Guam'' structure of local
constitutional self-government to replace the present territorial
administration under the 1950 Organic Act. I voted in favor of Public
Law 94-584 with the expectation that the institution of local
constitutional self-government would provide the mechanism to address
and resolve issues that have arisen such as the rights of Guam's
indigenous Chamorro people, return of excess military land, immigration
policy, and, of course, Guam's ultimate political status.
Instead, Guam elected to link commencement of local constitutional
self-government over its internal affairs to a proposed comprehensive
government-to-govern-
ment political status pact which contained Federal law and territorial
policy reforms that Congress may or may not ever approve. When
presented with that expansive proposal the then majority in Congress
told Guam's leaders to go work out the issues with the Executive.
Predictably, the departments and agencies of the Federal Government
grudgingly agreed to review what Guam was proposing, while correctly
insisting all along that Congress would have to make the difficult
policy and legal determinations.
The delays, frustration and difficulty that Guam has experienced in
seeking a competently formulated and constructive response from the
Federal Government is due in part to the fact that determination of the
disposition of the unincorporated territories is an authority and
responsibility expressly assigned in the first instance to Congress
under the territorial clause of the Constitution (article IV, section
3, clause 2). Thus, history demonstrates that more than any other
factor the degree of consultation and coordination between the
executive branch and Congress on status measures within the scope of
the territorial clause makes the difference between getting it done
right, getting it done the hard way, or not getting it done at all.
For example, the last time a President of the United States
transmitted to Congress a major new territorial status proposal it was
the free association agreement for the Pacific islands trust territory
in 1984. The primary criticism of the Reagan Administration by leaders
in Congress at the time--including me--was inadequate consultation with
Congress before commitments were made by executive branch negotiators
on behalf of the Federal Government.
After more than twenty hearings before five committees in Congress
and years of truly tortuous debate, the framework political status
legislation for the Pacific trust territories was approved. More than
thirty five pages of statutory amendments and reservations were added
by Congress to the status agreements. The entire process was
gratuitously destructive in many resects, due in part to provisions
agreed to by the Federal negotiators without consulting Congress. The
people of the islands and the Fedem1 government paid a high price for
doing it the hard way, and it almost didn't get done at all.
On January 31, 1995--in the first month of the 104th Congress--the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs,
Mr. Gallegly, tried to send a clear signal regarding political status
to the Administration, Guam, Puerto Rico, and all the unincorporated
territories by candidly stating that ``. . . until a territory gains
distinct sovereignty within or without the Constitution, the Congress
cannot be bound by an unalterable bilateral pact of mutual consent.''
Yet, there reportedly is an agreement in the works under which the
political, legal and economic relationship to be defined under the
proposed ``Guam Commonwealth Act'' (GCA) could not be altered by a
future Congress without the ``mutual consent'' of Guam.
Since the GCA would be a Federal statute, a future Congress can not
be bound to a political status relationship with an unincorporated
territory as contemplated by the GCA. The ``solution'' apparently
arrived at in the Guam discussions is to create ambiguity about the
nature of the mutual consent clause. Thus, instead of an enforceable
right of consent, Guam reportedly is prepared to accept a provision
which admits of unenforceability. This may have some symbolic political
value, but in the end it only underscores the disenfranchisement and
lack of equal participation or real consent in the Federal political
process for U.S. citizens in an unincorporated territory such as Guam.
It is time for both Federal and territorial officials to stop
bashing ``the bureaucrats'' for the lack of a political status
agreement with Guam. We should be glad there are executive branch civil
servants who will not bow to political pressure and sign off on status
proposals that do not withstand scrutiny. An agreement that will
unravel as soon as the ink dries, or another proposal that simply
gathers dust, has no real value for the U.S. or Guam. Those of us
elected to get results for the people we serve need to take
responsibility for doing more than ``coming to closure'' with Guam in
form but not substance. If we believe we can pretend to have a real
agreement and then walk away or wash our hands of it, we are really
just setting up the people of Guam for another episode of
disappointment.
We may have disagreement on some issues, but the Federal Government
must never risk making a mockery of the decolonization process. We
would do just that by attempting to make less-than-equal citizenship
and permanent disenfranchisement seem more tolerable through the legal
and political fiction of ``mutual consent.'' Also, I question whether
the U.S. would be fulfilling its obligations to the Chamorro people by
agreeing to a provision which seems to reduce the legacy of the native
inhabitants of Guam to the possibility of their participation in what
appears to amount to little more than a straw poll. The people of Guam
deserve better, and we can do better.
Thus, I stand ready to work with your Administration to develop a
strategy for success in this matter, rather than continuing tactics of
grid-lock and blame-shifting we have seen in the past. This Committee
and its staff would be pleased to work with those responsible for the
Administration's status consultations with Guam to ensure that this
time we get it done right.
Sincerely yours,
Don Young,
Chairman.
Answer to Mr. Young's letter from President Clinton
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I read your letter regarding Guam's commonwealth status with great
interest, and I share many of the positions you expressed in your well-
reasoned analysis.
Recentaly, I met with the Governor of Guam to discuss the pace and
direction of the negotiations. We agreed on the need to move quickly to
resolve several key questions involving the territory's political
status. As you point out in your letter, the issues are complex and
sensitive. I am aware of Guam's aspirations for self-government. At the
same time, we must satisfy Federal concerns at the policy, legislative
and constitutional levels.
I am prepared to provide sustained attention from the Executive
Branch to these negotiations. A successful outcome requires
coordination among many agencies and extensive consultations with
Congress. I look toward to working with you and your colleagues in the
coming months as we move the Guam issue toward a conclusion that will
be satisfactory to all involved.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton,
President
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We now will hear from
the administration, represented by the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of the Interior, John Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN R. GARAMENDI, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I
commend you for holding today's hearing on the Guam
Commonwealth. It's an historic and auspicious time to do it;
1997 marks the 10th anniversary of when the people of Guam
voted to send the original Commonwealth Draft Act to Congress.
Next year also marks the centennial of the Treaty of Paris,
when the United States obtained Guam from Spain in 1898. The
issue of Guam's political status represents an important piece
of unfinished business that sorely needs resolution.
So where are we today after these many years? First, the
process followed by the three special representatives, myself
being the third, in this administration, attempted to be
creative and flexible in the executive branch consideration of
the fundamental Guam Commonwealth issues. I've tried different
formulations and approaches to reach compromises that could be
supported by Guam and proposed to the administration.
Final administration positions, however, are based on a
consensus process among the different constituent interests
that make up the Federal Government. They are also governed by
constitutional, policy, and legislative constraints. While I
may believe that my views are appropriate, and I suppose I may
be the only one that has that view about their own ideas, even
though I might believe they're appropriate, they do not
necessarily constitute the adminis-
tration's position unless the entire executive branch endorses
them and those policies meet constitutional and other tests.
The second point: While there remain areas of
disagreements, years of discussion between the administration
and Guam have resulted in significant progress and numerous
areas of Federal agreement and support. Although we are unable
to support everything that Guam has originally proposed, there
are a number of areas where we are supportive of the proposals
that are responsive to the legitimate desires of the Guam
people for greater self-government, for increased input into
the Federal policymaking process, and for the application of
Federal policies in a way that respect the uniqueness of Guam.
Now these areas include the following: support for a
Federal policy commitment to not unilaterally change the
fundamental relationships between Guam and the United States;
supporting the creation of a commission with significant
representation and input by Guam to review and provide
recommendations on the appropriate application of Federal
policies to the island. Third, supporting an invitation for the
people of Guam to express their desire for Guam's ultimate
political status, supporting the amendment of appropriate
provisions of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act to
accommodate Guam's desire to limit the rate of permanent
immigration to the islands, and to provide additional
flexibility to address Guam's permanent labor needs. And,
finally, supporting within certain parameters the right of
first refusal for Guam to obtain Federal excess lands on the
island.
Finally, it should be noted that the executive branch has
grappled with the original Guam Commonwealth bill for the
better part of a decade, through the change of several
administrations, both in Guam and in Washington. The general
positions resulting from Federal review of the original bill
have remained relatively consistent. The Guam Commonwealth
Draft Act, as originally approved by Guam in 1987, cannot be
supported by the Federal Government.
Among the key concepts we cannot support are the following.
First, legally binding the Congress or the executive branch to
seek the consent of the Commonwealth Government before
modifying the act creating the Commonwealth, or before applying
any future Federal law, regulation, or policy to Guam. Second,
providing for a legally binding Government-sponsored or
endorsed vote on the ultimate political status of Guam in which
only one group can participate to the exclusion of other U.S.
citizen residents of Guam.
Thirdly, transferring the Federal control over the adoption
and enforcement of immigration and labor policies to the
Commonwealth Government of Guam, and, finally, creating a joint
commission under Guam's control, which would have the authority
to issue final determinations on the application of Federal
policies to Guam and to determine military lands to be
transferred to the Commonwealth Government.
In conclusion, we believe that much has come from the
negotiations to date. These can be further refined and
profitably achieved with continued and sustained effort and
attention--not just by Guam and the executive branch, but also
by Congress.
Therefore, our first recommendation of options to pursue is
to encourage Congress to join in the Guam status deliberations
to help formulate a comprehensive Commonwealth legislation that
is mutually agreeable to all parties. Participation by
Congress, which is constitutionally vested with plenary powers
over territorial matters, would add significant momentum in
bringing this matter to a closure. On June 20, 1998, the
centennial of the raising of the American flag on Guam occurs.
This would be a good deadline to complete work on a substitute
Guam Commonwealth bill.
A second alternative would be to pursue individual Federal
policy changes that Guam has proposed, which are supportable by
the administration, many of which are not inherent in the
definition of the island's constitutional status. We could do
this through discrete and separate legislation, perhaps having
individual bills for each issue considered, such as the
application of Federal immigration, labor, transportation,
trade, and tax policies to the islands.
The administration is willing to pursue either of these
alternatives. I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and
I'll try to answer whatever questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Hill. I thank the witness for his testimony. The
chairman will now recognize members for any questions they may
wish to ask the witness. I will submit questions for the
record, recognizing that you're on a tight schedule, and I will
now recognize Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. I would yield to Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for your statement.
Mr. Hill. Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your
statement, and I read it briefly this morning. And I want to
say that at least we're at the point in which a clear decision
is being reached as to how far the administration is going to
go.
Obviously, I want you to know that I think that it is very
clearly the sentiment of the people of Guam that without
consideration of Chamorro self-determination, we will not ever
have any kind of political status change which will be
meaningful for Guam. I want to stress that this is a core
principle of our commonwealth legislation and I've noticed that
you've touched on that in an unsupportive way.
But I just want to ask you, on one page of your testimony
you lend a great deal of hope for further discussion, and I
certainly appreciate that. However, on the second page you de-
limit some of the proposals and the advances that you've
indicated have existed. In terms of mutual consent, your
statement says that you are willing to support a Federal policy
commitment not to unilaterally change the fundamental
relationship between Guam and the U.S., and in the second part
you say that you are against legally binding the Congress or
the executive branch to seek the consent of the Commonwealth
Government before modifying the act creating Guam Commonwealth.
It seems to me that you're willing to say that you are willing
to make a promise, but just don't hold us to that promise. Is
that a fair characterization of your position?
Mr. Garamendi. Let me put it in my words. There should be a
policy, and this administration believes that a policy should
be put in place that the Commonwealth Act should not be changed
without mutual agreement. However, to place that into the law
creates very serious constitutional and legal problems that the
administration believes cannot be overcome. Therefore, as an
example, since the original Organic Act for Guam, which I
believe was in the 1950's, there has not been a change that has
not been mutually acceptable. So, I would say the policy has
been long-established, but the legal issue is quite clear from
the point of view of the administration legal lawyers.
Mr. Underwood. OK. The second question I have--and I know
you're running a tight schedule, Mr. Secretary--pertains to the
issue of the final political status, the self-determination
issue. You indicate that the administration is willing to
support an invitation for the Guamanian people to express their
desire for Guam's ultimate political status, but that you
reject the notion that there can be provided for a legally
binding, Government-sponsored or endorsed vote on the ultimate
political status of Guam.
The question I have is that under--unless I'm not seeing
something that you may wish to say--is that under either
scenario, there is no legally binding, self-determination vote
for Guam possible, because even in the more expansive statement
in which you indicate that the administration is willing to
support an invitation for the Guamanian people, you did not put
that it would be legally binding, Government-sponsored, or
endorsed; yet you're quite willing to limit those possibilities
for the exercise of Chamorro self-determination, but you're not
quite willing to expand and make a full commitment on the
exercise of any future political status vote by all the people
who are currently on Guam. And what that means is that,
basically, it seems to me, is that it's a denial of the
exercise of self-determination all the way around, either for
the Chamorro or all people who are currently on Guam.
Mr. Garamendi. I don't believe that to be the case. If
there is a Government-sponsored election that includes all of
the legal residents who are eligible vote, then I believe that
that would have great weight. Obviously, the ultimate
disposition of the status of Guam resides in this building--or
in these buildings. It resides with Congress, as stated by the
Constitution. And so that issue is, I think, very clear.
Equally clear are the concerns that the administration has
about sponsoring a vote in which only a subgroup of people who
are legal residents and eligible to vote, could vote. I would
like to be certain that we provide you with written testimony,
some of which is already in my statement--of the long, written
statement--on this matter, and if further clarification is
desired by the committee, we would be happy to respond in
writing. I don't want to confuse the issue with a potential
misstatement by myself.
Let me take advantage of what appears to be just a few more
seconds to state one more thing that is very obvious to me, and
that is the enormous energy, intellectual capacity, and
determination that has been applied to the months of
negotiations in which I have been engaged in and applied by
yourself, Mr. Underwood, and by the Governor of Guam, Mr.
Gutierrez. The two of you have been extraordinary, both in your
determination to push this issue forward and in the
intellectual depth to which you have taken this matter. You
have taught me a great deal; I have learned a great deal, and I
have great respect for both of you.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I appreciate those very kind words,
and I would be less than candid if I didn't say that the
Federal bureaucracy matched this intellect and this energy
going in the opposite direction, perhaps with greater success--
apparently.
Mr. Garamendi. I'll let you----
Mr. Underwood. But I certainly have some questions for the
record. I just want to reiterate again that the issue of
Chamorro self-determination, the indigenous people of Guam who
were the people that were colonized in the case of Guam, will
never go away until it's fully resolved in one way or another.
And one way or another, that exercise will occur.
I have to reiterate my strong concern about the manner in
which the administration has taken this position, but I will
say that you have left the door open, and I'm happy that there
is the door open now. You may just have to be careful that
there are going to be hundreds of people running through that
door.
Mr. Garamendi. Well----
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Hill. I thank the gentleman. I would remind members of
the committee that Mr. Garamendi does have to leave for an
airplane, and I would remind all members that they can submit
questions for the record.
Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes, thank you very much. Mr. Garamendi, I
appreciate that you're going to have to leave shortly, but I
think there are some questions here with regard to Commonwealth
that should be on the record now, and folks should hear it as
quickly as possible.
There are parallels to the difficulties in Puerto Rico
here. I'm glad this hearing is being held today because I think
it points out how you cannot write a definition of Commonwealth
to suit yourself, and I think this is one of the problems that
is not fully understood in Puerto Rico. I agree with you, I
believe, if I understand you correctly. Legally binding the
Congress or the executive branch to seek the consent of the
Commonwealth Government--that's one of the objections you have,
right?
Mr. Garamendi. One of the serious problems we have is----
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes. You cannot--the Congress is never
going to acquiesce to allowing someone else to determine
whether or not they want to acquiesce or concede to what the
United States wants it to do if they, in fact, are citizens and
going to have a relationship in a Commonwealth, right?
Mr. Garamendi. That is a fundamental issue.
Mr. Abercrombie. It's not only an issue of policy, but it's
probably one of constitutionality, is it not?
Mr. Garamendi. That is the assertion of this
administration. It is a constitutional issue, and it's one that
is very difficult to overcome.
Mr. Abercrombie. So if 100, if H.R. 100 addressed that
issue and eliminated that, that would eliminate one of the
problems, right?
Mr. Garamendi. That is correct. If the----
Mr. Abercrombie. OK, thank you. You don't have to expand.
You can expand later, but I realize you're short of time. But
the short answer is that that is a stumbling block; if that's
removed, then it makes the objections much less high in
profile, right?
Mr. Garamendi. That is correct.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK, again; then the second thing--on
providing for the vote with the Chamorro people. Having come
from a State and having served in a legislature which
consciously put forward a constitutional amendment allowing
Hawaiians to vote and excluding people who were not Hawaiians
to vote, with everybody voting to do that--in other words, I
was in a legislature that voted to do that. I consciously
excluded myself from being able to vote for trustees of the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs in recognition of the fact that the
indigenous people of Hawaii deserved an opportunity to resolve
all the issues--social, cultural, economic, et cetera. And we
are not only surviving, but I think this process is going to
work through.
If we can construe in H.R. 100 something where that does
take place, because my information is that virtually all of the
people there before 1950 have some Chamorro origin. Now there
might be some who don't. I don't know--1,000 or 2,000, whatever
it is--they'd be in the same category as I am. Maybe they're
Haoles--I don't know--which is a Hawaiian word for--has come to
mean--it usually meant strangers; it's now come to mean
Caucasians, generally preceded by a couple of colorful Angle-
Saxon adjectives--[Laughter.] But there's no great harm done;
we can work on it. If an acceptable formula could be worked out
there--because Mr. Underwood is quite correct; the issue has to
be resolved--might you find yourself more amenable on that
issue?
Mr. Garamendi. We attempted to find a way of resolving this
in a non-Governmental-sponsored vote, and that's what I had
proposed.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, just for today's hearing, Mr.
Garamendi, and for Mr. Chairman, I do recommend that we maybe
take a look at the history of the establishment of the Office
of Hawaiian Affairs in Hawaii as a possible--not necessarily a
model, but at least a method that was arrived at which
apparently has been able to achieve constitutional authority;
it hasn't been challenged. And maybe we could do some
modification of that and find it applicable here.
Mr. Garamendi. One of the fundamental points in my
testimony is that this administration believes it is wise and a
fruitful policy to continue discussions with the people of Guam
through their elected representatives and those who they choose
to represent them in these matters. Certainly the issue you
raised could be considered. There are very serious
constitutional issues surrounding this particular issue, and we
would be happy to share with the committee the views of the
constitutional lawyers in the Department of Justice on these
matters, including the issue--the proposal that you made.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you; I appreciate that. I'm just
presenting for you, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think this is
necessarily insurmountable if people of good faith and good
will work at it.
Finally, Mr. Garamendi, I think I agree with the positions
here about transferring control of the adoption and enforcement
of immigration and labor policies and the application of
Federal policies. If the Commonwealth takes place, my position
would be, and I presume your position and I presume the
constitutional position would be--and I'm almost certain that
the Congress would have this--if you're going to have
Commonwealth status, then all Federal laws are going to be
applicable. You're not going to pick and choose, especially
where labor laws and the rest are at issue. That's what the
Marianas are going to find out real quick, that you don't start
claiming U.S. citizenship and then say, not necessarily for
those we don't like or those we want to exploit.
Mr. Garamendi. The position that we have is that there are
unique circumstances in Guam, as in States, and those
circumstances may require or suggest that a law be modified to
deal with the uniqueness of those circumstances. We think
that's appropriate----
Mr. Abercrombie. That's fine.
Mr. Garamendi. [continuing] and it's certainly up to
Congress; you do it all the time.
Mr. Abercrombie. Sure.
Mr. Garamendi. And that, we think, is an appropriate way to
go. With regard to labor issues, there is an extensive
discussion of this in my written testimony. If you have further
questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes, I did read through that, and I
appreciate that. But as a general rule, your position is is
that Federal law is applicable--period.
Mr. Garamendi. To the extent that Congress desires it to
be, yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK; thank you very much. I might say then,
in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that I think it's laid out fairly
clearly here as to what we have to do and where we have to go,
and I would say, in the end, that it has to be very, very clear
to the people of Guam, just as I think it is being made clear
to the people of Puerto Rico, that Commonwealth does not mean
you get to act like an independent nation when it suits you,
and then claim all the full rights and privileges of U.S.
citizenship when it suits you.
Mr. Hill. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's time has
expired. I would recognize Ms. Smith.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Has this witness
been sworn in? Have these witnesses been sworn in?
Mr. Hill. No, they have not.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Could you do that?
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly happy to do
that. I assume that every statement I make is taken to be
accurate and truthful to the extent I know it, and subject to
all the rules of this Congress whenever I speak here.
Mr. Hill. If the gentlelady--Mr. Garamendi does have to
leave, and----
Mrs. Linda Smith. OK. I think his statement, if that would
be taken down for the record, would be fine.
I guess what I'm wanting to ask about is to the Secretary--
the questions. I have been very disturbed at the Guam
Governor's statement that money helped grease the skids for the
change in policy with Guam. It is a problem that has troubled
me, and often there was implication that money did pass for
policy with Guam. So I would like to ask you just three
questions, and just a yes or no is fine.
Were you at any time contacted by Don Fowler or anyone else
at the Democrat National Committee on Guam Commonwealth issues,
and if so, how and when?
Mr. Garamendi. Your question goes to the Guam Commonwealth
issues and the specifics of the negotiations.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Yes. Were you contacted by Don Fowler
from the Democrat National Committee on Guam Commonwealth
issues?
Mr. Garamendi. I would prefer to give you a written reply
to that question so as to be quite accurate. My process in this
was over a 2-year period, and I want to be accurate in my
statement so I will provide you with a written reply.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mrs. Linda Smith. OK; then I will give you others. Did you
at any time during your tenure as negotiator discuss with
anyone or correspond with anyone about the impact of Guam
Commonwealth decisions on the Presidential campaign?
Mr. Garamendi. No.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Did you at any time during your tenure as
negotiator discuss or correspond about political contributions
with anyone, including but not limited to the Governor of Guam,
anyone from the Guam Commission on Self-Determination, or their
lobbying firm, Brady or Berliner?
Mr. Garamendi. If your question goes to the issue of
whether I was involved in any solicitation of contributions or
had any role in any contributions that were made, the answer is
no. If the question is broader--did I ever talk to anybody
about contributions?--there were newspaper articles about that,
and I certainly discussed those newspaper articles with my
staff.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Would you put that in writing, also, and
the connection to your position and how you separate your
position from those particular discussions? There is a great
amount of concern with this administration and the money
flowing for foreign policy, and so I am concerned about this.
And it makes it very difficult to look at any decision in light
of this. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Peterson. [presiding] Any other members wish to
question? Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Just one question; I know you have to leave.
Aside from the status of Guam as a whole, what is the
administration's position on a special status for the Chamorro
people, similar to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
federally recognized Indian tribes on the mainland?
Mr. Garamendi. We have not explored that issue, and at this
point there is no policy about that.
Mr. Kildee. So you would have no--you're not on record of
having any objection to, say, the Chamorro people having
sovereignty similar to that of the 500----
Mr. Garamendi. I do not want you to misconstrue my answer.
My answer was, we have not considered that and we have no
position.
Mr. Kildee. But you have not rejected it, either.
Mr. Garamendi. We have no position either for or against
it. We have not considered that issue.
Mr. Kildee. Could you comment on that type of status, where
the Chamorro people would have a sovereignty and a territorial
integrity similar to the over 500 sovereign tribes on the
mainland?
Mr. Garamendi. I would defer my comments and present them
to you in writing. This is a complex issue on the mainland and
certainly would be even more so in one of our territories, a
Pacific Island territory.
Mr. Kildee. It's not that complex.
Mr. Garamendi. It would deserve a written response and a
thoughtful response, which I'm not prepared to give you today.
Mr. Kildee. It's not really that complex on the mainland.
It dates back to 1789 and our Constitution, and dates back to
1832 when Justice John Marshall said that the natives on the
continent were sovereign nations. And so it's long in our
history, and the Constitution itself recognizes three
sovereignties. It talks about foreign nations, the States, and
Indian tribes, and then John Marshall, in his famous 1832
decision, clearly outlined the real sovereignty of the Native
American tribes in the mainland.
Mr. Garamendi. Your understanding of American history on
this matter is obvious. This is a complex issue. Guam is
considerably different in its history and in its acquisition
than other parts of America, and certainly different and came
substantially after Mr. Marshall's statement on these matters.
As it applies, I am uncertain. It would be inappropriate for me
to give you a response other than what I have said, which is it
is complex; it deserves a full analysis, and I will present you
with an analysis in writing from this administration.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Kildee. I really would suggest, in the meantime, before
you prepare the answer, to read Worcester v. Georgia and John
Marshall's decision because it has some very profound
statements on sovereignty, and that was issued by John
Marshall--Worcester v. Georgia--in August 1832.
Mr. Garamendi. I would happy to receive from you your
thoughts, in writing or otherwise on this matter, and your
obvious legal analysis which you have done.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Ms. Christian-Green. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, I really must leave.
Mr. Peterson. [presiding] You must leave--OK; we'll excuse
Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. I'm about to really mess up California water
policy if I miss this airplane.
Mr. Peterson. OK; please feel free to leave.
Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Garamendi, and I'm
sorry that we've delayed you more, but I just wanted a
rejoinder to the point made by Mr. Kildee. This doesn't involve
you directly. The issue of----
Mr. Garamendi. May I take leave?
Mr. Peterson. Yes; go, go.
Mr. Underwood. I think the issue of the Chamorros becoming
a tribe in the sense that Native American tribes have sought
tribal sovereignty is best resolved through the issue of
Chamorro self-determination, and that's really an issue which
is a core part of the draft Commonwealth Act. And I would
certainly invite every person who is here representing Guam,
all of them are Chamorros themselves except for maybe two or
three, to put that question into their testimony, whether they
really are seeking this status or not.
I must confess that this is a red herring issue. The issue
of how the Chamorro people see themselves is rather clear. It
is embodied in this Act. People want to get on with the
exercise of Chamorro self-determination. I have never heard of
any reputable person from Guam stand up and say that the
Chamorro people are seeking tribal status and seeking any kind
of reservation on the island of Guam. We see the exercise of
Chamorro self-determination as indistinguishable between the
Chamorro people and the island of Guam.
Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. At this time we will call upon
Allen Staymen, Director, Office of Insular Affairs, U.S.
Department of the Interior, to share with us his testimony.
STATEMENT OF ALLEN STAYMEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INSULAR
AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Staymen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask that
my statement on S. 210 and H.R. 2370, the other two bills on
the agenda today, be made a part of the record, and I will
quickly summarize.
Mr. Peterson. Without objection.
Mr. Staymen. Except for sections 7 and 10, the
administration supports enactment of S. 210. My written
statement details several technical and clarifying amendments
to the bill, and I would like to highlight those which are most
significant.
On section 1, regarding food assistance to the communities
affected by the U.S. nuclear weapons testing program in the
Marshall Islands, we believe additional language is needed to
deal with the procedural constraints of determining baseline
population estimates for these communities and obtaining
additional appropriations.
On section 4, regarding excess lands on Guam, the
administration seeks modifications to resolve several concerns.
First, changes to ensure that those Federal agencies that have
been legitimately using DOD lands for the 2-year period prior
to the time the land is declared excess will be able to
continue those uses. Second, that the definition of refuge be
clarified to read, quote, ``overlay component of the refuge'',
close quote, because refuge lands, per se, are not subject to
administrative transfer or the Federal Property Act.
Third, that the phrase at the end of subsection (c) that
states, quote, ``to the extent that the Federal Government
holds title to such lands'', close quote, be deleted. This
phrase is misleading. Obviously, if the Federal Government does
not own land, it cannot be accessed or subject to the
provisions of this bill.
Fourth, the definition of public purpose needs to be
clarified. It might be argued that by referencing the public
benefit definition of the 1994 Guam Excess Lands Act, with its
congressional review of a Guam lands use plan, there is a
possibility that subsequent transfers of lands to private
parties could be found to be within the definition of public
purpose. We recommend that the definition of public benefit,
incorporated by reference to the 1994 Act, include only those
purposes specifically enumerated in that Act.
Fifth, we would like to clarify that any conservation
protections on excess land would remain in effect pending
congressional action pursuant to subparagraph (d)(3)(E). This
is a concern, because the agreements between the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Department of Defense automatically
terminate upon transfer of the land to any other party. We do
not believe it was the intent to have these conservation
protections lapse as the result of the transitional transfer of
lands to the GSA. This amendment is essential to maintain the
status quo with respect to conservation protections until
either the Government of Guam and the Fish and Wildlife Service
have reached an agreement on its future disposition, or the
Congress Acts.
The administration has no objection to H.R. 2370, but we do
have clarifying amendments detailed in my written statement.
I'm pleased to respond to any questions you have on these two
bills.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, Mr. Staymen. First, there are a number
of provisions in S. 210 affecting the freely associated States,
including the majors, to help those communities affected by
U.S. nuclear testing. The U.S. established trust funds for
their radiological clean-up of nuclear materials on affected
islands, which involves the Department of the Interior. Since
the people of these and affected islands must remove the
nuclear contaminants in order to be able to safely resettle,
where would you recommend the radioactive materials be stored?
Mr. Staymen. In fact, Mr. Chairman, most of the scientific
research that has been done on the resettlement of those
islands suggests that the material does not have to be removed.
The problem is not so much direct exposure from people living
on those islands; it's the dose which they would get from
eating the food grown on that island. Research has shown that
if the islands are treated with normal potassium fertilizer,
that the plants will not absorb the radioactive elements in
nearly the proportion that they would without such treatment,
so that the dose which a person gets subsequent to a fertilizer
application is on the order of one-tenth of what they would get
before. In other words, there could be a 90 percent reduction
in the effective dose to individuals without any removal of
soil.
Nevertheless, some of the islands have prudently decided to
do a limited scrape in those areas where housing would be built
and children would be playing. And my understanding is, those
soils are anticipated to be used in construction for things
like bridges and breakwaters where they will essentially be out
of the way from regular use.
But the levels of radioactive materials and the dose that
currently exists on those islands--I think it's fair to say-
it's right on the fence on whether or not it is a health
concern or not. But it's prudent that they do the scrape, and
it's prudent that they do the potassium treatment.
Mr. Peterson. Any other questions? Mr. Underwood. Oh--Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Staymen, I
assume you're going to be answering questions concerning Mr.
Garamendi's earlier statements. Or are you just going to be
responding to----
Mr. Staymen. That's right; I'm just authorized on these two
bills.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. I do have a couple of
questions on the earlier statements that Mr. Garamendi made
concerning H.R. 100. He mentioned there were some
constitutional problems affecting the relationship between Guam
and the United States, and I wanted to ask you--this may be an
exercise in futility, but I think there are some problems that
I have with his statement about constitutional issues here.
As you know, under the United Nations there is a category
called non-Self-Governing Territories, and you're also aware of
the fact that Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa are
listed under that classification as non-Self-Governing
Territories. Now, on the other hand, the word ``territories''
under provisions of the Federal Constitution provides for the
plenary authority that Congress has over territories. But there
are several classifications of territories, and let me share
with you a couple of them.
Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa are
all unincorporated territories. Now American Samoa is the only
territory that is both unincorporated and unorganized. Now my
understanding is that territories are such that not all the
provisions of the Federal Constitution apply to these certain
classifications given to territories. Now we all know that
territories that have now become States were all incorporated
territories, at least according to the insular cases the
Supreme Court has held on that, that eventually they would
become States. Well, none of these territories, I don't think,
has any chance--with the exception of my friend from Puerto
Rico--on the question of Statehood.
My question on the constitutional issues is that where does
it say that there's a conflict in the Constitution, given the
fact that Guam is under this classification as a non-Self-
Governing Territory, where not all of the provisions of the
Federal Constitution apply?
Mr. Staymen. I will have to take your question back for Mr.
Garamendi to answer in writing, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, if I'm correct in listening to Mr.
Garamendi's reasoning, it is that the territorial clause of the
Federal Constitution applies absolutely to Guam, the Virgin
Islands, and American Samoa. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Staymen. That's my understanding of the
administration's position, yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. And if this is so, then why are we
listed under the United Nations classification as a non-Self-
Governing Territory? Well, anyway I----
Mr. Staymen. The actions of the United Nations don't
necessarily have to be coordinated with the actions of the U.S.
Federal Government. I think the dilemma is that all of us here
and all of you there have to swear to uphold the provisions of
the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The dilemma is that the right of self-
determination is the issue that is still pending among these
non-self-governing territories.
Mr. Staymen. Again, I'll have to take your questions back
and have Mr. Garamendi in writing.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would appreciate a clarification of
that issue.
Mr. Staymen. Certainly.
Mr. Faleomavaega. On your testimony on Senate bill 210, can
you explain a little more about section 8 of the bill that
provides the current responsibility of the President to report
to Congress on the impact of the Compact of Free Association?
Are we having any problems with the compact provisions? What is
this for?
Mr. Staymen. The reason for this is that under the terms of
the compact, the administration has to submit a report to
Congress annually with respect to the impact which the compacts
have had on the U.S. territories and on Hawaii. The procedure
for developing and submitting those reports has been, I think
it's fair to say, very contentious and difficult. The
administration has to develop information about the impact of
Micronesians in the islands, and necessarily must go into the
islands and conduct censuses and develop data. It's been very
difficult to obtain that data.
We generally believe that the islands themselves are in a
much better position to evaluate and report on what the impact
of Micronesians coming into the community is than is the
Department of the Interior back here in Washington. Our hope is
to work closely with them and continue to financially support--
and if necessary with Federal technical assistance--support
them in developing that information, then we would pass that on
to Congress.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I don't want to put you in a
situation where you have to say something on behalf of Mr.
Garamendi, but I just wanted to know about--where are we in our
current negotiations with the Commission on Guam, as far as
H.R. 100 is concerned? Are we about 10 percent into the
process? I said earlier that we haven't even moved an inch, and
correct me if I'm wrong in my humble opinion of where we are
right now, but are we about 30 percent complete in our current
negotiations with the leaders of Guam? Can you----
Mr. Staymen. I'm sorry; again, I'm going to have to refer
to him.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK.
Mr. Staymen. I'm not a part of that process.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You mentioned there were two sections in
Senate bill 210 that the administration does not support?
Mr. Staymen. Right; those are the two sections----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Which sections are those, again?
Mr. Staymen. I believe it's 7 and 10, which establish two
Presidential commissions, one with respect to the Virgin
Islands, one with respect to Samoa, to study their future
economic development. The administration supports the notion
that we should have studies and that both Samoa and the Virgin
Islands are confronted with serious economic development
challenges, but we think that can be done through existing
authorizations, and the Presidential commission is not the
appropriate institution.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I know we discussed the issue on this
earlier, Mr. Staymen, saying that the administration does not
like a proliferation of Presidential commissions, but it's OK
to have a Presidential commission on the study of gaming--
gambling, but when it comes to territories, the administration
does not feel that we should have the same status in looking
into the serious, serious economic issues facing both the
Virgin Islands and American Samoa.
Mr. Staymen. That's correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to
ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, for my statement to made
part of the record.
Mr. Peterson. Without objection.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]
Statement of Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Delegate in Congress from
the Territory of American Samoa
Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for calling this hearing on three bills which
will have a direct impact on our U.S. territories. Before I
begin my testimony, I want to welcome our distinguished guests
to the hearing room today. To Senator Akaka and my colleagues
in the House, I say thank you for taking the time to testify
this morning. To Deputy Secretary Garamendi, I understand that
you have a plane to catch this morning, and I appreciate your
willingness to appear before us today given the time
constraints.
To those who have travelled for days to get here from Guam,
I welcome you to Washington, DC. I know it is expensive to come
here and I appreciate the commitment in time you have made to
testify today. I wish we could provide more time for each of
you to speak, but with 20 witnesses scheduled to testify this
will be a lengthy hearing, and I trust you understand our
reasons for limiting the time afforded each person to testify.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to use a lot of our time with a
statement this morning. We are considering three bills which
together address many of the pending problems in our
territories. Perhaps the most controversial of the legislation
is H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth Act.
I commend my friends in Guam who have been working on their
political self-development. Like the people of Puerto Rico,
trying to define a new relationship with the United States is a
difficult and time-consuming undertaking. In Puerto Rico, the
key topic of discussion is which of three statuses to choose.
Guam appears to be moving toward that discussion also, and
while I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 100 and support many of its
provisions, I also know there are many controversial provisions
which will need to be addressed before this bill can move
forward.
The Guam Judicial Empowerment Act, H.R. 2379 is almost a
technical correction, and I hope we can incorporate that
provision into legislation containing portions of S. 210 which
fall within the Committee's jurisdiction, and move them all
forward early next year.
S. 210 contains a provision to create a Presidential
Commission to assist with the economic development of American
Samoa. As I am sure Deputy Secretary Garamendi is aware, I have
been exploring alternatives with officials of the Department of
the Interior to move this project forward, and I hope the
Department remains committed to providing this assistance.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing
the testimony this morning.
Mr. Peterson. Any further questions for Mr. Staymen? Mr.
Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. I know we discussed this earlier, Mr.
Staymen. I have a number of questions that I'd like to ask for
the record for S. 210, and I would like to ask you to stay, but
I really want to get an opportunity for the three Governors to
speak. Right now it's 2:20 in the morning on Guam, and the
first panel from Guam are actually the people that certainly
the committee is most interested, I think, in hearing, as well
as the people back home. So, I would request that you stay and
we could bring you back up and ask some questions.
Mr. Staymen. That's fine by me, Congressman.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. We thank the gentleman. Any other further
questions for Mr. Staymen?
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Mr. Ortiz. I would like to include my statement for the
record with unanimous consent.
Mr. Peterson. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]
Statement of Hon. Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas
I want to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Miller
for holding this hearing today on legislation to establish the
Commonwealth of Guam.
This is a significant step in the process for Congressional
review of Guam Commonwealth, and I want to commend my friend
from Guam, Congressman Robert Underwood, for his work in
bringing this legislation before us today.
It is obvious that the people of Guam and their political
leadership remain committed to pursuing Guam Commonwealth
status.
After years of work, they endorsed Commonwealth in 1982,
and the Draft Guam Commonwealth Act in 1987. Since then, they
have been in negotiations with the United States to change
their political status.
This is a step which will have an absolute impact on their
relationship with the Federal Government. The people of Guam
should be commended for their committment to what has been a
long and demanding process.
I am looking forward to hearing the perspectives of our
participants and their accounting of the progress toward
Commonwealth.
It is important to assert Congressional oversight of this
process and resolve the issue of Guam's history, as well as
it's future.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Christian-Green. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Peterson. Donna.
Ms. Christian-Green. I'd also ask that my statement be
included for the record.
Mr. Peterson. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Christian-Green follows:]
Statement of Hon. Donna M. Christian-Green, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virgin Islands
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to make these
opening remarks.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, this is a day for all
Americans to be proud. More than 10 years after overwhelmingly
voting to become a U.S. Commonwealth, the people of Guam are
finally getting a hearing on what blueprint they have chosen
for their future relationship with the United States.
Let us join then in celebration of this first step of self-
determination and pledge to continue to support their efforts
to see the completion of this process before the 100
anniversary of the Guam joining the American family.
I want to welcome my fellow islanders from Guam who, by
your numbers and presence here today after traveling from so
far away, demonstrates your strong support for your Guam
Commonwealth Act.
I thank you for your commitment and say that I will do all
I can, as a member of this Committee, to support you in getting
the Guam Commonwealth Act enacted into law.
I am pleased to see that three of Guam's Governors have
joined together in a bipartisan show of support for their
island's future political status to be here today. Welcome
Governors. We are pleased to have you with us today.
I am also very pleased to welcome my colleagues from the
House and the Senate, along with the former Representative from
Guam, a previous long time member of this Committee, the
Honorable Ben Blaz.
Mr. Chairman, the people of Guam have been a territory of
the United States since 1898. They have been seeking to become
a U.S. Commonwealth for almost 10 years. In my view, this has
been more than enough time for this body and the Administration
to have come to some agreement in getting this process
completed.
To my colleagues and the representatives from the
Administration who may be concerned about our ability to grant
Guam control over immigration, input into the application of
Federal laws, or the authority to enter into international
agreements, I say don't let your concerns prevent you from
doing what is right. I believe we have a responsibility to do
all that we can to provide Guam these articles of respectful
political rights and full self government.
Nothing less than these rights should be afforded to Guam
or any of the other insular areas should they choose to remain
part of the U.S. family--like Guam has--without the opportunity
for statehood.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about
the third bill that is on the agenda of today's hearing, S.
210.
S. 210, as it came to the House from the Senate, contains
four provisions pertaining to my district, the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Because of their urgency importance to the economy of
the V.I., two of the provisions were added on to another bill
which I hope will very shortly be signed into law by the
President. The remaining two Virgin Islands provisions in the
bill do not currently enjoy the level of support that makes
their consideration in order at this time.
I want to once again thank Chairman Young and Ranking
Member Miller for their assistance in moving the two economic
provisions of S. 210 that are so very important to the Virgin
Islands.
While S. 210 encompasses almost all of the U.S. Insular
Areas, this hearing and this day belongs to the people of Guam
and their quest for Commonwealth.
Mr. Chairman the Congress is empowered under the U.S.
Constitution to make all decisions on the future political
status of the U.S. territories. To this end, the people of Guam
have made their choice. We should respect Guam's decision and
exercise our constitutional authority to make their choice a
reality as expeditiously as possible.
It is time that we act. The people of Guam deserve no less.
Mr. Peterson. We thank you, and we'll call upon you a
little later then.
Mr. Staymen. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. Before we bring the next panel up, I'd like
to recognize former Delegate, Ron DeLugo, from the Virgin
Islands. We welcome you here today. If you could stand so you
could be recognized.
[Applause.]
We are very thankful you could come, and we hear you were
subcommittee chair prior and did a fine job.
At this time I will call upon Mr. Underwood, the Delegate
from Guam, to introduce our next panel of very esteemed
witnesses.
Mr. Underwood. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I do
that I would certainly like to add my own words of welcome to
Congressman DeLugo. For the time that he was here, he certainly
helped me a lot in terms of understanding the operations of
this committee, and has always been a long and steadfast friend
of Guam. And we certainly appreciate his interest, his
continuing interest, and continuing leadership on issues
pertaining to the insular areas.
I also have and would like to add a statement from Senator
Inouye and Representative Patrick Kennedy, and also Bob Smith.
They've asked me if I could enter their statements into the
record on behalf of this legislation.
Mr. Peterson. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]
Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, a Senator in Congress from the
State of Hawaii
I appreciate this opportunity to share my thoughts with you
on H.R. 100 and the very important issue of Guam's interest in
achieving commonwealth Status. The people of Guam have stated
their desire and goal, and it is my hope that the Congress and
the Executive branch can work with Guam's representatives to
achieve that goal.
The relationship between Guam and the United States is one
that stretches back nearly 100 years. During this period, we
have witnessed two world wars and several regional conflicts.
The United States as a whole and Guam in particular experienced
tremendous losses during these periods. However, together, we
have always been able to endure difficult times and overcome
adversity. Through our shared experiences, Guam and the United
States have forged an important relationship based on trust and
mutual cooperation. Like any longstanding relationship,
periodically changes must be made to ensure the health of both
of both parties involved. It is the prospect of political
change that brings us here today.
Naturally, the political status of one's homeland is an
area of concern and importance. In 1987, after years of
deliberation and public discussion, the people of Guam, in two
separate plebiscites, voted in favor of making Guam a
commonwealth of the United States. In February 1988, this
document, the Guam Commonwealth Act, was submitted to Congress
for consideration and has been introduced in four consecutive
Congresses since--the 100th through the 104th.
The 1987 plebiscites have made clear the preference of the
Guamanian people that Guam become a commonwealth of the United
States. However, the fact that here in the 105th Congress we
are once again considering the political status of Guam
illustrates the difficulty and complexity of the issues
involved. While self-determination is the right of all people,
greater union with the United States requires greater adherence
to our Constitution. It is at this juncture that there have
been disagreements between the Administration, both past and
present, and the terms of commonwealth as stipulated by the
Guam Commonwealth Act. While some of these issues are still
unresolved, I am hopeful that continued discussion between the
people of Guam and the U.S. Government will produce a mutually
agreeable settlement.
The Guamanian people have overwhelmingly voted in favor of
a greater union with the United States. It is a great
compliment and honor to America that the people of Guam would
desire their future to be inseparably tied to our own. I am
confident that the Federal Government and the government of
Guam will continue to move forward and resolve any differences
that prevent Guam from becoming a commonwealth of the United
States. Let us continue to build on the foundations of trust
and cooperation that have already been established and move
forward into the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:]
Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Kennedy, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Rhode Island
Mr. Chairman,
I want to thank you for holding this important hearing to
determine the political status of Guam.
I want to welcome Governor Gutierrez and all the witnesses
from Guam who have travelled a long way to be here with us. To
me your participation sent this government a signal that the
people of Guam are serious about resolving their political
status.
For 100 years the people of Guam have been a part of United
States. Its citizens have shared in our times of national
triumph and struggle.
During the World War II the people of Guam endured the
atrocities of military occupation and many people still bear
those scars today. Despite their pain, the people of Guam
heroically assisted the Marines in retaking the Island and once
again raising the flag of Democracy within its borders.
Today, Guam is asking to continue the process of
determining its permanent political status. They have waited
long enough and it is high time our government got down to the
business of letting this process go forward.
To be sure, Guam's political status as an unincorporated
territory is in Congressman Underwood's terms
``unsatisfactory.'' Clearly, the current situation leaves the
Island's inhabitants disfranchised and in political limbo.
I recognize that there is a complicated history with regard
to the Island's political status. I hope that some of the most
common questions can be answered here. But let me say that I
firmly believe that it is the responsibility of this Congress
to act decisively on this issue.
We must help facilitate a process by which the people of
Guam can exercise their right to self-determination. And in my
opinion self-determination begins with the Islands historical
inhabitants.
The future of the Chamorro people depends upon the United
States to take a leadership role in solving the Island's
political status. They have sacrificed much so that the United
States may defend human rights abroad.
We should not forget that it was from Guam that B-52
strikes against Iraq were launched in 1996 and it was Guam that
took in the Kurdish refugees of the Persian Gulf.
Let us act decisively and set about a process that is
mutually beneficial to both the United States and Guam.
Let us commit ourselves to a process that ensures the
freedom's of our nation, and also respects the proud history of
the Island.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for your leadership and I am looking
forward to working with you as we continue this critical
process.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bob Smith follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert F. (Bob) Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from
Guam, Representative Underwood, for his excellent work on
behalf of the people of Guam for bringing before this Committee
H.R. 100, H.R. 2370, and S. 270.
I am aware that H.R. 100, the ``Guam Commonwealth Act,'' is
particularly important to the people of Guam in order to
resolve their political status. Guam has been working
diligently for the past decade to negotiate first with the Bush
Administration and most recently the Clinton Administration on
an agreeable commonwealth status. To date, these efforts have
not been fruitful. This hearing will serve the critical role of
allowing all of the issues to be brought out in the open for
members of the Committee to evaluate for themselves. This is
all the more critical because it is ultimately this Committee's
and Congress' responsibility, working with Guam's elected
representatives, to decide Guam's future.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this important
hearing and I would again like to commend Representative
Underwood for his work on behalf of the people of Guam.
Mr. Underwood. At this time it gives me very great pleasure
to introduce the three Governors of Guam, the three living
Governors of Guam. Guam has only had the opportunity to select
their chief executive since 1970, and it's been pretty much an
even split since that time--I think maybe three Republicans and
two Democrats--but I'm very proud to see that both parties are
represented here this morning.
We have with us former Governor Paul Calvo, who was chief
executive for one term; former Governor Joseph Ada, who was
chief executive for two consecutive terms, and we have the
incumbent, The Honorable Carl T.C. Gutierrez. As it is pretty
much common in Guam, I can say with some assurance that I'm
related to two of these gentlemen, one very closely, actually,
and the other on both my mother's and my father's side.
As to Governor Calvo, I don't know if we're related, but
you're older than me, and you probably know that we are
somewhere along the line. But certainly it is with great
pleasure that I introduce these three gentlemen--distinguished
gentlemen--to the committee, and I'll leave it to you to call
the first witness. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. I thank the gentleman from Guam. At this
time, we'll call upon Governor Gutierrez for his statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARL T.C. GUTIERREZ, GOVERNOR OF
GUAM
Governor Gutierrez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Buenas dias to the members of this Committee on Resources.
Thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 100, the Guam
Commonwealth Act. I say on behalf of the people of Guam and as
chairman of the Commission on Self-Determination, I am very
honored to present testimony in support of democracy and
defense of human dignity, and in defiance of the continued
colonial status of Guam by the United States.
The Guam Commonwealth Act embodies the political hopes and
aspirations of the people of Guam. We are here to end the 19th
century colonialism and to create a 21st century partnership
between Guam and the United States of America. We
wholeheartedly embrace the principles of democracy, upon which
this great Nation was founded. They mirror Chamorro principles
of family and community, which lie at the heart of our island
way of life. Given the history of this Nation, I cannot imagine
anyone, anyone in this room, defending colonialism. This great
country, founded to end colonialism, can never justify the
continued colonial rule of Guam.
As events around the world constantly remind us, Mr.
Chairman, once a people have tasted freedom there is no turning
back. For us it is not a question of whether colonialism will
end; it is simply a matter of when and how it will come to an
end. The people of Guam, by virtue of our relationship with the
United States over the past 100 years, have been able to
witness, but not experience, true democracy.
Democracy has been so close. It is taught, it is
illustrated, and held up as the ideal. Yet, representative
democracy does not exist in the Guam-United States
relationship. We are frustrated, and we are losing patience.
How much longer will we, American citizens, be denied our
rights? As we approach a century under the American flag, we
are asking, when will the colonized people of Guam be granted
the right of self-determination? And the time to act is now,
Mr. Chairman.
Today, we bring Commonwealth quest to you because Congress
has the plenary power and responsibility under the Constitution
to resolve this issue. We can work together now to forge a
democratic partnership worthy of this great Nation, but if we
delay, the spirit of cooperation may fade and a collaborative
opportunity may be lost. The Commission on Self-Determination
has submitted detailed analysis of the provisions of H.R. 100
and our assessment of the 8 years of frustrating discussions
with the executive branch preceding this morning's hearing.
In my brief before you today, I would like to focus on the
core issues and the core principles on which we can build a
mutually respectful partnership. And let me start, Mr.
Chairman, with an issue that I know is of concern to you and
most of the members of this panel, one where I hope we will be
able to find common ground--and I am speaking of mutual
consent.
I am pleased that our panel this morning includes former
Governor Ada, who was instrumental in negotiations on mutual
consent with former Special Representative, Mr. Heyman. They
concluded an agreement on new language which affirms that our
fu-
ture relationship cannot be altered without our mutual consent.
It is essential that any Commonwealth Act adopted by Congress
include a mutual consent provision.
A second core principle, undoubtedly the most misunderstood
provision of the Draft Commonwealth Act, is Chamorro self-
determination. It is the inalienable right of the indigenous
people of Guam to a process of de-colonization in accordance
with international standards, standards that the United States
has agreed to. This is a right which all the voters of Guam,
Chamorro and non-Chamorro alike, have endorsed through a
plebiscite. It is a process which will be defined in the Guam
constitution, which itself would be brought before all the
people of Guam, and, subsequently, brought before this
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I am confident that under your leadership we
can uphold the principles of self-determination.
The third principle, which gives the people of Guam
meaningful participation in the Federal Government--today our
participation is non-existent and it is wrong. There is no way
that Washington can understand the impact of laws and
regulations on an island community 10,000 miles away,
notwithstanding the heroic efforts of our Delegate Underwood.
Short of giving us a vote in Congress, there simply must be a
process to give us meaningful participation in which the way
laws are written that govern the lives of the people of Guam,
10,000 miles away. And we have proposed a joint commission, and
that has been detailed in my testimonies given earlier.
You know, Mr. Chairman, Guam serves as a strategic military
location. That's what it was founded for; that was what it was
taken for. We need to be able to move away from that and focus
our attention to Guam being the economic strategic location,
being the natural economic bridge between Asia and the West.
And I say to you that some of those laws that constrain our
economy--despite those constraints--we have built an economy,
almost $3.5 billion of gross domestic product, bringing in 1.5
million tourists a year with only 150,000 people. And we did
this with all the constraints--and I liken it to building an
economy with a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.
This Commonwealth Act will provide us the power tools to
not only sustain and grow our economy, but could be a major
contributor to the United States of America. And we ask you to
consider that as we move forward, because we want to be that
bridge. It's very important that we get brought in to the
national economic strategy, not just for the military strategy
and national security interests. We can be a participant, and I
say to you, Mr. Chairman, that Guam desires to be a part of the
United States. We love--and we are patriotic.
I know that time is very short. It took me 18 hours to get
here and 5 minutes to say what I want to say, and it's running
short. But I'll continue to turn the page, and I hope some of
your questions will give me an opportunity to expand a little
bit more on why we, as a people, need to have some meaningful
participation. Because for 100 years we have been very patient,
as the Chamorro way dictates, as our way of life dictates, but
we cannot move on to the 21st century.
And if you want to consider and continue to defend
colonialism, then the people of Guam will have to get back to
the drawing board and reconsider whether we, in fact, are going
to be continually held to a standard that someone else sets for
us. We want to be part of the United States of America
continually, but, please, include us in the representative
democracy that you so espouse.
And I just say that this morning our Archbishop celebrated
mass, and he called on the Holy Spirit to come and descend upon
this great Nation here in Washington, DC so that you could be
enlightened to be able to do what was right for the people of
Guam. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Governor Gutierrez may be found
at end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank the Governor of Guam
for his fine comments and his impassioned testimony.
Now we will call upon the former Governor, Mr. Calvo.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL M. CALVO, FORMER GOVERNOR OF
GUAM
Governor Calvo. Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify in full
support of the enactment of the U.S. Commonwealth status for
Guam.
On February 13, 1917, Captain Roy Smith, the naval Governor
of Guam, appointed 34 island leaders to an advisory council
whose staff was to consider and recommend measures for the
improvement of the island and the welfare of its inhabitants.
Mr. Peterson. Could the gentleman speak a little more
directly into the mike? Thank you very much, and I'm sorry for
interrupting you.
Governor Calvo. Though its purpose was strictly to
recommend to the Governor, it was given the title of the First
Guam Congress. My grandfather, Tomas Anderson Calvo, was a
member of that body. In his opening address, he enunciated the
aspirations of the people of Guam. It has been 80 years since
my grandfather asked if Guam would be accepted as a full-
fledged member of the American family.
I come before you today respectful of the power which the
Congress of the United States wields, and mindful of how you,
the Membership of this esteemed body, are capable of answering
a question that has lingered over three generations of my
family history. Is America willing to accept Guam as an equal
member of the American family? If the answer is yes, than I can
predict a bright future for Guam and the Marianas, as well as
for the strategic interests of the United States.
My prediction, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee,
is not some far-fetched pipe dream. The Asian Pacific countries
are the largest trading partners of the United States. It is
obvious that America's future lies to the west of San
Francisco's Golden Gate. America's future lies even west of
Pearl Harbor. An America that remains engaged in Asia and the
western Pacific will be a strong and prosperous America, well
into the 21st century.
One only has to look at the economic miracle that has taken
place in Guam over the past 30 years to see the exciting
possibilities of an American economic strategic interest. It
was President John F. Kennedy who lifted Guam's close military
security status in 1960. The gross island product at that time
was $50 million. Guam's economy relied heavily on public sector
employment and huge military spending and Federal subsidies.
That all changed once Guam was opened to the world.
Investment from Asia, most particularly from Japan, flowed in.
Guam's gross island product in 1996 was over $3 billion. The
island prospered despite a 30 percent reduction of military
forces in 1994. The island prospered despite hostile and
unilateral Federal Government action, which led to the demise
of Guam's watch and garment manufacturing industries of the
1980's. Our island has prospered despite recent devastating
typhoons and earthquakes. Our island will continue to prosper
because we are a part of America and we are a part of Asia, the
two most dynamic regions of the world.
I dream of an America who will recognize and act upon the
cries of its second-class citizens in the western Pacific. I
dream of a day when those second-class citizens will finally be
allowed to full incorporation into the American family. I dream
of a day when Guam and the Marianas will be America's economic
jewel in the Pacific and America's physical link to Asia.
As a former Governor, I have had the opportunity to read
Haley Barbour's ``Agenda for America,'' which outlines the
viewpoints on the future direction of the United States. The
book envisions a more secure and strong America that bases
itself on a strategy of peace through strength. It premises
that American foreign policy would rest on three principles of
peace through strength. First, its political leadership;
second, economic strength, and, third, its military power. It
is my firm belief that a fully incorporated Guam and Marianas
would strengthen the foundation of these three principles of
foreign policy.
I will close by declaring my unwavering loyalty and
allegiance to the United States, but I must, in all good
conscience, respectfully caution this fine body that the
patience and the good will that has been so clearly
demonstrated by so many generations of our people is not
infinite. There is indeed a frustration growing amongst our
people. Positive steps need to be taken and, frankly, ladies
and gentlemen, the time to take this important and needed step
is now. You have the power to take those steps.
For generation after generation, proud Chamorros and all
other American citizens of Guam have proudly sung the national
anthem, recited and proudly believed in the Pledge of
Allegiance, and in every war America has fought since the turn
of the century bled and died for our Nation. We have
demonstrated repeatedly that we love and will die for our
country. We want, we need, and clearly by historical record, we
have earned the right to be accepted in full by the United
States of America.
I ask you ladies and gentlemen, once and for all, is
America finally ready to accept us? Thank you, and [speaking in
Chamorro] ``Si Yu'os ma'ase.''
[The prepared statement of Governor Calvo may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank the former Governor
Calvo for his fine comments, and now we'll call upon Governor
Ada. And I would urge all the witnesses to speak closely to the
mike; they're not real sensitive.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH F. ADA, FORMER GOVERNOR OF
GUAM
Governor Ada. Mr. Chairman, and members of this august
body, this document is the creation of our people in
plebiscite. This document was approved by the majority of Guam
voters, and especially by the Chamorros in Guam.
The document that is H.R. 100 is already an historic
document, regardless of what happens to it, for the simple
fact, Mr. Chairman, we have before us the only democratically
expressed view on the political status of Guam that has ever
existed in the 300 years that Guam and the Chamorro people have
been administered by Governments other than ours. This document
is the only expression of the democratic voice of our people
that exists with respect to political status, the only one. For
that reason alone, it must be treated with respect as you
deliberate on the fate of that expression.
Today you are hearing from Guam--Democrats and Republicans.
All of us, whether Democrats or Republicans, as Governors and
Guam legislature, have fought for self-determination for the
Chamorro people and self-government for Guam, because in Guam
there is no Republican position or Democrat position on
Commonwealth, because on this issue we are united.
I spent 8 years fighting for this Act as Governor. We
brought this Act to an earlier Congress, and they insisted that
we first begin discussions with the executive branch. That we
did. We spoke to the task forces in both the Bush and Clinton
administrations. At first, these discussions with the
administration were extremely difficult. In the beginning, the
Bush task force tried to claim that we were already self-
governing, even though every Federal court decisionmakes it
clear we are not.
Just because we can elect a legislature and a Governor, as
you know Guam only is permitted to do these things by
delegation of Congress, Congressional authority in the Organic
Act. This Congress has the authority, tomorrow, to throw our
legislature out of office, nullify all local laws, to replace
the Governor of Guam with the Commander of Naval Forces
Marianas or Presidential appointees or naval officers, as
indeed was done in the past.
As one Federal court put it, ``Guam has less self-
government than Boulder, Colorado.'' It does not matter if Guam
writes a constitution if that constitution is subject to
congressional amendment or approval, or if that constitution
does nothing to address the imbalance between Federal and local
authorities.
What we seek in this Commonwealth is increased actual self-
government for the people of Guam. We seek recognition of the
fact that the Chamorro people have never been granted an
exercise of their self-determination and recognition of their
process to give the Chamorro people the opportunity to exercise
that right.
Under Commonwealth, although Congress would retain very
significant powers over Guam, very specific authorities would
be vested in the Government of the Commonwealth. These powers
would be permanently vested in the Commonwealth, not delegated
and subject to revision. This is critical. That is why in the
past I have referred to mutual consent as the heart of this
act. Without mutual consent, this act just becomes another
Organic Act.
When I left office, we were working closely with the
Clinton administration, as we had with the Bush administration.
Through their representative we signed agreements in which the
administration agreed to mutual consent over the act.
Unfortunately, in the Bush administration, signed agreements
were reneged upon, and now it seems in this administration
agreements reached with Mr. Heyman and his successor, Mr.
Garamendi, are also being reneged upon. We have trusted in the
administration, and Mr. Chairman, our trust has been betrayed.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect for my language, Mr.
Garamendi has just massacred the heart and soul of our people,
their dreams and aspirations. He has been dishonest in his
statement. Mr. Chairman, we shall continue to fight. I am sure
that what I say today--that the Federal immigration in Guam
will refuse my entry into my homeland.
We look to this Congress to restore our faith in the
process. Our experience is the strongest proof of why mutual
consent is so necessary. After all, if executive branch
representatives and task forces are constantly changing their
minds and betraying agreements, how can we relay on somebody's
simple word? We need certainty, and only mutual consent can
provide that certainty.
Self-government--given the limited self-government we seek
at this time--is only possible if Congress partially disposes
of its plenary powers under the Territorial Clause. In our
view, there is no doubt Congress has the power to do this under
the plenary powers granted by the Territorial Clause, and the
people of Guam deserve to have this done.
There are many ways that Commonwealth benefits Guam, but
perhaps the greatest benefit we receive is the least tangible
justice. In peace and war, Chamorros have been loyal friends of
America. We have been alongside you in many wars. We have
supported you, given of our land, our blood, our lives, and
nobody can deny that. If any people have earned the
consideration of this Government, I can say without fear and
contradiction, it is the Chamorro people. I hope the reward for
loyalty is just respect. I hope that after 300 years you will
do what the Spanish never did, and what so far this Federal
Government has not done. We hope you will do what is right for
the Chamorro people, for the people of Guam, for America.
And last, Mr. Chairman, I resent the fact that Mr.
Garamendi does not believe in our people to exercise self-
determination. It is an insult to say that our people cannot
distinguish between right and wrong. We are people just like
you. We are people like people in America and in every other
country, and those people are fortunate to have self-
determination. And we have been robbed of that self-
determination for over 300 years, and we're still the victim of
discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, I ask this august body to take a handle on
this process because we cannot trust the administration
anymore. For over 8 years they have said, ``Let's do this;
trust us--and trust us and trust us.'' And yet as we turn
around, and at the end of every administration, they have
reneged on all of the agreements that we have signed, too. That
is not justice. I beg of this august body to take handle of
this and achieve for the people of Guam the same dream that
this American country is noted for in helping countries achieve
their democratic process.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Governor Ada may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. I'd like to thank Governor Ada for his fine,
impassioned testimony, and the other two Governors for their
testimony.
At this time, we will open it to questions. Does the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, have a question?
Mr. Duncan. Well, Mr. Chairman, no; I don't have any
questions. I just would say I thank the witnesses for coming
this great distance and taking such time to get here, and I
certainly can understand why they would desire more self-
government. I did read this description of the bill that says,
``U.S. income taxes will generally not apply to Guam, yet Guam
will receive the full State level of Federal assistance and
programs.'' And I wonder if there might be some way we could
get that to apply to the citizens of Tennessee, also.
[Laughter.]
But I am very favorable toward what they're requesting.
That's all I would say at this time.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Farr, from California.
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome
everyone to Washington, and to my Chamorro friends, Hafa Adai.
I want to tell this committee something. I served in the
California State legislature, and in 1992 I had the opportunity
to lead a group of State legislators from the Western United
States to Guam for a legislative conference. That experience
opened my eyes. It opened my eyes to the fact that so few
people who live on the mainland even know where Guam is or how
far away it is. In fact, you can't get there from here. You
can't get from Washington to Guam. You can't get from the west
coast to Guam without going through Hawaii or some other place
offshore. It is so far away that most people on this side of
the globe don't get there.
What I was struck by is what an incredible island it is, a
beautiful place that obviously generates its income from
tourism and the pride of the Chamorroan people. It's an
incredibly rich culture, and it's a very diversified island. In
fact, I would submit that that island is more diversified than
any congressional district, and there are only 135,000 people
on the island. The island's economy is in the region.
Everything done there, though, is dependent on Washington,
DC. Why does Washington want to be so possessive, so paternal
about a place that most of the bureaucrats have never even
visited? And yet those bureaucrats are in control of the
ambient air quality of Guam. People don't even know about
prevailing winds; the wind blows all the time. Anything that
goes up gets blown away, and yet you have bureaucrats out there
checking the ambient air quality, trying to do things on
wetlands in Guam. It's a small island, and yet we put all that
bureaucratic legislation on top of them.
I mean, if you are in Guam and you sit there and try to
understand why this country has been so possessive of an
island, not allowing people to have self-determination, I think
you begin to echo what the Chamorro people are saying, which
is, ``Let my people go.'' Congress, let this bill go. Move it
through Congress; put the pressure on the President to make
sure that they deal with this island to give people some self-
determination. That is the American way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, yes. I would like to ask one
question just to give the panel an opportunity to dispute a
little more on the issue.
First of all, I was thinking that maybe many of the States
would like to join in Mr. Farr's sentiments and get rid of many
of these federally imposed laws. In fact, you could come over
on this side if you'd like, Mr. Farr. We'd love that.
Mr. Farr. Well, you have State's rights, and they don't
have State's rights; that's what they're asking for.
Mr. Cannon. That's right. On the other hand, this august
body is often difficult to work with, and then if we're not
able to pass the Guam Commonwealth Act, what are the three of
you thinking are the next steps for Guam? When I say ``not
pass,'' I mean in this session or the next session. It may take
us a while to move that forward. What do you think are the next
steps for Guam?
Governor Gutierrez. Well, I think the process at this
particular time, as the door was opened by this administration,
is to have a tri-partite negotiation process between the people
of Guam, as mandated by H.R. 100, this administration, and this
Congress, who has this plenary power to make that final
decision. What we have been going through in an exercise of
futility is the fact that we have to come back and negotiate
with this Congress again. We have made a lot of progress.
I think the core principles as embodied in H.R. 100, as the
people of Guam have voted on it, need to be brought to a
closure. The opening of this administration to say that if we
put this tri-partite negotiation together, that we should look
at June 20, 1998 as the drop-off date that we should come to
some kind of a resolution to this 100-year quest by the
Chamorro people, it's only right, Congressman, that if all else
fails with this Congress, the people of Guam then will decide
that; and I would not want to second-guess what the people of
Guam would do.
I am the chairman of the Commission on Self-Determination,
present Governor, and I'm carrying the mandate of the people of
Guam to this Commonwealth Act, and I can only speak to that at
this particular time.
Mr. Cannon. Do the other members of the panel want to
address that at all?
Governor Calvo. I am the oldest of the Governors here, so I
have been removed from politics, but I can tell you that not
only are our aspirations, Mr. Chairman, good for us, but I
think it is a good investment, a very good investment for this
Congress to consider giving us what we're asking. And the
reason I say this is because we just had a situation where what
happens in Hong Kong affected the whole Nation, the whole
globe. And I think that you have an opportunity to have a
presence--not just a colony, but a presence--U.S. soil.
And you know, I know that we have been coming to the
Congress here, and we're saying, ``Hey, practice what you
preach.'' You tell China what happened in Tiananmem Square was
wrong. You know, you tell third-rate countries that, ``Hey, you
should treat your citizens--remember civil rights and civil
liberties.'' That is nice, but I'm sure that everybody asks,
``What's in it for us?'' And I say you are against us because
we are thousands of miles away, and although we are Americans
by virtue of your act, you can take it away from us at any
time.
But if you were to--the trading partners of the United
States, which are Korea, Japan, China, New Zealand, Australia,
and Taiwan, they comprise about 46 percent of all the global
production. And they say that in China, by the year 2010 or
2015, it is going to surpass the United States. I think that
it's not just good for you to consider what's good for us, but
it is good investment for the United States.
And even though I'm not involved in the process that
Governor Gutierrez is involved in, being the chairman, I think
that besides asking the question of what is good for us, the
people of Guam, ask what's good for the United States. Because
this is where the action is--so pass it.
Governor Ada. Mr. Chairman? May I also respond?
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Ada wants to answer.
Governor Ada. Mr. Chairman, I've been in politics for 24
years, and I've often come to Congress to testify before the
Ways and Means Committee. And I always remember Congressman
Yates looking at me, testifying before him on budgetary
matters, and he would always say to me, ``Mr. Speaker, why
don't you go back home and develop your economic potential, and
do something back home to generate revenues for your people?''
And I looked up to him, Mr. Chairman, and in my own mind I
wanted to tell him, ``Mr. Chairman, you have tied our hands for
so many years that we cannot move ahead economically.''
This is the reason why, Mr. Chairman, that we are embarking
on this Commonwealth, because we want some economic liberty
where we have very limited resources in Guam, and we cannot in
any way move ahead and take advantage of the creativeness of
our local people to go into ventures without having the Federal
Government coming in and tying our hands.
The Governor here mentioned prosperous garment factories in
the 1970's, prosperous watch factories in the 1970's; hundreds
and hundreds of our local people were gainfully employed. But
through the efforts of the people in the US, the garment
industry people and the watch industry people--the lobbies--who
had influenced the administration to kill the industry that we
had in Guam that we had been exporting--approximately $100
million worth of garments and watches into the United States--
and at the same period of time other countries, like Hong Kong,
Taiwan, and Japan, have been exporting into the United States
$6 billion worth of garments and watches, compared to the $100
million worth of garments and watches from Guam, and this as a
result of the lobbies killing and robbing our people of their
livelihood.
These are the kinds of things that we want to prevent in
this Act, and this Act will help. If you look into this Act,
Mr. Chairman, and members of this august body, you will find
that it will mutually benefit all of us because it will give
our people that opportunity to achieve their dreams and
aspirations, to be innovative and creative, and at the same
time be less reliant on the Federal Government coffer. And we
have done that so far, even with the fact of the Federal
constraints imposed upon us. We have accomplished what other
people can't believe that we have so far, for many years.
But we are looking for the next generation. It is our duty
and obligation to provide the economic environment for the next
generation, because we just can't work for this generation. And
that's what this Commonwealth is all about, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman--would the gentleman yield on
that last answer?
Mr. Cannon. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. I want to make absolutely sure--Governor
Gutierrez has presented a much different approach, Mr. Ada. Are
you telling me that this Commonwealth bill is an opportunity
for you to have labor that will not meet standards, like
minimum wage and health and environmental standards? And that
you want to have Guam considered as if it was China and the
rest, which I oppose?
Governor Ada. Mr. Congressman, I am glad you asked that
question, and I challenge each member of this august body----
Mr. Abercrombie. Just a moment, Mr. Ada--you're not going
to challenge me to anything. I can tell you that right now.
You're not going to run for office on my time.
Governor Ada. I'm trying to respond to your question, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Abercrombie. I just want a simple answer. I do not read
H.R. 100 in the manner in which you have just described it, and
Governor Gutierrez's approach seems much more likely to
succeed. Now if I understand you correctly, if I understand
what you're stating here, you have a different interpretation
of H.R. 100 than I do.
Governor Ada. No, sir. The reason why I said that I
challenge each member--not to be disrespectful, Mr.
Congressman. You have been misled by the administration in so
many ways. In the end, it guarantees that Guam would not
implement any law that is lesser of the U.S. labor law. We
should not implement any law that would also be contrary to
wages, and so forth. We will uphold the labor law, and the only
thing that we can do is do even better than what is in the
Federal labor law. So we do honor and respect the labor laws,
as well as where wages are concerned, and it's for that reason,
Mr. Congressman. I'm sorry if I tried to imply that you haven't
read the act. I understand that that's another matter, but it's
been so often misrepresented.
Mr. Peterson. I feel called upon here to call a recess for
15 minutes where members will be free to go vote, and then
we'll be right back. So this will give those of you sitting a
chance to stand and stretch and take a breath of fresh air, and
we'll be back shortly.
[Recess.]
Mr. Peterson. Ready to go back to work? If we can find our
Governors, we'll proceed.
Governor Gutierrez. I'm here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. If everybody could take a seat, we'll get
started. We have a lot of territory to cover yet--that slipped
out.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peterson. We're going to get started now, if I could
have your attention.
I will call on the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all
right--you've just slaughtered my name, but I know you mean
well.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I do not also offer my
personal welcome to the three distinguished Governors whom I've
had the privilege of knowing personally: Governor Gutierrez and
Governor Calvo when I was formerly a staff member of this
committee--ages ago--and my good friend, Governor Ada, for
their presence. And I also welcome my good friend, Ron DeLugo,
who is former chairman of the Subcommittee on Territories, who
is here with us.
Mr. Peterson. Would the gentleman yield? We need more quiet
in the room. If you need conversations, I guess whisper or go
outside. We really do need your attention.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had hoped that
my good friend from Hawaii, Congressman Abercrombie, would be
here because there were some questions and issues that he
raised that we wanted, not only for purposes of clarification,
but as well as for his edification and understanding of the
problems with the insular areas, separate and apart from the
history of Hawaii when it became a territory, an incorporated
territory, and then eventually became a State.
But I would like to thank the three Governors for their
profound statements, and I just wish that more members of our
committee would be here so they could receive a little sense of
education about what happens out there and the problems that
we're faced with when issues such as this come before the
committee for consideration.
I would like to ask Governor Gutierrez, as chairman of
Guam's Commission on Commonwealth, I made an earlier statement
to Mr. Garamendi that, in my humble opinion, for the past 8
years we have not moved one inch since the proposed
Commonwealth Act, and the fact that the people of Guam have
voted, have given their consent, that this is what they want.
Do you think, Governor Gutierrez, that we have a problem
here with the process? You know, we all know that it took over
10 years, I think, for the Federated States of Micronesia to
negotiate their Compact of Free Association until finally it
was approved by the Congress. I believe, also, that your
cousins in the northern Mariana Islands also took several years
before their covenant relationship with the Congress was also
approved, so I'm having a little problem here with whether it
is the process that is the problem, or is it because of the
substance?
It was almost like the document has already been approved
by the people and the voters of Guam, and it seems to me that
this kind of locks in everybody. It's either a take-it-or-
leave-it basis for the negotiators to go in there. Is there any
sense of flexibility in the process, like the way the Compact
of Free Association was negotiated? You know, it was a give-
and-take; it took over 10 years to do this. Now, 15 years
later, after the voters of Guam opted for Commonwealth, your
own sense of definition of what Commonwealth is--because it's
not like Puerto Rico's Commonwealth; it's not like
Pennsylvania's Commonwealth status. So I am in a quandary as
to, is it the process that we're having a problem with?
My own sense, my feel right now of the situation, is that
we have a document in place, the people of Guam voted on it.
How will it be possible, then, for the members of the
administration, or even the Congress, to have any sense of
negotiation or flexibility if, in fact, the compact is already
written in stone, so to speak, by the people of Guam? Do you
see the problem I'm having?
Governor Gutierrez. OK.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I would please welcome your
suggestion.
Governor Gutierrez. Thank you very much, Congressman, and
let me say that the problem is a little bit of both, I think--
the substance and the process. And the fact that we're not
blameless in this situation either; the people of Guam are not
blameless in this. And, certainly, the Congress, when they sent
us to the administration in 1989, it was a mistake--without
themselves weighing in.
The difference between the freely associated States and the
CNMI, at the time that they had negotiators, you had
Ambassadors doing it. They were not U.S. citizens. Now when you
look at Guam, you've put us in this United States citizens
mold, and, suddenly you tell us that ``You're a United States
citizen. You have no right to negotiate with your own
Government.'' And this is where the problem lies.
Now as we move forward, we have to take who's got the power
and the authority to make things happen, and it's Congress. And
if Congress does not weigh in at the outset, you're going to
continually see this process dragged on for the next
millennium. And so the suggestion as we spoke with this
administration--and you heard it from Mr. Garamendi; it was not
without my knowledge--is that we continue to open the door, but
have a tri-partite negotiating theme and a deadline set--and I
suggested the date June 20, 1998, the 100th year of the raising
of the U.S. flag over Guam.
If you put that in the process to move forward, then you
would see the substance and the process actually work. It won't
work now. But the testimony--I'm a forever optimist, Mr.
Congressman, and people take potshots at Mr. Garamendi for his
statements. I've been dealing with the gentleman for over
almost 2 years. I know what he feels in his heart. I think his
inner-being knows that he despises colonies. I know I spoke
with President Clinton. His inner-being despises colonies.
It's trying to break through this mold and this box of
constitutionality, which we ought not to be thinking in. We
ought to step out of this box and start to realize that to be
able to bring a people such as Guam, with a unique history, to
move forward in a relationship that gives some dignity to the
island and its people, you've got to step out of the box. And
if you continually stay within these constitutional questions,
we will never come to any resolution of the problem.
And we say to you, Congressman, that for 100 years you have
inculcated in our minds, if not ingrained in our minds, true
representative democracy and the system that makes this Nation
great and that makes it work. And if you don't allow us to come
forth and get a unique relationship--because you're telling us
that Statehood is out of the question; you won't give us the
two senators and a representative that can vote; so, therefore
you have to give us some unique representation here. And the
process as we have envisioned it with this administration is to
put together a mechanism such as a Federal commission in which
Guam has input--not veto power, but input into the way the laws
are made that govern our lives.
Mr. Farr has been out there, but I would say that 99
percent of the Congressmen and Senators have never been to
Guam, but they continually make legislation that impacts my
life adversely without their knowledge. And I don't think they
like or have to do that if you had a commission come in to say,
``Wait a minute, Senators. If you allow this bill to pass, it
might hurt Guam.'' Now if they don't want to take that advice,
then Guam is going to be negatively impacted. But it requires
that this commission have some high-level people in it,
appointed by the President of the United States.
Now this is our representation in Congress, and it doesn't
have a veto power, but it has some meaning. Because if you
don't give us the Senators and the Congressmen, obviously,
then, we have to devise a unique relationship, and that's all
we're asking for. We want to be continually a part of the
United States. It's part of me. My very first memory--my very
first memory, walking out of that concentration camp at 3-
years-old, was that G.I. walking me out and carrying me--that
smiling face. So you cannot take away from me that America is
great. Anybody that says Americans are no good has a fight with
me.
But I say, also, in the truest sense of democracy, that you
have to do something with how this Government was founded in
the first place and to embrace all that are US citizens. You
can't leave us out there, out there 10,000 miles away to fend
for ourselves, because we are America in Asia and you have to
understand it from that perspective.
Our economy is Asian economy, and if you continue to have
those Federal laws bind us from moving forward, growing our
economy, then you will see that there's tension building, and
then you will see that there's not going to be harmony with the
relationship with the United States.
And the people that we face daily is the US military out
there. We still want to be able to do that, but for God's sake,
make sure that the people of Guam get more of their internal
self-governance. That's all we ask.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Governor Gutierrez, within the matter of
7 or 8 months, you will have reached 100 years. Whether we're
going to celebrate it, or whether we're going to do something
else to commemorate the 100th year of the relationship existing
between Guam and the United States--and I want to ask for your
best opinion--what are we going to celebrate next year?
Governor Gutierrez. Well, if Congress says,``Yes; we'll go
on the tri-partite negotiations,'' I think we would celebrate a
renewed relationship that moves us into the 21st century, that
the people of Guam would allow for bringing to a closure, as
Congressman Underwood said, the right to self-determination of
its people. And I say to you: Not to worry, Congressman. You
have taught us well in American democracy, and I don't know why
anyone would worry how the people of Guam would choose if you
give them that opportunity.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to--Governor
Calvo, Governor Ada?
Governor Calvo. I was just going to say that Governor
Gutierrez covered the subject very well, but I'd just like to
put a more practical prospectus into the situation. We are
American citizens, a possession of the United States, which is
quite different than the northern Marianas and the rest of the
islands. And in fact, during World War II, we were the only
island that was with the allies. And so you have a situation--
and also, we're the island that has the military presence.
It reminds me of when I was young; you know, when you are
courting your girlfriend, you are very nice and you promise her
heaven on earth, but once you get married, some people look at
their wives as their possession. And so in that way, I feel
that Guam is a spouse of the United States. And they say,
``Hey, stay at home and do exactly what I say. Don't do what I
preach out there, just do what I say.'' And I know it's kind of
hilarious, Mr. Chairman, but that is the difference between
Guam, the northern Marianas, and the rest of Micronesia. We are
a possession. We are a colony.
And, of course, somebody was mentioning--the gentleman, I
think, from Connecticut--the Congressman from Connecticut--that
why should you be so possessive when all we're asking is to be
like you over here. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Governor Ada.
Governor Ada. Thank you, Congressman. I just would like to
ask this august body to issue a directive in some form to the
administration to carry this process if this is your wish, or
take handle of this process yourselves. I have experienced the
frustration of having to sit across from the task force of the
two previous administrations and have come to an agreement on
major issues, such as consultation with the military on various
matters, such as the immigration laws, such as the trade
policies; and the most important part, the part that everybody
has said is unconstitutional, is the mutual consent provision.
We had come to an agreement.
Michael Heyman, a noted law professor, chancellor of
Berkeley University, was the Clerk of the Supreme Court during
the 1960's--he had drafted the proposition and submitted it to
the administration that mutual consent is do-able. We have
worked on this issue for many years, and we have researched
every constitutional issue with respect to mutual consent, and
to this date, every time we have reached an agreement and at
the end of every administration, the major concessions, the
major agreements that we have signed were reneged. It happened
again during the Clintonadministration. I mean, there is
absolutely no trust, and then they come before Congress and
mislead the Members of Congress.
A question was asked here earlier about the fact that under
the Commonwealth that we are proposing to have slave laborers
if we do have a garment industry in Guam. That is not the case.
Congress has been misled. We, in the Commonwealth, if you've
read the Commonwealth, we protect the integrity, and rightfully
so, of the laws passed by the United States with respect to
labor and wages, and we will not do anything less than to
uphold that law or to strengthen the law to protect laborers.
These are the types of things, Congressman, that bother me,
and there must be some kind of direction that you receive the
appropriate recommendation. If they do disagree, let it be so,
and let Congress handle that matter themselves, but not to
disagree under the guises that it is unconstitutional, because
there is nothing unconstitutional in the section of the
Commonwealth of Guam.
It has been researched very well, and to use that argument
is to deceive not only the people of Guam. It would be an
insult that we don't know what we're doing, but it would be
more of an insult to Members of Congress to tell them this is
the case where it is not the case, and this is all we're
asking, Congressman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Governor Ada. Mr. Chairman, my
time is up, and for a matter of observation, I want to also
mention to Governor Ada that California has higher labor
standard laws than the Federal Government, and I think that's
what you were trying to explain about the fact that Guam will
enact or pass laws--if not the same standards as the Federal,
or even better.
Governor Ada. That's right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So I appreciate your clarification on
that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. I recognize the gentleman from Guam, Mr.
Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I sure
appreciate the testimony of the three Governors, certainly the
practical approach of Governor Gutierrez and the impassioned
pleas of Governor Ada, and the fact that Governor Calvo has
encapsulated that this agreement is not just good for Guam;
it's good for the United States, are legitimate parts of the
enterprise which comprise the Commonwealth Act. These three
approaches are all very strongly felt, and these are all ways
of viewing the proposal which will help us perhaps bridge the
gap and move us in the direction of passage.
I noticed, Governor Calvo, that you mentioned that this is
somewhat like after marriage and after you slip on the ring.
Some people would not compare our relationship as one of
marriage, but rather one of being a kept woman; more like, if I
give you an apartment, would you just keep quiet? And that if
we just give you so many Federal programs, would you just keep
your issues about self-determination and increased autonomy and
power to yourselves?
I also just wanted to touch briefly on the issue of the
interchange between Mr. Abercrombie and Governor Ada, and I
clarified with Mr. Abercrombie that Guam is not at all seeking
the kind of things that he may think, that what we really had
in that situation was that as an industry started to take off
on Guam, lobbyists were able to switch the quotas on us and
destroy the industry.
And it wasn't because we had standards that were less than
those that existed in the 50 States; indeed, all the existing
standards on Guam are comparable to the 50 States, and, indeed,
we have the full application of minimum wage. In fact, at
times, Guam's minimum wage has actually been ahead of the
Federal minimum wage, so there's no issue about wages, and
certainly there's none of the problems that are associated with
labor standards.
There are two questions I would like to ask. Since all of
you have been chief executives, and one the incumbent, and I
know, Governor Calvo, you were the very first chairperson of
the Commission on Self-Determination. The first question I'd
like to ask is, is this business about being a tribe. Have any
of you ever heard a reputable call or has anyone ever expressed
to any of you any interest in the Chamorro people of Guam
becoming a federally recognized tribe for purposes of
exercising sovereignty?
Governor Ada. No.
Governor Calvo. No.
Mr. Underwood. Governor Gutierrez?
Governor Gutierrez. I'm sorry; I wasn't paying attention.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. Oh, you're filling out your tribal
enrollment sheet, are you?
[Laughter.]
Governor Gutierrez. I'll see if I can pass some notes up to
someone.
Mr. Underwood. The question is, In your capacity as
chairman of the Commission on Self-Determination, have you ever
heard a reputable call for the acquisition of tribal status for
the Chamorro people in order to exercise sovereignty?
Governor Gutierrez. I've heard of it.
Mr. Underwood. But do you consider it a reputable proposal?
Governor Gutierrez. Not from the people of Guam,
themselves, but a few corners.
Mr. Underwood. Basically from people that aren't even from
Guam.
Governor Gutierrez. Well, they're trying to get some people
from Guam to see it their way, but the people of Guam and its
leadership have generally not moved forward in that direction.
Mr. Underwood. OK, thank you; then the one remaining issue
that I'd like to solicit your comments from: we've noticed that
in the representation by Mr. Garamendi of the Clinton
administration's position on this, full local control of
immigration has been rejected as a cornerstone of the Clinton
administration's position, but they did concede that there was
some possibility for making some kind of Guam-specific
immigration policy, either in terms of providing relief for
temporary workers or, perhaps, for limiting the impact of
permanent immigration. And I wanted just a brief statement from
each one of you, whether you see some room for maneuvering in
that statement, or is that, in the current parlance of the day,
non-negotiable?
Governor Gutierrez. Well, let me answer first. I see some
room for bringing this thing to a--as I envision the principle
of immigration control as proposed in H.R. 100, that is to be
able to limit the number of people on Guam, particularly
because of the size of the island and, you know, the finite
resources that we have to sustain a big population in Guam. And
the fact that the United States, through this administration's
willing to be able to try to uphold that principle, whether we
control it or not, is at least a step forward in the way that
the Congress in the past has continually made national
immigration policies stick to Guam.
So, I think there's room for us to continue. As I said,
Congressman, I may be an eternal optimist, but we've got to be
able to look at the good things that this administration has
just said here instead of jumping all over them and saying that
they betrayed us. I'm not trying to take issue with Governor
Ada, but I look at it on a different point, and I think it's a
call for all three of us to get together. And I heard his
pronouncements on the various principles that we are trying to
get in H.R. 100, and I think we can get that. We're looking for
the mechanism to make it happen, and we ought to continue to
let that door open, and let's get moving on.
Mr. Underwood. Governor Calvo--on the immigration.
Governor Calvo. Yes; I think the fact that our island mass
is so small and that we've already got 150,000 people there,
that we should have control on immigration. And not so much to
exploit--and I think the implication was to bring in cheap
labor--but we need control so that we will not be
overpopulated.
And one of things that our Congressman is constantly
working for is the question of compact impact. Here's a
situation where we are spending more than you gentlemen are
reimbursing us, and so it's these types of problems that need
our input--in immigration, especially.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you. Governor Ada?
Governor Ada. I think it's a step in the right direction,
and I just hope that he is pretty much honest about it.
Mr. Underwood. OK. Well, I appreciate those comments.
There's always a tendency sometimes to characterize the H.R.
100--which is being heard in its entirety as it was passed 10
years ago--as something akin to Biblical revelation; this is
not Biblical revelation. It is a piece of legislation, and it
is a proposal, and there are some core principles in there that
we will not shrink from, and I think those of us who have been
involved in the process have identified those principles very
clearly and forthrightly.
But, certainly, even in the discussion of immigration,
there's obviously some room for discussing some alternative
approach which takes into account the principles and the issues
which we have identified, and at the same time avoids some of
the problems, and, frankly, political considerations which are
in the environment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit a
resolution and statement from the President of the Mayor's
Council of Guam in support of the Commonwealth Act.
Mr. Peterson. Without objection.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
[The statement of the president of the Mayor's Council of
Guam may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. Ms. Green.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that
my full statement has been entered for the record, but as a
fellow American citizen from one of the territories and having
a stake in seeing that the integrity of this process is
maintained, that the people of Guam exercise their right to
self-determination, I really must express my unqualified
support for H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth Act, and my extreme
pleasure that today, after 10 years, the people of Guam are
finally getting this hearing on their choice of Commonwealth as
their vehicle for self-determination.
And I wanted to add my word of welcome to our colleagues
who have testified and to the two former Governors, and
Governor Gutierrez, and especially I wanted to add a word of
welcome to the many Guamanians who have traveled that long
distance to their Nation's capital to be here today to
demonstrate their strong support for the Guam Commonwealth Act.
I want to also welcome my predecessor and friend, Ron
DeLugo, if he's still here, and to join my other colleagues in
commending Congressman Underwood for his determination, his
faithfulness, and his hard work in bringing us to this day.
We, on behalf of the people of the Virgin Islands, we
pledge our unwavering support in seeing this process through to
a successful completion by the 100th anniversary of Guam's
becoming part of the American family. This Congress has the
power, and it has the authority to do so. And as Governor
Gutierrez said, the time is now for us to act.
And many of my specific questions have been answered, but
Governor Gutierrez, as you ended your opening statement you
said that there might have been other things that you would
like to elaborate on, and I'd like to just give you the
opportunity to do that, if you wanted to, with the remainder of
my time.
Governor Gutierrez. Thank you for that opening, Delegate
from the Virgin Islands; Donna, thank you.
What I meant was that--you know, the time that you sit up
here, as little as it gets, sometimes does not give you the
opportunity to say what you want, and what I meant was that I
hope that during this period of questioning and answering that
we might be able to elaborate more. I have done a lot of that
in the very principles that we have envisioned in H.R. 100, and
I would like just the opportunity to answer any questions. And
thank you for that.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you. I don't have any specific
questions at this point.
Mr. Peterson. OK; thank you. Would the three Governors
answer the following question--their views on an elected
attorney general. Do you want to start, Governor?
Governor Gutierrez. Well, that's fine with me. The
situation you've got to look at in Guam--you know there's a
position in the Guam legislature now called the Surihanu. The
Surihanu is an arm of the legislature to investigate, much as
like you have with the GAO. Now they're trying to pass a bill
that would make that an elective office within an elective
office.
Guam is very small. You can--and I'm sure the people of
Guam will accept the election of an attorney general. The
problem that we see in the future is that everything in Guam,
eventually, would be so political that I just don't know
whether it would work. But whatever the wishes are of the
people of Guam, I would abide with. I think it might work. It's
going to take time to transition.
I was hoping that it would be placed in a constitution for
Guam, written after the Commonwealth Act, so that the people of
Guam can really get a Government of its own, instead of this
piecemeal legislation coming through the Congress of the United
States.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Calvo?
Governor Calvo. I think the intent of having an elected
attorney general, Mr. Chairman, is to remove it from the sphere
of politics and trying, frankly speaking, to remove it out of
the control of the Governor. I am not so sure, though, that the
cure is better than the disease, because for somebody to be
running for attorney general, he will be going out and
soliciting votes. That probably will be a more direct political
movement than to have been appointed by the administration and
sanctioned by the legislature.
I think that I can't foresee how it would turn out, but,
you know, the democratic process is election, so maybe trying
it out would be the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, but
that is my view, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Ada.
Governor Ada. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the attorney
general, normally an advisor to the Governor on legalistic
matters--I am not too strong insofar as having an elected
attorney general. However, I am much stronger in supporting an
elected prosecutor. I think that that would be a better remedy
to separating the function of the attorney general as advisor
to the Governor, and the prosecutor as prosecuting cases, so
that there shouldn't be any semblance or perception of any
political interference.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the chairman yield?
Mr. Peterson. I'd like to just comment, and then I'll turn
to Mr. Faleomavaega.
In Pennsylvania, when we switched from an appointed to an
elected--of course, the Governors appointed their chief
counsel, but the role of approving contracts was done by the
attorney general, who was elected, and in most cases they
agreed with the Governor, but not always. There were times when
there was disagreement--it was a more independent person--and
he sort of becomes the chief legal officer of our State of
Pennsylvania, or Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. It's a matter of observation, Mr.
Chairman. I just wanted to say that even at the Federal level
we still can't decide whether we should elect the Attorney
General--or the problems that we're having right now, with all
kinds of investigations going on, and to appoint an independent
counsel--so whether it be at the State or Federal level, it
cuts both ways. It's a matter of preference, I suppose. Some
States elect their attorneys general and others don't; but it's
an interesting question to the territories. It's a mixed bag;
it can go either way.
But I wanted to ask a question--am I?
Mr. Peterson. Sure; please proceed.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Two minutes. I'm still a little confused
here. We've got the proposed Commonwealth Act. The
administration is having some very serious problems with it,
and I'm trying to find out what should the Congress then do if
there's an impasse here? Obviously, they do have some very
serious problems with the proposed provisions. Now the ideal
situation would be that the administration signs off on it and
says, ``We agree in principle that this is what we like with
the compact.'' So then it comes to the Congress for approval or
for whatever changes that need to be made.
Do you prefer the current process, Governor Gutierrez--and
all of the three, because all of you have served as chairmen of
the Commission on Commonwealth--or is there a better way of
doing it? I'm still asking about the process. I don't think
it's so much the substance that I'm concerned about.
I have a little positive reaction from Governor Gutierrez,
because I get the impression that you think the current process
is working, and please correct me if I'm wrong, because there
seem to be some difference of opinions here. The current
process is not working, and should we here in the committee,
right now, have a solution for the problem to solve it, rather
than continue on for another year, another 2 years, and then we
have another hearing 8 years down the line and we still haven't
moved an inch.
Governor Gutierrez. Well, the solution would be that just
you and I negotiate and leave the administration out.
[Laughter.]
Governor Gutierrez.But if this Congress listens to the
testimony of this administration, then obviously the best
method would be for all three of us to get together. Now, mind
you that I'm the chairman of this Commission, and I'm supposed
to testify strictly on H.R. 100, but what I heard from this
administration and a few of the members of this committee is
that it ``ain't going to fly.'' I have to bring that back to
the people of Guam and tell them that what they voted on ain't
going to fly, and that we need to be able to, as you said, come
down with some negotiating wiggle-room to make this thing work.
And I think that the people of Guam will decide in the next
few months what they would like to do. If they're so adamant as
to say it's all or nothing, then we don't see anything
happening by June 20, 1998. I would hope that I can ask the
people of Guam to say give us an opportunity--the Commission on
Self-Determination, the leadership, our Congressmen--to work in
a better method than we have over the last 8 years, and that's
to negotiate with all three--I mean the Congress and this
administration. And I think if we set a deadline for ourselves,
we might be able to see some progress come to fruition.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Governor, 8 years ago we held a hearing,
and my good friend Ben Blaz can attest to this, and chairman
Ron DeLugo. We held the hearing in Hawaii, in fact. The first
thing and the first impression that most members would have--in
the substance now--we're talking substance of the bill.
Governor Gutierrez. Right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. There would be what is known as a
concurrent referral. When you talk about trade issues it goes
to Ways and Means. When you talk about taxes, it goes to the
Ways and Means Committee. When you talk about transportation,
it goes to the Committee on Infrastructure. When you talk about
resources, strictly on territorial issues, it's this committee.
The danger that I saw 8 years ago, in my humble opinion,
was the fact that this bill was going to be referred to several
committees because of jurisdictional problems, because of the
issues that are involved. And when you talk about EEZ with
foreign issues, foreign relations, it goes to the International
Relations Committee. And when you have a bill that is going to
be referred to six different committees, with six different
substantive issues, it's almost to say that's the death knell
of any proposed bill. And, I say this in all honesty and with a
sincere desire, just as we tried when my good friend Ben Blaz,
8 years ago--how can we get this thing moving in such a way
that Congress and the respective committee system, in such a
way, that they could be cooperative in working toward resolving
the issues that the substantive part of the bill provides?
That's the problem that I see and I've talked to some of our
colleagues on the committee, and this is the bottom line.
Governor, in all due respect, this is the problem that we face
right now with the proposed legislation.
Governor Gutierrez. Right. I wish 8 years ago you would
have told us no on all those provisions so that we would have
done something different instead of telling us to go to the
Administration and talk about it and that's what happened.
Governor Ada. Mr. Congressman, may I add to that question?
As earlier I did mention that I hoped that this august body
will issue some kind of mandate, and that, of course, would be
up to you, to the Administration telling them and perhaps
giving them a deadline that this act must be resolved one way
or another in the Administration side. I just want to say that
we have visited practically all of the section of the
Commonwealth Act with the Administration. We have signed off to
many of the sections and subsections and so forth. We have
taken care of the most difficult of the Act; the mutual consent
provision, immigration, trade and commerce, consultation on
military matters. There are only a few that's leftover. The one
issue that the Administration continued to say no is the Jones
Act. That's the only one issue that they refuse to even listen
or find a solution to the problem. If you have taken and asked
of them, rather, to give you all those information and just to
go through those things, you wouldn't know that there are
solution to all of these issues and those solution are mutually
beneficial to all of us, both America and Guam. The only
problem that we're having here is that, at the end of every
Administration, the entire thing would be reneged or parts of
it would be reneged and then they come before Congress and
would tell Congress otherwise. All I'm asking is that this
Congress would just tell them to sit down, go through this
thing, give us what you have at the end of this period, and you
handle--and you take it from there. And I do understand,
Congressman, that it would take more than 1 year for this
august body to entertain the Act because of the nature of this
august body. It may take 1, 2 or 3 years. I think that that
ought to be a consideration and that's all we're asking,
Congressman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Governor. I didn't--Mr.
Chairman, my time is up but I would like to say for the record
that this is the first time that I have heard that you only
have one remaining problem in the negotiations----
Governor Ada. Not one remaining. The most important part--
the most difficult part--there's other area that are not that
difficult to overcome.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, it's my----
Governor Ada. I think, in terms of----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'm sorry, my time is up.
Governor Ada. I'm sorry.
Mr. Faleomavaega. It was my sincere hope, Mr. Chairman,
that Mr. Garamendi will provide the committee with a status
report on how the negotiations have been for the past 4 years.
Al, can that be done, Mr. Staymen? Can we make this as a
request, Mr. Chairman, that we get a status report from the
Administration of the status of the negotiations with the
Commission of the Commonwealth? Just to kind of give us and
update where exactly we are? At least from what I hear from the
Governors, it is ongoing, it is in progress and I'm very happy
to hear this. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Peterson. I believe Mr. Staymen shook his head yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Thank you, Al.
Mr. Peterson. One final question for this panel, Mr.
Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
comments of my good friend from American Samoa. I must state
for the record, however, that the problems with the document,
and this is a complicated document of 12 articles and I think
both Governor Gutierrez and Governor Ada, who have been more
directly involved with the negotiations, have sustained the
position that the critical arguments are not within the
jurisdiction of other committees. They're within the
jurisdiction of this committee and so that's really a call for
whether this committee wants to take up the challenge of
helping to broker this process or not. And I think that's the
status of where we are at this time. I would reiterate my
concern that I feel that, you know, to use a well-worn football
analogy, it's fourth down and there's quite a number of yards
to go. The Administration has apparently decided to punt,
rather than throw the Hail Mary pass. Despite the fact that
many of us went to Mass this morning to ask for spiritual
guidance, the Administration decided to kick the ball.
I just want to make a final comment, Mr. Chairman, on the
Attorney General's position. My legislation calls for the
legislature, in conjunction with the Governor, to decide
whether an elected Attorney General will be in Guam. It's
always interesting to ask Governors what they think about an
elected Attorney General and I did notice that, unless Governor
Calvo is planning a miraculous comeback, he's the only Governor
who's not likely to be Governor again and he's the one that's
the most favorable to my legislation.
Governor Calvo. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank the panel. I would like
to thank the members for their good questions. We will excuse
the panel to----
Governor Gutierrez. Mr. Chairman, just quickly----
Mr. Peterson. Sure.
Governor Gutierrez. I was not able to go through my whole
testimony. Could I submit it for the record?
Mr. Peterson. Absolutely. Without objection.
Governor Gutierrez. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peterson. Any questions for the panel can be submitted
to the record, too. We'll share them with you. We thank you
very much.
The next panel will be the Honorable Anthony Blaz, Vice-
Speaker, Guam Legislature; the Honorable Mark Forbes, Senate
Majority Leader and Chairman, Senate Committee on Federal
Affairs, Guam Legislature; the Honorable Ben Pangelinan, Senate
Minority Leader, Guam Legislature; the Honorable Elizabeth
Barrett-Anderson, Chairperson, Senate Committee on Judiciary,
Guam Legislature; the Honorable Peter Siguenza, Chief Justice,
Supreme Court of Guam; the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III,
Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam.
I'm told that all panelists are here except the Honorable
Ms. Barrett-Anderson, so we will then proceed and we will call
upon the Honorable Anthony Blaz, Vice-Speaker of the Guam
Legislature. Please be----
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANTHONY BLAZ, VICE SPEAKER, GUAM
LEGISLATURE
Mr. Blaz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honorable members of
this committee, I am Anthony C. Blaz, Vice-Speaker of the 24th
Guam Legislature and Chairman of the Committee on Finance and
Taxation. I am also a member of the Commission on Self-
Determination.
As our Governors past and present have indicated,
Commonwealth is supported by both political parties in Guam.
Republican Governor Calvo appointed the first Commission on
Self-Determination. Democrat Governor Bordallo's Commission
completed the first draft of this act. He was followed by
Governor Ada, a Republican, who amended the act, conducted a
plebi scite with the people of Guam on every provision of the
act and, upon its passage, presented the act to my uncle, the
former Guam Republican Congressman, Ben Blaz, who first
introduced this act on the Hill. Governor Ada conducted
discussions with the Bush Administration and the early years of
the Clinton Administration. Today, Democrat Governor Gutierrez
heads the Commission, fighting hard in continued discussions
with the Clinton Administration and, along with our esteemed
Democrat Congressman, Robert Underwood, has brought this act
before Congress today.
Every Guam legislature in recent times, whether the
majority has been Democrat, as it has in the past, or
Republican, as it is today, has endorsed the provisions of this
act. All of Guam's municipal mayors, whether Republican or
Democrat, have endorsed this act. The reason why this act has
near-universal bipartisan support from Guam's elected leaders,
past and present, is simple; this act and only this act has
been endorsed and ratified by the people of Guam in plebi
scite. The voters of Guam have approved every provision of this
act, provision by provision. No other act, no other status
option has been approved by our people, even when they had the
opportunity to do so. And, given the option of voting for
independence, they rejected it. Given the option of voting for
statehood, they rejected it. Given the opportunity to pass a
constitution, our people overwhelmingly rejected it.
We believe that the vote of our people is sacred and, as an
elected representatives of our people, we are morally bound to
heed their call. This act is their call and that is a fact.
When other options are discussed, they are merely opinions.
Although this act is a bipartisan effort, as a life-long
Republican, I feel I must give the Republican view of
Commonwealth to clarify any misunderstanding.
The official view of the Republican Party of Guam is
support for commonwealth status for Guam. It has been in our
party platform. In fact, support of Commonwealth status for
Guam has been part of the National Republican platform for at
least the past two times and, in fairness to my Democratic
friends, I must point out that support for Commonwealth is a
feature of both the local and national Democratic Party
platforms.
As a Republican, not just locally but nationally, I find it
very easy to be enthusiastic about Commonwealth because it's
good national, Republican legislation, too. The Republican
Party believes in limiting the power of the Federal Government
over people in general and local communities, in particular.
That's what Commonwealth does. As Republicans, we believe in
empowering local communities to solve their problems themselves
and that's what Commonwealth status will do for Guam. As
Republicans, we believe in promoting economic growth as a means
of enriching the lives of people and reducing the burden of
Federal taxation and spending and that's what Commonwealth
does. In so many ways, Commonwealth for Guam ties directly into
many primary Republican plans and we hope, in time, that our
national Republican leaders will come to appreciate this and
liberate the creative energies of our people by granting us
self-government and the autonomy to do what we can do for
ourselves. And don't get me wrong, this is good Democratic
legislation, too, worthy of the same bipartisan support
nationally that Commonwealth receives at home. It is
unfortunate that, based on testimony we have heard today, the
Clinton Administration is unwilling at this time to give the
dreams and aspirations of our people the support they deserve.
And, that's not entirely surprising. In the years that we've
been discussing Commonwealth with the executive branch, we have
been involved in endless discussions with low-level bureaucrats
and cutoff from true policymakers. We expect bureaucracy to
resist change. It always does. We expect bureaucracy to
preserve the status quo and the prerogatives of big government.
It always will. It is unfortunate that, at an executive level,
Commonwealth remains largely hostage to this eternal
bureaucracy.
But this Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, have
successfully waged battle against running Federal bureaucracy
in a host of areas. This Congress has successfully begun the
reform of the bloated welfare bureaucracy. It has streamlined
spending, and will deliver us, in short order, a balanced
budget. It is tackling tax reform. Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, we humbly ask you to run interference for us
with this bureaucracy that is frustrating us on this issue. We
do not expect you to endorse this act as a result of this one
hearing, of course not. This is the first time we have come
before you in this manner. But we ask you to work with us and
discuss the many provisions of this act in the months to come.
We gave the Administration years and, surely, we can give you
the benefit of reasonable time, as well. We ask that you
withhold hasty judgment and engage in meaningful deliberations.
If we deal on this issue in good faith, I am certain that both
sides will be reasonable. Let us do the work that needs to be
done but, unfortunately, the executive branch seems to be
dropping the ball on. Surely the express will of our people
deserves a fair and full hearing, discussion and deliberation
at the very least. I am confident that this Congress will work
with us and I look forward to the process as a Republican, as a
Chamorro, as an American. Thank you and [speaking in Chamorro]
``si yu'os ma'ase,'' Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blaz may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. Next, we'll call on the Honorable Mark
Forbes, Senate Majority Leader.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK FORBES, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
AND CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL AFFAIRS, GUAM
LEGISLATURE
Mr. Forbes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In the
interest of keeping within the 5 minute deadline imposed and
having taken a look at my written testimony, I'm going to
extemporize and attempt to summarize it as best as I can. I
also need to take the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to respond
partially to some of the testimony that was presented earlier.
I was disappointed in the National Administration's
testimony, especially one particular portion of it. There was a
statement that was made by the Administration representative
that, if I understood it correctly, said that, although he
might have certain feelings and opinions about Guam's
Commonwealth Act in particular and our goals in general, that
until, if I understood him correctly, virtually every single
person in the executive branch signed off on this, this could
not be executive branch policy. And I'm thoroughly confused
because I had thought that the process that we were engaged in
with the Administration was a process we were having these
discussions with a designated negotiator, for lack of a better
term, who had been entrusted with a certain degree of
franchise. And, to have heard today that, basically, we have to
go and convince every single entity in the executive branch on
every provision in Commonwealth just presents an impossible
task. And I'm glad that we're having this hearing because I
think that, you know, although we are obviously going to
continue to engage in reasonable discourse and discussion with
whoever is interested in maintaining that degree of discussion,
it's critical that we start dealing with this on a
congressional level. It's important that we talk to folks who
have some real policymaking authority here, who can actually do
what needs to be done and I think that, at this juncture, it's
critical that we understand why we have to come before
Congress. Delegate Faleomavaega asked the question earlier. He
made a--and I apologize if I didn't hear you precisely, but I
believe the question ran along the lines of, since we've
already presented this in plebi scite to the people of Guam and
since they have already approved in plebi scite every single
provision, is there really any possibility of movement and
discussion? What is there for the House to do? And, my response
is that there's everything for the House to do. That's the
whole reason why we're here. Guam can have innumerable votes,
the people of Guam can vote time and time again, and, although
it is very meaningful for those of us who represent the people
of Guam, legally it's meaningless because we are a non-self-
governing territory and our people do not have the personal
sovereignty enjoyed by other Americans that gives meaning to
their act of voting. The question what is there for Congress do
to, is everything. That's what the plenary powers of Congress
under the Territorial clause mean. Beyond that, Congress has,
at least in our view, a clear obligation under the Treaty of
Paris to deal specifically with the issue not only of the
disposal and the disposition of the territory of Guam, but, as
it is stated very clearly in the Treaty of Paris, determining
the civil rights and the political status of the native
inhabitants of those territories ceded by Spain. The Treaty is
a treaty, entered into freely by the United States, ratified by
the U.S. Senate and the specific delegation, in that Treaty, of
a responsibility to Congress not only to dispose of the
territory of Guam, as it would any territory under the
Territorial clause, but to specifically determine the civil
rights and the political status of the native inhabitants is a
very weighty responsibility. And, in fact, there is no other
body, no body that exists, in U.S. law that can deal with this
issue other than Congress.
I feel that, having heard the Administration's testimony
this morning, that they've kind of missed the boat. What we're
looking for fundamentally here, and there is no time to go far
beyond the fundamentals, is for the establishment of some
degree of self-government for a non-self-governing people. How
we see that as being possible is by a partial disposal of the
plenary authority that Congress has over the people and the
territory of Guam under the Territorial clause. We believe that
this is doable. We believe it can be done. We believe that
there is sufficient court precedent to speak to the powers that
Congress has to do this and we believe there are many creative
ways that this can be done which, hopefully, we will discuss in
the months to come.
One final note. There have been some comments made by the
Administration and by others that the other, very important
goal in our quest here, acquiring a recognition of the right of
self-determination for Chamorros, is in violation of equal
protection clause of the Constitution. Rather than get into a
broad discussion of that, I would just like to, again, remind
the committee of what it says in the Treaty of Paris. Congress
is to determine the civil rights and the political status of
the native inhabitants of the territory ceded by Spain. I think
that is something Congress can do, as well. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Honorable Mark Forbes may be
found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. For the record, I'd like to share that the
Chair will ask the Administration to share with the committee
the process they used that didn't seem to please very many
people, make very many friends, or make very much progress,
we'll ask them to explain to us that process that was utilized.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peterson. What their goals and hopes were. At this
time, I will introduce the Honorable Ben Pangelinan, Senate
Minority Leader.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BEN PANGELINAN, SENATE MINORITY
LEADER, GUAM LEGISLATURE
Mr. Pangelinan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, at the opening of the hearing, a question was asked,
where are we at, at this process? Clearly, Mr. Chairman, we are
not where we want to be, we are not where we should be, and we
are not where we ought to be, and that is the purpose of our
presence here this morning, to resolve this dilemma.
Honorable chairman and members of the committee, it is with
the highest honor that I appear before you and my greatest
privilege to do so, as an elected representative of the people
of Guam. I am the Minority Leader of the 24th Guam legislature.
To prepare for this hearing, I logged onto the committee
homepage and immediately opened the ``Hot Issues before the
Committee'' page, hoping that H.R. 100 would appear. It did
not. Today, we appear before this honorable committee seeking
to generate the heat requisite to place the Guam Commonwealth
Act on the ``Hot Issues'' page of this committee and this
Congress. Today, we fan the embers kept alive by our honorable
Nation, which, for nearly a century, guarded the glowing
cinders of democracy and liberty in Guam and ignited the fire
of liberty in our people who aspire to be America's bastion of
democracy in the Pacific. We bare our souls, hoping that you
recognize the torch of liberty that is emblazoned in our hearts
that we are now willing and able to become full partners as
America's living paradigm of democracy and commitment to
liberty and freedom for all her people.
Today, we seek to denude the arguments that cloak the hope
and promise contained in H.R. 100 which sustained the Chamorro
people for decades. Some of you may ask why and under what
authority should Congress recognize the political rights, give
life to a Commonwealth, and give birth to a new political
entity within America, by and for the people of Guam. While
some argue that what we seek is not within the framework of our
constitution, we believe otherwise. Congress' authority over
the disposition of the territory of Guam is irrefutable.
Equally unimpeachable is its authority to do so within the
broad framework of our petition, H.R. 100. Open the door, the
right door, and we will walk through that door. Open the wrong
door, and we will turn away.
We fully realize that, absent full integration into the
union as a State, Guam will forever be limited to an unequal
status within America. We must then apply the words--the words
of the great Justice of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter,
``there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of
unequals.'' When Congress treats Guam equally to the States, it
treats Guam unequally, for we are not equal with the States.
Vested in Congress is the power and the authority to determine
the political status of Guam, to grant political rights to the
people of Guam, unequal from those granted to the residents of
the States, and to establish the Commonwealth of Guam that is
unequal from that of any State.
Mr. Chairman, at the April 1997 hearing on H.R. 856, the
U.S.-Puerto Rico Status Act, Chairman Young expressed sadness
upon learning of the loss of Donna Pilar Barbosa Rosario, the
daughter of the official historian of Puerto Rico, who, in a
personal note, wrote to the chairman the morning after the 1996
hearing on H.R. 856. She wrote, ``God help us that Pilar
Barbosa could live more than 3 years to see what all this
results in. So help me God--it's now or never.''
Today, I bear the same sadness for Guam who has lost
someone of equal importance in our quest for Commonwealth, Tun
Pedro Perez, a most respected leader, who at the 1989 Hawaii
hearing on Guam's Commonwealth, urged Congress to act on this
same Commonwealth. He cried out against the attitude of
``Manana, manana,'' our political relationship with America,
come back ``manana.'' He pleaded, no more ``mananas,'' for this
old man may not live to see another ``manana.'' Sadly, 3 years
after the 1989 hearings, like Donna Pilar, Tun Petro saw his
final ``manana'' before he could see what all of this results
in for Guam.
Honorable chairman and distinguished committee members,
nothing is more difficult than not being able to see ahead. For
to live without being able to see ahead is to live without hope
and a people without hope shall surely perish. Mr. Chairman,
now is definitely the time to act to see what all this results
in so we can see ahead, so we can restore hope. With a full
realization that we will not finish in this Congress, let us
act today for action on H.R. 100 gives the Chamorro people the
ability to see ahead. It renews hope and promise for our people
and, with hope and promise renewed, we know that we, the
indigenous people of Guam will not perish. At the start of the
Commonwealth, some debated whether we should dare embark on our
quest, our journey of hope and promise. To all who dared to
start this journey, Tun Pedro and those who are no longer with
us on this earth, we vow that we shall not dare to stop the
journey that you dared to start until we fulfill the hope and
deliver the promise made to our people.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to declare my
support for H.R. 2370 and also, Mr. Chairman, to raise the
issue of an amendment to the Organic Act with reference to the
quorum of the legislature in which local action has resulted in
the need to amend the Organic Act to reflect that a quorum
consists of a majority of its members and that no bill shall
pass and become law unless it shall have been passed at a
meeting in which a quorum is present and by the affirmative
vote of a majority of its members. I'd like to also ask the
Committee Chair to accept my written comments for the record.
Thank you, [speaking in Chamorro] ``si yu'os ma'ase,'' Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pangelinan may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Underwood. [presiding] OK. All your statement will
entered into the record. I now call upon the Honorable Peter C.
Siguenza, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Guam.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER SIGUENZA, CHIEF JUSTICE,
SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
Justice Siguenza. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Congressman Robert Underwood, and the other distinguished
members of the House Committee on Resources. It's a pleasure to
be here to speak. It is an honor, indeed. I'm here today as the
Chief Justice of Guam. My rotating term expires in about a year
and a half from now, at which time we Justices will elect a new
Chief. And so, at my first, and hopefully final, appearance
before you I want to stress the importance of the critical
matter which is before us today.
In simple terms, House Resolution 2370 would place the
judiciary of Guam on an equal footing with its two coordinate
branches of government. As you will note, the inherent powers
of both the Executive and legislative branches are clearly
delineated within the Organic Act. Only the structure of the
Judiciary lacks this kind of clarity. Ironically, the original
local legislation which created the Supreme Court distinctly
outlined the Court's authority, clearly placing administrative
and appellate jurisdiction within the Court. In this sense,
H.R. 2370 undeniably reflects the will of the people. Virtually
every provision within the Judicial Empowerment Act before you
today mirrors the 10-year drafting process with culminated in
the passage of the bill in 1992. It is significant to point out
that no effort was made to alter the bill for the next 3 years.
The legislation sat intact and untouched for nearly 4 years,
that is, up until the ceding of the Court in April 1996. At
that time, on the eve of the confirmation hearings of the
Justices, efforts were undertaken to alter the legislation and
curtail the authority of the Court. In effect, what had taken a
decade to build was summarily undone within 3 months. In fact,
since the Court's inception, there have been no fewer than 4
legislative attempts to undermine the Court's administrative
authority and, even as recently as last month, a successful
legislative bid to limit this Court's legal jurisdiction.
Let me briefly share with you the chronology of this Court.
In 1973, the Guam Public Law 1285 was enacted, envisioning a
judiciary with a local supreme court at the helm. 1974, the
first Supreme Court of Guam is established. 1977, the U.S.
Supreme Court strikes down Guam's Supreme Court. 1977, that
same year, Guam convenes a constitutional convention. The
foundation is laid to establish a supreme court as the judicial
and administrative head of the Judiciary. This draft
Constitution is submitted and approved by the U.S. Congress.
1984, the Omnibus Territories Act amende the Organic Act to
allow for the creation of a supreme court. 1993, the Frank
Lujan Memorial Court Reorganization Act is signed into law
after its 1992 passage in the 21st legislature. The bill is
patterned after the 1973 local legislation, the 1977 draft
constitution, and provisions from various state constitutions.
The legislation calls for a supreme court of Guam which ``will
handle all those matters customarily handled by state supreme
courts, such as court rules and court administration. Thus,
administrative functions of the courts, formerly lying either
with the Judicial Council or the District Court of Guam, are
placed with the Supreme Court of Guam.''
Then, in 1995 in November, myself, Justice Janet T. Weeks
and Justice Menessa G. Lujan are nominated to the Supreme
Court. Also, in 1996 in March, hours after the Justices of the
Supreme Court are confirmed the 23rd Guam legislature passes
bill 404, which removes certain inherent powers from the
Supreme Court. A second bill, bill 494, aims to strip the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over all lower
courts. That bill is debated but tabled by the Legislative
Committee on the Judiciary. Eight months later, in December on
1996, the legislature attaches the contents of the shelved bill
494 as a midnight rider to bill 776. The legislation passes and
is vetoed by the Governor. An override attempt fails by only a
slim margin. In short, this is the problem faced by the Supreme
Court of Guam and why we seek to have this Court established
within the Organic Act. Permit me the luxury of overstating the
obvious when I say that a judiciary or any branch of government
cannot function independently if another branch can modify or
strip it of its powers at will.
The bill before this distinguished panel will ensure that,
like the inherent power of the Executive and legislative
branches, the corresponding authority of the third branch
cannot be tampered with on whim. There are those who espouse
the view that the Judicial Council of Guam is the policymaker
for the Judiciary. Allow me now to let the record speak for
this court when I say that in the 10 years it took lawmakers to
craft and fine-tune the bill that created the Supreme Court of
Guam, the notion of a judicial council as the administrative
arm of the Judiciary was explored and subsequently rejected in
that role. The Frank Lujan Memorial Court Reorganization Act,
which created the Supreme Court, explicitly envisioned an
advisory role for the Judicial Council. And, since that time,
the will of the people is not changed. A recent survey
conducted on Guam by your colleague and our delegate,
Congressman Underwood, in addition to a poll conducted by the
Guam Bar Association, along with numerous media editorials,
have each independently and resoundingly confirmed the original
legislative concept of the Supreme Court as the judiciary
administrative helm. This isn't a structure without precedent.
The Judicial Empowerment Act would not only restore the initial
intent of local legislation, creating the Court, but would also
confer upon it the same inherent authority exercised by
judiciaries in the 50 States and other U.S. jurisdictions.
In closing, I leave you with the words of Alexander
Hamilton, who noted over 200 years ago, ``the Judiciary is
beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of
power. All possible care is requisite to enable it to defend
itself against their attacks.'' Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
brought with me copies of the judicial sections from the
respective constitutions of every State and U.S. jurisdiction,
should any of you wish to view them. It has been a pleasure and
I thank you for your time and your attention.
[The prepared statement of Honorable Peter C. Siguenza may
be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Justice Siguenza. Your entire
statement will be read into the record. At this time, I'd also
like to recognize the presence of Justice Janet Weeks from the
Guam Supreme Court who is with us here. At this time, I'll call
upon the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III, Presiding Judge,
Superior Court of Guam and former Guam Senator.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III, PRESIDING
JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
Judge Lamorena. Good afternoon and [speaking in Chamorro]
``Hafa Adai.'' Thank you very much for the opportunity, Mr.
Chairman and members of the committee, to appear the committee
on Resources. I have submitted my written testimony earlier and
I would like to recognize the presence of Judge Manibusan,
Joaquin Manibusan, Superior Court Judge, who is also submitted
written testimony. I have incorporated his written testimony
and mine in my oral testimony.
I come before you representing the Superior Court of Guam
Judges who oppose H.R. 2370 and, individually, as a member of
the Commission on Self-Determination, in support of H.R. 100,
the Guam Commonwealth Act. We, as Superior Court Judges, oppose
H.R. 2370 because H.R. 2370 is unprecedented in that Congress
has always left the internal organizational structure of a
court system to the individual states or territories, whether
through local law or local constitution. H.R. 2370, if passed,
would certainly run contrary to the goal of increased self-
government for the states and territories as long as that goal
is consistent with the United States's Constitution. In Calder
v. Bull, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the power to
establish the internal structure of a state's courts is at the
very heart of a state's sovereign powers. The same principle
should be applied in the case of the Judicial Branch of the
Government of Guam. For Congress to dictate the internal
structure of Guam's Judiciary denies the people of Guam the
rights afforded other states and territories. Will Congress
next dictate Guam's internal structure for our legislature and
for our executive branch? This is a dangerous precedence and is
definitely a step toward more Federal control and less self-
government for our people of Guam. This is totally contrary to
the principle of federalism abdicated by many Members of
Congress.
Under the Organic Act of 1950, Guam has had limited self-
government. Today, American citizens in Guam aspire to a
greater degree of self-government. If Congress shares the goal
of self-government for Guam, then Congress must reject H.R.
2370. If passed, H.R. 2370 would have repealed existing Guam
law and micro-managed the affairs of the Judicial Branch of
government. This means that whenever there is any change
needed, we must return to Congress where Guam has no voting
representatives to seek the desired change. The internal
structure of the Judicial Branch is a local matter. When our
Congressman, Antonia Won Pat and Congress passed the enabling
legislation creating the Supreme Court of Guam, it left up to
the Guam legislature to establish laws to set up the internal
structure of the Judicial Branch. Our Guam legislature has
already established the structure and the authority of the
Judicial Branch. Does it not seem both logical and necessary
that proposed changes to the structure of such a system should
be determined by our local legislature elected by the people of
Guam? As U.S. citizens on Guam, we simply are asking to control
our local government. No Federal interest is at stake when
self-government over Guam's internal affairs is exercised in
matters not otherwise governed by the U.S. Constitution. I
respectfully request that this honored committee table H.R.
2370 and, for the reasons cited, I hope it passes H.R. 100, the
Guam Commonwealth Act.
The people of Guam have the inherent to set up our
governmental internal organization. Guam's control over its own
judiciary goes to the very soul of its quest for self-
government. Guam wants a fundamental restructuring of its
relationship with the United States, not merely a commonwealth
title without commonwealth reality. We are seeking a change in
Guam's political status whereby we have the right of self-
government, all the branches of the government, including the
courts. In conclusion, it will serve the national interests for
Congress to acknowledge a sovereignty in matters relating to
local issues. H.R. 2370 provides less, rather than more, self-
government. As U.S. citizens, self-government for our people,
by our people, and of our people must be our ultimate goal. In
addition to my testimony, I incorporate the following
testimony: the Honorable Joaquin Manibusan, Superior Court of
Guam, Judge. Our testimonies have also been endorsed by
Honorable Katherine Maramen and the Honorable Steven Unpinqco,
colleague, Judges, of the Superior Court of Guam, who together
comprise four of the five Superior Court Judges on the island.
Thank you and [speaking in Chamorro] ``si yu'os ma'ase.''
[The prepared statement of Judge Lamorena, III may be found
at end of hearing.]
Mr. Underwood. I thank you, Judge Lamorena, for your
comments on my legislation.
[Laughter.]
Judge Lamorena. On both legislations.
Mr. Underwood. On both of them. Thank you very much. I also
would like, for the record, to enter statements by: former
Senator Pilar Lujan, who was author of the Supreme Court of
Guam legislation; the comments of Judge Frances Tydingco-
Gatewood who supports the legislation as a Superior Court
Judge; the statement by the Guam Bar Association, which is in
support of the legislation; and Charles Troutman who is the
compiler of laws and current Acting Attorney General who is
also in support of H.R. 2370. All of those statements will be
made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lujan may be found at end of
hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Judge Tydingco-Gatewood may be
found at end of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of the Guam Bar Association may be
found at end of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Charles Troutman may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Underwood. If Mr. Staymen is here, at the conclusion of
some questions--I would like to re-impanel you and ask you some
questions relative to S. 210. I just wanted to remind you of my
earlier request.
The statements relative to the issue of Commonwealth and
H.R. 100, and I would like to ask the three Senators this
question. It is the same question I asked of the Governors.
Have any of you ever heard of the--or formally support the
idea, perhaps, of making the Chamorro people a tribe in the
manner of which the Native Americans are recognized in order
for the exercise of Chamorro sovereignty?
Mr. Blaz. Well, in Guam, we hear of many rumors, some very
distasteful, some very good things. I don't--in talking about
what has been the will of the people, as the Governors had
alluded to earlier, there's been only one plebi scite even
talking about the status that we seek, which is the
Commonwealth status. As to the desire of the Chamorro people to
become some tribe, I--we don't support it and, if it's a rumor,
I think we should just dismiss it as such.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Forbes. It's fascinating. I had to fly 10,000 miles to
hear that I wanted to be part of a tribe. To the best of my
knowledge, there's absolutely no discussion within the 200
square miles of Guam that goes beyond two folks or three. It
surely has not been in the mainstream media about the
possibility of somehow having Congress--I can't imagine how you
would do it, to tell you the truth, but, through whatever
mechanism, decide that a people that were acquired as the
result of a treaty ending a war with Spain in 1898 suddenly
become indigenous Native Americans, I don't understand how that
could happen. But this is not a hot topic in Guam, I have to
let you know.
And I do have to say one more thing, too, and I say this at
some risk, because I understand there's significant money
involved here. I am--and again, this is all information that I
received here. I understand that a tribe of California mission
Indians is really----
Mr. Underwood. It could be that they are missionary
Indians.
Mr. Forbes. Whatever. Is really big behind this and we have
had one experience with them. About 9 months ago, actually
about a year ago now, during the course of our last election,
we had several initiatives on the ballot. One initiative was an
attempt to legalize casino gambling in the territory of Guam.
This group, apparently, bankrolled the pro-casino gambling side
to a significant degree, at least according to public reports,
and took a very visible role in the public relations campaign
promoting that. For your information, the people of Guam
overwhelmingly and resoundingly, and I presume that includes
the majority of Chamorros, rejected the legalization of casinos
in the territory of Guam. It was a massacre and we thought that
was the end of that. Suddenly, there's a suggestion that Guam
become a tribe and I don't know, maybe it's just me. There's a
part of me that's thinking, gee, what would happen if we really
did create a Chamorro tribe? Does that mean we'd have to have a
Chamorro tribal reservation? What would the reservation consist
of? What would it be? 500 acres somewhere on the territory of
Guam? If we did that, could you then build a casino on that
property regardless of the expressed vote of the people of Guam
to reject casino gambling? I don't know. I'm not saying that's
behind it. I'm not saying that's the idea, but suddenly, it all
kind of, you know, just came to me. I'm suffering from sleep
deprivation, folks, I just got off a plane, so, maybe that's
what's happening. But that is my reaction. But to the specific
question, is this a topic of great debate in Guam, no.
Mr. Underwood. Well, you're clairvoyant as well as a
representative of the people.
Mr. Pangelinan. Thank you----
Mr. Underwood. Senator?
Mr. Pangelinan. Thank you very much, Congressman, for the
question. The only legitimate exercise for the expression of
self-determination for the people of Guam have been through the
plebi scite process and the only legitimate groups that have
participated in the process continue to participate in the
process and appear before you in this hall to express an
opinion on the Commonwealth Act. Any other representations
outside of this process, I believe, is not legitimate and
should not merit the consideration of this committee absent a
presentation to the people of Guam for whatever status they
want to incur.
The missionary Indians visited my office with the local
representative and, if the intent of the establishment of a
Chamorro tribe is for the expressed authority to enter into a
activity that the people of Guam have rejected, I believe the
people of Guam deserve to know the truth behind these
motivations and absent that, I just believe that it is not a
legitimate representation of the desires of the people of Guam.
Mr. Underwood. OK. If I could also just followup with a
brief question of the three Senators. We've discussed a couple
of permutations on this issue of self-determination and the
development of the Commonwealth process. Some have suggested
that we go ahead and develop a constitution first and then we
proceed to exercise the Commonwealth. So, I want to get your
sentiments on that issue, and also the issue of whether
Congress has a role in delegating its authority or disposing of
its authority under the Territorial clause and perhaps you can
answer that. Mr. Forbes, since you're Chairman of the Federal
Territorial Relations, perhaps you can respond to this issue.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My view and
I suspect this is the view of most of us, to engage in a
constitutional process prior to a status change is somewhat
meaningless. Again, it all stems from the fact that we are a
non-self-governing territory. We're non-self-governing. Under
the current statutes that exist that authorize a local drafting
of the constitution, the constitution would have to be drafted
within some fairly narrow parameters, then it would be sent to
Congress and Congress would have the ability to amend, to
revise, ultimately, to approve. Unless there is, first, a
status change, then a constitutional process in Guam simply
reduces us to a drafting subcommittee for a piece of
congressional legislation. And I'm not saying that facetiously.
I believe Guam has to have a constitution at some point, don't
get me wrong. The Commonwealth Act is very specific and it says
that Guam will draft a constitution but it will draft a
constitution subsequent to a change in political statute that
empowers and authorizes the people of Guam to exercise, and I
use this word carefully, some sovereignty in doing this. I
don't mean sovereignty in the sense of an independent nation, I
mean sovereignty in the sense that every other person in this
room, with the exception of those of us who come from Guam,
enjoys. We have no inherent under U.S. law right to exist. Our
government has no inherent right to exist as the governments of
most territories do not, and, until, to get to the delegation
issue, until there is a disposal of some of the plenary
authority that Congress holds and an investiture of some of
that power in the people of Guam, anything we do is kind of
spinning our wheels. We need to have that investiture and when
that investiture and when the people of Guam are acting as
sovereign citizens in the same manner that other Americans get
to act as sovereign citizens in drafting their constitution,
when the votes of the people of Guam are meaningful outside of
the confines of our borders and have meaning that carries to
Washington, D.C. and to the United States of America, then I am
entirely in favor of a constitution. But, until then, I don't
know that it would really serve a useful purpose other than to
eat some time up.
The issue of delegation is a very important one. Congress
already delegates authority to the government of Guam. The very
existence of the government of Guam is a delegation of
congressional authority. But, it is revokable. It is utterly
and absolutely revokable. If Congress chose to, tomorrow, you
know, God forbid and I'm certain this would not be the case,
but if it chose to, tomorrow, notwithstanding the fact that
Senator Pangelinan, myself and Vice-Speaker Blaz were elected
by the people of Guam, we could be removed from office, the
legislature could be abolished, the Governor could be replaced
by the Commander Naval Forces Marianas who would rule by fiat
and decree. Those powers exist in Congress. Congress can do
that. So long as authority is simply delegated, that will
always be the case. It is critical, it is absolutely critical,
that the status change be coupled with a partial disposal of
those authorities. We believe that it can be done. We believe
that, under the Territorial clause, Congress disposes of
property all the time. And we think that if there is a serious
effort to take a look at this issue, on a broad basis, and not
deal with it in such a cursory manner, as the executive branch
apparently did, the executive branch who seems to think there
are limits to congressional authority, that our view will be
justified. And we believe that it is critical that we
understand that, fundamentally, there is no purpose to talking
about Commonwealth if it does not involve at least a partial
disposal of the plenary powers of Congress to the people of
Guam.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Senator. Senator Mr. Pangelinan?
Or, excuse me. Senator Blaz?
Mr. Blaz. As to the constitutional question, it's the cart
before the horse, Congressman, and I think that Senator Forbes
said very eloquently put it. I think that we need to dispose of
the situation regarding our political status. First, that
question needs to be addressed and answered and resolved before
we engage in the process of forming a constitution.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Pangelinan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, the attempt to place a constitution before the people
of Guam prior to the resolution of the political status of the
people of Guam is an attempt to move the train away from the
platform without the Chamorro people on board. And it cannot
happen, it shall not happen, and I will not let it happen.
Any kind of resolution with regards to internal self-
government for the territory of Guam must first resolve the
issue of Chamorro self-determination. It's as simple as that.
It is what the people of Guam desire, it is what they voted
for. It is concurred with by those people who have voted on the
Commonwealth Act, and have said they will give up the right to
vote on Chamorro self-determination. They have disenfranchised
themselves in recognition of the inherent right of self-
determination for the native inhabitants of Guam. We ask that
the Congress recognize this, that the people out there have
extended and expressed and exercised their constitutional right
to a vote, and in the expression of that constitutional right
they have chosen to recognize the inherent and inalienable
right of self-determination for Chamorros only in resolving the
political status of Guam. Thank you.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much and, before I yield to
Mr. Faleomavaega, I'd just like to let the two gentleman from
the third branch of government know that the primary intent of
the legislation 2370 is simply to rectify what is an apparent
imbalance in the way that the three branches of government are
dealt with. Well, I never went to law school. I did go to some
school and in those, I always heard that the three branches of
government were supposed to remain separate and co-equal. Now,
obviously, in the real world, that somehow gets muddled up and
one of the ways that we resolve that is to make sure that the
third branch of government takes on the characteristics of an
original court of jurisdiction or an Organic Act court, in our
case, or take on the trappings of a constitutional court. I
recognize the amount of emotion that is involved in the survey
which I conducted regarding the elected Attorney General and a
couple of other matters before the people of Guam which were
subject to Organic Act changes. This was the one that attracted
the most attention and was the one that was closest in the
outcome of my survey. I certainly don't mean to demean anyone
in--who takes another position as my good friend, Judge
Lamorena, and I mean that because we were classmates and good
friends. I don't mean any disrespect to the Superior Court at
all. And, with that, do you have any questions?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask
Senator Forbes and I appreciate your raising the issue of the--
concerning the Treaty of Paris because this goes, again, to the
very fundamental issue that I had tried earlier just to
understand exactly, not only the current status of Guam as a
territory, how this relates to provisions of the Federal
Constitution, and what this means for the Commonwealth Act
under H.R. 100. Before asking this question, I would like to
note, for the record, I don't know whether it was by fate or by
some circumstance but it was just yesterday, by express mail, I
received a pamphlet that was sent to me by the Cabazon tribe
from California. And I want to express my [speaking in
Chamorro] ``si yu'os ma'ase'' to the good residents and the
leaders of Guam for receiving the tribal leaders and the
members of the Cabazon tribe when they visited Guam. I am just
simply reiterating what I've read of this that was just
received yesterday in my office and I kept querying why the
gentleman from Guam keeps asking this question about being a
tribe. You know, there are 12 tribes of Israel, so the book
says and they were very blessed. But I just wanted to raise the
question because it does tie into the whole question of treaty
rights, sovereignty issues, the right of self-determination,
and where does this put Guam in the middle of all these legal
terms. The first thing I wanted to raise is that Guam was a
byproduct of war and we all live and breathe as a matter of
history. Guam was annexed by the United States and, under the
provisions of the Treaty of Paris, Senator Forbes, and maybe
you can enlighten the members of the committee and for the
record, does this mean that the native inhabitants of Guam
still had inherent rights of the characterization of being a
sovereign people? Still, despite being under or annexed by the
United States?
Mr. Forbes. In terms of the reading that I have done, with
respect to the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Paris,
incidentally, has been referenced in certain court decisions
having to do with the establishment of the unincorporated
territorial status, but the reading that I have done is that
the Treaty of Paris basically, in addition to transferring
physical possession and sovereignty over those territories that
are ceded by Spain to the United States, specifically the
Island of Guam, the Island of Puerto Rico, and all the islands
that constitute the Philippine Islands at the time of the
Treaty, it also transfers--the United States accepted certain
responsibilities. Now, what those responsibilities are,
although the Treaty is a treaty between Spain and the United
States of America, they accept responsibilities for the
inhabitants. In this Treaty, they say that they shall
determine, and actually, it's much more specific than that, it
says Congress shall determine what civil rights the natives,
and this is an important point, the natives shall have and, you
know, forgive us for freely translating native of Guam into
Chamorro, since anybody who was here at the time the Treaty of
Paris was concluded, anybody that was in Guam was Chamorro, so,
I don't know who they could have been referring to, other than
Chamorros, that the civil rights and the political status of
the natives of the territory ceded, such as Guam, shall be
determined by Congress. Now, to us, that seems a very
significant point because under the broad Territorial clause
powers that were in existence since the Constitution was
established, Congress shall make all needful rules and
regulations with respect to the disposal or administration of
territories, but here in this Treaty, we have a very specific
charge leveled upon Congress, that Congress actually took upon
itself voluntarily, to assume responsibility for the people
themselves.
Does the Treaty of Paris confer upon Chamorros and, in
particular, a certain residual sovereignty? I don't know of
that argument can be made. It's very clear to me that Spain is
ceding to the United States territory that Spain feels it owns
and is ceding to the United States the responsibility to care
for Spanish subjects. But, does it definitely place a charge
upon Congress to resolve these questions? I think it does. And
even more important, I think it opens the door to a way to
solve this apparent dilemma that people seem to feel about how
can you have an exercise of self-determination just for
Chamorros? Well, if Congress has accepted, in the Treaty of
Paris, the charge that it will determine the civil rights of
the native inhabitants, i.e. the Chamorros in Guam, that, to
me, gives Congress very broad powers to determine what those
rights are. And, in the past, that broad power has been used by
previous Congresses to determine, well, how little rights can
we give them, you know, what can we get away with in terms of
denying certain rights? But, the word determine to me is not a
minimalist term. It can--it means you can give the Chamorro
this many rights or that many rights or as many rights as you
want, including the right to exercise self-determination. And,
as far as the equal protection clause, we've already had court
decisions in the CNMI that have upheld provisions in the
constitution of the CNMI that restrict the ownership of
property, specifically to Chamorros and Carolinians of CNMI
descent and the courts determined there, very clearly, that,
notwithstanding the equal rights provisions of the
Constitution, that Congress, under the Territorial clause,
could pass legislation and, through their endorsement of the
CNMI constitution had passed legislation allowing for this
apparently discriminatory, although we believe not
discriminatory at all, practice to exist. So, we think the
Treaty of Paris is a very powerful weapon for arming Congress
with the power to resolve these issues favorably and we feel,
again, not to pick on the Administration, that the
Administration is less than creative in examining this and was
quite audacious in attempting to say that you, the Congress,
didn't have powers that so clearly you have. There is no
limitation on what Congress can do when it comes to
territories, and, in this case, what is can do when it comes to
resolving the rights of natives in those territories.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to make this observation,
Senator Forbes, for the record that as you are probably well
aware, that under the Federal Constitution there are two
distinct groupings whereby the Congress has direct authority to
deal with. Those are the Indian tribes and the Treaty rights
pertaining to the Native American Indian tribes, and the
territories. And you've just quoted, quite eloquently, that
specific provision about the Territorial clause which groups
all of us, the rest of us, where territories--but, as I've
cited earlier to Mr. Staymen, the problem is that we are the
only territories that are placed under this listing that the
United Nations has. Indian tribes do not have that in the
United Nations. We have it. The Virgin Islands, American Samoa
and Guam has that specific listing. And because of our listing
as a non-self-governing territory, it also means that not all
the provisions of the Federal Constitution applies to the three
territories, so--which adds another problem. To say that we're
all Americans but in substance, we do not have all the same
rights and privileges as other Americans. So, I just want to--
and, by the way, historically, too, Congress has never been
consistent in its dealings with the territories.
Mr. Forbes. That's clearly the case.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I'm just adding more to the problem
but I just wanted to share that with you and I sincerely hope
that maybe the provisions of the Treaty of Paris will enlighten
some of our friends downtown to see that there is a way to
resolve this dilemma that we're all faced with constantly.
The counting process, as stated earlier by Mr. Garamendi,
when this plebiscite took place in 1982, was it just a
plebiscite among the Chamorros in their self-determination or
did it include all the non-Chamorros as well?
Mr. Forbes. It was island-wide. All registered voters.
Mr. Pangelinan. It was all registered voters of the
territory.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Then, why is the Administration making
such a big thing about non-Chamorros and Chamorros
participating in the process?
Mr. Pangelinan. It seeks to disenfranchise Chamorros. Well,
it enfranchises everybody else. And for me, that is--you cannot
reconcile those two positions. The Administration is saying
that we cannot, as a Federal policy, disenfranchise those
people living on Guam because they happen not to be Chamorros,
but we can disenfranchise Chamorros and it's an OK Federal
policy. It's doublespeak and it just cannot carry, I think, not
only in terms of the Constitution, but I think it--morally,
they cannot carry forward that argument.
Mr. Underwood. And just for the sake of the record, I know
my time's up, when the plebiscite took place in 1982, with the
vote of 75 percent plus, this voting result included both
Chamorros and non-Chamorros, am I correct?
Mr. Forbes. Yes, it did.
Mr. Underwood. OK.
Mr. Pangelinan. And the non-Chamorros voted in that to
include a recognition of a Chamorro-only vote on self-
determination.
Mr. Forbes. Incidentally, not to consume time you don't
have, Congressman, I think this committee should look very
strongly at the implications of statements that were made by
the State Department at the U.N. and apparently in the
testimony today about how the Administration seems to suddenly
believe that, yes, there is a right of self-determination but
that everyone in Guam should vote on it. I thought the Civil
War was fought on the basis of ensuring the nullification could
not occur and that States could not secede. If someone can
leave California, show up in Guam or American Samoa, register
to vote in 24 hours, and suddenly acquire a right of self-
determination that he or she did not have 24 hours before when
they were in California, the implication to me is that this
Administration has turned 100 years of history on its head and
has suddenly decided that Californians have the right to secede
from the United States of America. It makes no sense.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Senator Forbes, I know my time is up and
I want to say that your observation, you hit it right on the
head of the nail. The District of Columbia is a classic example
of how Congress has exercised its absolute authority. There's
supposed to be an elected mayor, there's supposed to be an
elected city council. Now they have an appointed board of
Governors controlling all the affairs of the District of
Columbia whereby some 600,000 American citizens reside. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time is up.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you. Mr. Mansur, would you like to
raise a point?
Mr. Mansur. Yes, thank you, Mr. Underwood. Chairman Young
has really been fully committed to working supporting self-
determination and I think that's evidenced by a number of
things that he's done, particularly the past years, all the
effort he's been putting into resolving the Puerto Rico statue
issue and it's interesting. The fundamental premise of the
Puerto Rico Status bill, the United States Puerto Rico
Political Status Act, is based on mutual consent because you
have three stages and you don't move ahead until you have
approval by the people of Puerto Rico. At the same time, the
chairman has made it very clear that he has a real concern for
anybody who wants to try and assert that somehow Congress could
be legally bound to mutual consent, as opposed to a policy or
basically a framework.
The other thing that is really critical in this process
which has been mentioned today and which I know the chairman
also feels very strongly about are those who state that
Congress' constitutional authority under the Territorial clause
can be disposed of. In particular, I just wanted to point out
with regards to Senator Forbes' statement and I have the
fortunate opportunity to know the Senator for many, many years
now. But you mentioned in your statement about an unnamed
district court case establishing that Puerto Rico is outside of
the Territorial clause. Now, that was a Puerto Rico district
court decision which they were basing on some of the
legislative history about a compact in Puerto Rico authorizing
their local constitutional government. Subsequent to that, the
Supreme Court did determine in Harris v. Rosario that Puerto
Rico is, in fact, subject to the Territorial clause.
Furthermore, you also cite correctly the Supreme Court case
that says Puerto Rico, like a state, is an autonomous political
entity sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution and
that was PDP v. Rodriguez. However, in that case, the court was
referring to the authority that Congress had provided to Puerto
Rico for a local constitutional government. And so, it was in
the framework of that internal self-government that they had--
they were characterized with those powers. Recently, a three-
judge appellate court decision, in United States v. Sanchez,
said in spite of Puerto Rico having this local constitutional
government, and now for almost 45 years, in fact, it's now over
45 years, that Congress, if it so chose to, could, in fact, go
in and completely reorganize the government and change it
completely. Congress hasn't chose to do that. In fact, if you
think about it, even though there is not a legally binding
mutual consent, they basically have abided by that principle
for 45 years, which is a pretty strong statement in itself. The
problem, and the only reason I'm raising this at this time,
Senator, is it seems when these kinds of statements are raised
here in this kind of forum where we're trying to hammer out
what is possible and what isn't, doesn't that bring about
confusion in Guam about what is possible?
Mr. Forbes. Actually, in my statement, Mr. Mansur, I said
that the Puerto Rican situation was confusing. I said that you
seemed to have courts doing maybe this way and then maybe that
way on the Puerto Rican issue and, in the statement, Puerto
Rico is not mentioned as an example of the ability of the
Congress to dispose of property under the Territorial clause.
Rather, it was thrown in there to say, you know, some courts
are even thinking you might have done it in Puerto Rico.
Personally, I believe Puerto Rico is an unincorporated
territory and I've said that anytime anybody's bothered to ask
me. But, I'm saying that you have some degree of confusion that
apparently arises, as best as I can tell, from the vague nature
of the legislation in 1952 which seemed to establish a compact
but then really didn't transfer any specific powers to Puerto
Rico. So, you can have a court simultaneously saying, well,
you're no longer really a territory but since Congress didn't
give you any power, you still have to be treated like one. And,
I think that one of the reasons why, in our draft legislation,
we have attempted, and when I say our I mean Guam's, we have
attempted to be more specific about what powers we would like
to see disposed of is precisely to avoid ever being in a
situation like Puerto Rico is where you might have some
authorities who say you're non-territorial, you have other
authorities who I personally agree with that say they are
territorial and a lot of that confusion stems from vague
language, like using the term commonwealth but not attaching
anything specifically to it, using the term compact but not
having any real terms attached to it. That's why those
statements were raised.
We believe that the power that Congress has to partially
dispose of doesn't stem from anything having to do with the
situation with Puerto Rico. We believe, and again this is
thinking outside the box, Congress disposes of territory all
the time. Congress has been leasing property, partially, you
know, leasing mineral rights but retaining title, and you may
say that that's title. But where are the territorial clauses
that make a distinction between governmental powers and title?
It doesn't.
Mr. Underwood. OK. Thank you, Senator Forbes. I would offer
the observation that I wish the committee had as much expertise
on Guam as it apparently does on Puerto Rico.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. And that inevitably all these issues always
resurface and I want to reiterate the point, I think, that has
been made by the three Senators and particularly by the
statements by Senator Forbes. One of the things that Guam has
judiciously done in this instance is to carefully articulate in
specific terms what it wants in order to avoid any of the lack
of clarity which has led to interminable court cases in the
case of Puerto Rico's own situation and that, in fact, such
things as land alienation, there's a very specific authority
which has been given in the case of the northern Marianas. And
many of the items that we're asking for in this Commonwealth
approach that kind of disposal of authority. So, it is
possible. In some instances, it's a case of political will. In
some instances, perhaps, it's the case of some of our larger
insular areas affecting the business that is at hand. But, I'm
certainly glad that there has been this extended discussion
both from this panel as well as the first panel on the
situation that is unique to Guam and the circumstances which
are unique to Guam and the legal basis for many of the issues
which we forwarded under the Commonwealth Act.
I thank the panel very much. I'd like to call Mr. Staymen
just for some brief questions on S. 210, please. Mr. Staymen,
on the bill S. 210 and this is for the record. On the bill S.
210, there's a provision in there which was inserted in the
most recent version. It wasn't in the past 104th Congress
version which we were trying to work at a late date. There's a
provision in there on paying fair market value if the land goes
to any private owner. I want it clearly established on the
record that I am opposed to such a provision and will work hard
to strike it if it ever happens. But I do want to ask four
questions.
Basically, Mr. Staymen, on page 4 of your statement, you
recommended that the refuge--that the statement--we have a
provision in there in S. 210 which says that if there's going
to be any shift in the amount of acreage which the Fish and
Wildlife currently has on Guam, that there is a mechanism
established by which both Guam and the Fish and Wildlife
Service engage in discussions and, failing any agreement, that
the matter be disposed of in Congress. The headquarters
property of the Fish and Wildlife Service numbers some 300-plus
acres and we figure that this was a useful compromise since we
may not ever reach any agreement. But in your testimony, you
want to expand that to include the overlay component of the
Guam National Wildlife Refuge. Wouldn't the effect of your
amendment exempt the entire refuge overlay from the impact of
Guam being first in line for land? And this would affect
approximately 23,274 acres of land, lands which the DOD
agencies hold onto. And you know, Guam is a very small place.
Twenty-three thousand acres is a lot of land and it really
takes the stuffings out of the whole notion of Guam being first
in line.
Mr. Staymen. That's not the intent. The intent was to try
to clarify the definition which talks about refuge and the
purpose of the bill is to transfer those refuge lands but
refuge lands, per se, are not subject to transfer by
administrative action. And we wanted to clarify that the lands
addressed by this bill are the overlay lands. The intent is
that they would be, the 23,000 acres you speak of, would be
subject to transfer. So, I think we agree that the intent of
the bill is to provide Guam with an opportunity to obtain
ownership of those overlay lands. But by saying the word
``refuge,'' you are suggesting that the lands up at Ritidian
Point, the 772 acres, could be transferred. They cannot except
by act of Congress. They couldn't be affected by this
administrative procedure.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I'm not sure that I understand the
intricacies of your answer. Are you saying that----
Mr. Staymen. I'm not trying to evade this----
Mr. Underwood. Are you saying that if your proposed
amendment is accepted in the context of this legislation, that
that land, this 23,000 acres in the wildlife refuge, would
still be subject to the right of first refusal for the
Government of Guam?
Mr. Staymen. It would be subject to the second track of our
two-track proposal. The two tracks are land that's not a part
of the overlay. Guam would have the right of first refusal and
have 180 days to essentially exercise that right. The other
land falls into the second track which is GovGuam, and Fish and
Wildlife takes 180 days to attempt to reach an agreement on the
conditions of transfer. And, if they do, that's done. If they
don't, it kicks over to Congress.
Mr. Underwood. OK, I think I got that. On the other item,
on page 4 of your written statement, you state that the
administration wants to exempt those lands that are under lease
by DOD to another Federal agency. S. 210 states that those
lands which are leased prior to May 1 would be exempt from
transfer but those properties leased after that date would be
covered by the legislation. If you had--wouldn't your amendment
encourage Federal agencies to enter into lease agreements so as
to exempt those properties from being transferred to the
Government of Guam?
Mr. Staymen. We don't believe so. We believe that having
the 2-year window, in other words, they would have to be on an
active lease, using the land for 2 years, is a reasonable test
for whether that agency really needs the land. We don't want
people rushing in and unfairly using this land if they don't
really need to. What the current bill does is frees agencies.
Essentially, if they haven't been using it before that date,
they couldn't develop an interest. We have to remember that
this----
Mr. Underwood. I think that's the whole intent.
Mr. Staymen. Well, let me just finish to say that this
whole bill is perspective. There is, at this time, no specific
land excess. This provision may be around 10, 15, 20 years, you
know, for a lot longer than that and it's we don't think
reasonable to tell Federal agencies that 10 years from now, if
they develop a legitimate interest in getting a permit from DOD
to use land on Guam, that they should be precluded, then, from
continuing that use should the land become excessed.
Mr. Underwood. On page 6 of your statement, you recommend
that public purpose shall not include any transfers to private
individuals. I want you to know that we've all gone over the
story of the historical context of how lands were originally
taken and I'm certainly interested in trying to find a way to
resolve the situation regarding lands which includes the
original landowners. I also, in your statement on submerged
lands, you indicate in your statement that there has been no
contention over the submerged lands. And I want to point out to
you that I'm going to enter correspondence into the record from
the Government of Guam which has indicated serious contention
over submerged lands, going back 5 years.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Underwood. Are you saying that you are not familiar
with any contention over the ownership of submerged lands?
Mr. Staymen. The scope of my statement was relatively
limited regarding those excess lands adjacent to Ritidian. My
understanding--yes, there is contention about other submerged
lands but, in the case of submerged lands which were made
excess, that Guam, in fact, did not ask for those lands. They
had the right under the current Federal Property Act to claim
ownership of the submerged lands which were excessed. For one
reason or another, they did not claim that. So, I was only
referring to that relatively limited amount of submerged lands
adjacent to Ritidian Point which were declared excess by GSA
and has since reverted back to the Navy, but I might just add
that if Guam is interested in them and asks the Navy, they may
be willing to re-excess them.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I would say for the record that that
was done so quickly there wasn't enough time to indicate our
contention on that.
Thank you. I just wanted an opportunity to clarify those
points with you. Thank you, Mr. Staymen.
Mr. Staymen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Underwood. OK, I'd like to call up the final panel.
Panel III: Susan Moses, president of the College of Micronesia;
Chris Perez Howard, Organization of People for Indigenous
Rights; Hope Cristobal, Organization of People for Indigenous
Rights; The Most Reverend Anthony Apuron, archbishop of the
archdiocese of Agana; Jose Guevara, vice president of the
Filipino Community of Guam; and Debbie Quinata of Nasion
Chamoru.
OK, before we begin, I'd like to enter a number of other
statements into the record that have been given to me.
Statements by: Senator Tom Ada, and Senator Lou Leon Guerrero
of Guam; Senator Carlotta Leon Guerrero of Guam; student Neil
Weare of Oceanview High School; statement of the Guam Chamber
of Commerce; and a statement by Frederick Quinene; statement
by--I wish they would sign it at the beginning--statement by
several members of the Filipino President's Club of Guam; and
that's it for now.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ada may be found at end of
hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leon Guerrero, a Senator
from Guam, may be found at end of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Guerrero may be found at end
of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weare may be found at end of
hearing.]
[The prepared statement of the Guam Chamber of Commerce may
be found at end of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quinene may be found at end
of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of members of the Filipino
President's Club may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Underwood.
All right, we'll begin with Susan Moses. And, I know that
it's very late in the day and we've been at this now for four-
and-a-half hours, and, I know, Susan Moses, that you've been
enthralled about the whole situation regarding Guam and
probably learned more than you ever care to know. So, with
that, the president of the Community College of Micronesia.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN J. MOSES, PRESIDENT, COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA-
FSM
Ms. Moses. Thank you very much. It has been an interesting
day.
And, before beginning, I would like to state that the
testimony that I am about to make is being made not only on
behalf of the College of Micronesia-FSM, as it's president, but
also on behalf of President Alfred Capelle of the College of
the Marshall Islands, and interim President Mario Katosang, who
is interim president of Palau Community College, who are with
us in the gallery today.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, we wish to
thank you for providing the opportunity for the presidents of
Palau Community College, the College of the Marshall Islands,
and the College of Micronesia-FSM to clarify our collective
position regarding S. 210 relative to land grant status for our
colleges. We will now summarize our written statement which has
been submitted for the record.
Prior to 1993, Palau Community College, the College of the
Marshall Islands, and the College of Micronesia-FSM, were all
part of one system; that being the College of Micronesia. This
system was governed by a board of regents through a treaty
among the nations of the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the
Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. In
1993, each of the three colleges of the COM system became
autonomous institutions under separate governing boards in all
areas except those related to administration of the land grant
programs.
Because COM was designated by U.S. Congress in section
506(a) of the Education Amendments of 1972, as the land grant
institution for the trust territory of the Pacific islands, a
Congressional amendment is now required to allow each of the
Micronesian colleges to administer the land grant programs.
This legislative action would, in effect, eliminate one of the
last vestiges of the trust territory administration.
Efforts have been undertaken since 1993, for each of the
colleges in the COM system to be designated land grant
colleges. The COM Board of Regents is fully supportive of these
efforts.
We are grateful for the support of Senators Murkowski and
Akaka, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
for the inclusion of section 3, territorial land grant
colleges, in S. 210.
The colleges were supportive of the measure in its original
form. However, there is a provision in the final form that is
of great concern to us. Section 3(c) of S. 210 stipulates that
the current level of funding would remain the same and be
divided among the three colleges. This provision would put each
of our three colleges at a clear disadvantage compared to
similar-sized land grant colleges in the region--such as
Northern Marianas College and American Samoa Community
College--as it would require the Micronesian colleges to
provide full land grant services and programs with only one-
third of the funding.
Each of the Micronesian colleges aspires to assume
responsibility for all extension and research functions in the
areas of agriculture, and mariculture for their respective
governments. Full implementation of the land grant programs
would build the capacity of each of the colleges to provide
these services and thus contribute substantially to each
nation's efforts to build the human resource capacity in
support of the economic development efforts that the Compacts
of Free Association aspire to.
Section 3 of S. 210, would severely limit the capability of
our colleges to deliver land grant programs and services. We
the presidents of the three Micronesian colleges hereby solicit
your favorable consideration to amending S. 210 through the
deletion of section 3(c). If such amendment is not deemed
possible at this time, then we respectively request that
section 3 be deleted from S. 210 in its entirety.
Mr. Chairman, once again we thank you and the committee
members for taking time to consider our concerns. We sincerely
appreciate the support that the U.S. Congress has provided our
colleges over the years and we pledge to continue to implement
programs supported by Congress with integrity and excellence.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moses may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much, President Moses.
Former Senator Hope Cristobal?
STATEMENT OF HOPE A. CRISTOBAL, ORGANIZATION OF PEOPLE FOR
INDIGENOUS RIGHTS
Ms. Cristobal. [speaking in Chamorro] ``Suzumaci. Buenas
dias,'' Mr. Chairman, Congressman Robert Underwood, and members
of the House Resources Committee.
[Speaking in Chamorro] ``Guahosi a'' Hope Critobal. I am
the official representative of the Organization of People for
Indigenous Rights. Mr. Chairman, I was here in 1985, some years
ago with then Governor Radallio, on a similar hearing. And, I
am here today, again, representing the Organization of People
for Indigenous Rights with a statement on title I, section 102.
One of the primary purposes of the Organization is to
protect and to promote the Chamorro people's inherent right of
self-determination. We firmly believe that only the Chamorro
people in Guam have the right to alter Guam's status from a
non-self-governing territory, to one consider to be having a
full measure of self-government. We recognize that a part of
the discussion of H.R. 100 is a discussion about the right of a
people to maximize their existence in their homeland. It's
about the right of a people to determine their political
destiny as a people, and it is about a right--our right--of
self respect and dignity, as a people. And that people, Mr.
Chairman, is the native people of Guam--the Chamorro people.
In our efforts--in our organization's effort--to ensure the
recognition of our people's inherent and inalienable right, we
participated in the commission on self determination meetings,
and we are heartened by the inclusion of title I, section 102
in the act. And, we support, in principle, this provision of
the act. It recognizes as a cardinal principle of self
determination, that in the case of Guam, the pursuit of an
ultimate political status is legitimately, morally, and
legally, the sole quest of the Chamorro people. We do not,
however, recognize H.R. 100 as a self determination or a
decolonizing document. We consider it an interim Federal
territorial relations document.
For over 100 years now, Mr. Chairman, our people have been
frustrated, awaiting the political status process that would
restore our dignity as a people to be self governing, and to
exercise our right of self determination.
Our Chamorro people are frustrated because we live the
negative effects of the unilateral immigration policies of the
United States on our small Pacific island. This, and all these,
effectively diminishes our social, economic, and political
development.
We request that a timetable be set in H.R. 100 for the
exercise of Chamorro self determination to coincide with the
intent of the local public law 23-147, and act to create the
Commission on Decolonization for the implementation and the
exercise of Chamorro self determination. Aside from this, our
Organization fully supports all other Chamorro rights
provisions in title I, as well as section 701, Guam Immigration
Authority under title VII.
Next year marks 100 years of colonialism under the flag of
the United States. The U.S. Congress in accepting its role in a
decolonization process for the Chamorro people, must take
seriously our people's quest to be fully self governing and to
determine the ultimate political destiny of our homeland. It
has a responsibility to assist the Chamorro people and must not
continue to allow the courts to determine the kind of
relationship that our people will have with the United States.
Our people deserve more than just a mild sway of justice, Mr.
Chairman.
We await the serious and open discussions and the decision
by Congress of H.R. 100, but we must make it emphatically clear
that as you look at title I section 102, that it is in keeping
with the provisions of the United Nations charter article 73
that political status chains be specifically related to the
people who are a historically and a non-self governing people.
This cannot be interpreted in any reasonable fashion as meaning
any other people than the Chamorros. It is time that the United
States live up to the provision. The Chamorro people's inherent
right of self determination--It's time the United States live
up to its responsibilities by recognizing legally, in a
accordance with its own constitutional provisions, the
Chamorran people's inherent right of self determination, and we
ask that Congress approve title I section 102 as it stands.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the essential meaning of the
United States Constitution is to promote and protect and defend
the dignity and the integrity of people.
There is a saying in Chamorro, Mr. Chairman, [speaking in
Chamorro] ``I taotao ni'ha sedi na uma gacha', ha miresi na uma
gacha'ya uma figes.'' Mr. Chairman, our people have been a
strong and a spiritual people. We derive our spirit on Chamorro
from God, our families, and the sustenance of our homeland. We
will fight that our pride, our self respect, our dignity, will
not be sacrificed with the removal of the Chamorro rights
provisions in H.R. 100, lest we be crushed. Our people deserve
nothing less. Long live the Chamorro people. [speaking in
Chamorro] ``Biba Chamoru.''
``Si Yu'os ma'ase,'' Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cristobal may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. [presiding] I'd like to thank the lady.
The next witness we will call will be Chris Howard.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS PEREZ HOWARD, CHAIRMAN, ORGANIZATION OF
PEOPLE FOR INDIGENOUS RIGHTS
Mr. Howard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Chris Perez Howard, chairman of the Organization of
People for Indigenous Rights. I sincerely thank you on behalf
of our organization for the opportunity to present testimony on
H.R. 100, a bill to establish the Commonwealth of Guam.
Before I begin, I would like to state for the record, that
our organization is not here in support of the Commonwealth
Act. We are here to support the rights and concerns of the
indigenous people of Guam--the Chamorro people.
Mr. Chairman, the Chamorro people's relationship with the
U.S. Congress goes back to the year 1898, when Spain ceded Guam
to the United States and gave Congress the right to determine
the civil rights and political status of the native
inhabitants. Since then, Congress has held this right to make
these decisions.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that this hearing is based upon
the relationship that the U.S. Congress has had with the
Chamorro people since 1898. Although they have, in various
documents, been referred to by names such as native
inhabitants, people of Guam, Chamorros, Guamanians, inhabitants
of Guam, and nationals of the United States, they are the
people whom you promised the right to self determination. They
are the people for whom you wrote the Organic Act for Guam.
And, they are the people whom you should be addressing.
From the beginning, OPIR has not supported the draft
Commonwealth Act. We do not support it because commonwealth is
not a status determined by the Chamorro people, nor is the
draft act written and adopted by them. It is a U.S. citizen
document. It infringes on the rights of the Chamorro people,
especially in regards to others determining their inherent
sovereignty.
In the past, however, OPIR has supported the provisions
concerning Chamorro right to self determination and Guam's
control of immigration. Now, we think it may be pointless to
even discuss these issues in the Commonwealth Act before
Congress. We feel this way because immigration controlled by
Guam has been blasted in the media and in reports by U.S.
Government agencies, and the frontal assault and behind-the-
back attempts by the United States to deny the Chamorro people
the right to self determination in the United Nations.
For your information, attached is a transcript of the U.S.
statement before the U.S. Special Political and Decolonization
Committee a few weeks ago. As an example of this kind of
information given as factual by the United States, is this
declaration: ``The United States is a Nation in which all
persons are provided equal treatment under the law.'' This
statement, Mr. Chairman, is a blatant attempt to influence the
U.N. committee at the expense of the Chamorro people. Mr.
Chairman, as you are well aware, we do not vote for the
President of the United States. Not all of the U.S.
Constitution applies to us. And we do not have a voting Member
in Congress. Something smells at the United Nations and
reflects badly on the moral character of America. With that
U.S. statement at the United Nations, how can we now expect
Congress to do what is right?
In closing, aside from the reason our organization gave for
opposing the draft Commonwealth Act, we consider the status of
commonwealth as another colonial status. If Congress truly
wants to solve the political status problems of its
territories, it should embrace decolonization and not just a
political status change.
Thank you. [speaking in Chamorro] ``Si yu'os ma'ase,'' Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Howard may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. I'd like to thank the gentleman.
And next, we'll call upon the Most Reverend Anthony S.
Apuron, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Agana.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY S. APURON, ARCHBISHOP, ARCHDIOCESE OF
AGANA
Rev. Apuron. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members
of this committee.
I'm deeply honored by your gracious invitation to appear
before this committee of the U.S. House of Representatives
today. It is a rare privilege, indeed. I come as a spiritual
leader of Guam to bear witness to the voices in the hearts of
the Chamorro people crying out for justice and a resolution of
our quest for political determination.
You, as a body, have the ultimate power and authority in
the Nation to bring about the justice we seek. I urge you to
act with a moral conscience. We the people of Guam deserve
nothing less. As loyal and patriotic American citizens, we seek
the American promise of justice for all.
We as a people have been blessed with many benefits
stemming from our intimate relationship with the United States.
In 1898, we have progressed tremendously--or since 1898, we
have progressed tremendously. We were freed from an occupying
force during World War II. In the subsequent decades, our
quality of life as an island community has substantially
improved.
Concomitant with these benefits we have more than
adequately contributed our share to the greatness of this
Nation. Our people have always come forward fearlessly and
generously, even shedding their very blood with great
sacrifices to the family, in demonstrating their loyalty and
patriotism in military service. Our sons and daughters have
been among those who fought for World War II, the Korean war,
the Vietnam war, and desert storm--all conflicts not of our own
choosing. In the quest for National security and world peace,
our resources, especially our most precious and limited land
and water resources, were exploited and continue to be deemed
vital to American presence in the Pacific theater.
We have willingly paid the price exacted by the American
promise of freedom and justice for its citizens. What we ask
now, Mr. Chairman, is that for that promise to be delivered in
its entirety and in all its glory, namely the granting of
Guam's Commonwealth Act.
The Chamorro people of Guam have given 100 percent to this
Nation. The lives lost in the various conflicts for peace are
testimony enough to this fact. As we move toward the next
millennium, I want to emphasize the unique opportunity this
august body faces, and the power it ultimately holds, to
redress the grievances and injustices we have suffered and
continue to suffer as a colonized people--an unincorporated
jurisdiction, and an insular possession, or whatever the status
of Guam may be called--all terms unacceptable, incongruit, and
unconscionable with great promise of freedom, liberty, and
justice for all which this great Nation, since its founding,
has echoed and re-echoed throughout the world.
As this country has challenged other nations to uphold
democratic principles on moral and human rights grounds, so we
as a Chamorro people appeal to those very principles on moral
and human rights grounds.
In sacred scripture the hypocrite was condemned by Jesus
for professing one set of beliefs and acting otherwise. Could
it not be considered hypocritical to exact the very blood and
the lives of our people in service of this great Nation we
call, quote ``America'' unquote, while at the same time
perpetuating second-class citizenship through the colonial
status we are currently subjected to? How much more, Mr.
Chairman, must we give in order to receive what this great
Nation promises? Is it just too much to ask that the reversal
of this status begin with a congressional passage of the Guam
Commonwealth Act which embodies the political process by which
Chamorros will achieve self determination? The passage of the
Guam Commonwealth Act would be a major step in the right
direction. We believe that justice, freedom, truth, and liberty
will all be enhanced by such action of yours. And will not
America be the greater for that?
I humbly pray then that this great Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, and under your
leadership, Mr. Chairman, will be able to uphold these ideals
with truth and wisdom and right judgment and as you vote on the
Guam Commonwealth Act.
[Speaking in Chamorro] ``Dangkolo na si Yu'os ma'ase.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Rev. Apuron may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. I'd like to thank the reverend for his
testimony.
Next we will introduce Jose Guevera, vice president of the
Filipino Community of Guam.
STATEMENT OF JOSE GUEVARA, VICE PRESIDENT, FILIPINO COMMUNITY
OF GUAM
Mr. Guevara. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, I am Jose Guevara,
a resident of Guam and vice president of the Filipino Community
of Guam. I am proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that about 30 percent
of Guam's population today is of Filipino origin or decent and
the Filipino community is an integral part of the wonderful
island of Guam.
The Guam Commonwealth Act is a matter of considerable
interest to the Filipino community of Guam. For those of us who
have permanently made Guam our home, as opposed to those who
eventually move to other parts of the United States, the issues
raised in the Commonwealth Act cause us to come to terms with
our history as Filipinos and our status as Americans.
Given the history of the political relations between our
mother country, the Philippines, and our adopted home, the
United States, Filipino-Americans understand the difficulties
of colonial relationships. Our history as a Filipino also
illustrates, like the American's experience itself, that
colonialism is not a legitimate form of government.
There is a natural affinity amongst Filipinos to appreciate
and understand the Commonwealth Act's proposal to establish an
autonomous and internally self-governing entity called the
Commonwealth of Guam. For those of us who make Guam our home,
self government for us has even more meaning. The various ways
in which the Commonwealth Act provides for the devolution of
powers from the Congress to the people of Guam, will have an
inescapable impact to our economic potential--the stable
economic patterns, the enactment of laws that make sense for
our Guam, and maximization of our economic role in the Asian-
Pacific region. These things will be done with no threat to the
U.S. military needs.
Commonwealth is clearly not independence, which our mother
country fought for, negotiated, and achieved. Nor is
commonwealth Statehood as is being pursued by Puerto Rico. For
three entities taken by the U.S. during the Spanish-American
war of 1898, the Philippines was encouraged to pursue
independence. Puerto Rico is now being encouraged to pursue
Statehood, and Guam is being offered neither.
Recognizing this, the people of Guam have sought a middle
road of autonomous commonwealth status on the road of
decolonization. Because of Guam's uniqueness, and because no
one is suggesting Guam should be a State, we believe special
dispensation is necessary.
That's all, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you for giving us the
opportunity to be heard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guevara may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. I'm pleased to thank the gentleman for his
testimony.
At this time we'll call on Debby Quinata, Nation of
Chamoru.
STATEMENT OF DEBTRALYNNE K. QUINATA, NASION CHAMORU
Ms. Quinata. [Speaking in Chamorro] ``Hafa adai.''
Greetings, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the
Committee on Resources.
My name is Debtralynne Quinata. I am a citizen of Guam, and
I am Chamorro. I am here today on behalf of the Nation to
testify in opposition to the Guam Commonwealth Act.
First, we would like to state for the record that we
construe House Resolution 100 not a true exercise of Chamorro
self determination, but merely a petition by U.S. citizens
residing on Guam in 1987 to amend the present Organic Act of
Guam.
Secondly, we oppose H.R. 100 because short of a true
exercise of Chamorro self determination, this bill, under
article 1 section 101, proposes to surrender our sovereignty.
Sovereignty to all free nations of the world, which includes
our native brothers and sisters of the Americas, is an inherent
and sacred right that they would do anything in their power to
protect and defend.
If Congress intends to accept that the Federal Government
should have total sovereignty over Chamorros, not withstanding
recognized treaty obligations and U.N. mandate, than we fear
that this may have devastating repercussions. This act may also
set a precedent over treatment and consideration of treaties
and policies signed between Native Americans and the Federal
Government.
The Chamorro Nation, therefore, will not play a part in
opening the door that may jeopardize or extinguish the
sovereignty of our native brothers and sisters simply because
the government of Guam, with the consent of the Federal
Government, chooses to unilaterally compromise our sovereignty.
Thirdly, the Chamorro Nation opposes H.R. 100 for the mere
reason that even non-Chamorros were permitted to vote in
political status elections in which the commonwealth status was
selected. This is a clear violation of the Treaty of Paris,
article 73 of the U.N. charter, and U.N. resolution 1514 and
1541 pertaining to the process of decolonization of colonial
countries wherein they recognize the inalienable rights of
Chamorro's self determination. The fact Chamorros have not been
given the opportunity to exercise their right to self
determination does not justify the government of Guam, a
Federal instrumentality, having non-Chamorros vote on any
political, social, or economic issue directly affecting the
native Chamorros. This, we believe, is a grave injustice. And,
although Chamorros now represent a minority, it does not give
any government the right to preempt our existence. The Chamorro
Nation vows never to remain silent on this issue until true
exercise of Chamorro self determination is realized. Nor will
we ever accept the idea of giving non-natives the absolute
power and right to seize and hold our sovereignty and at their
whim dictate our lives as indigenous people.
Self determination or decolonization is neither an
individual or citizen right. It is the right of a distinct
group of people--the Chamorros--whom have a historical
relationship with the United States. Therefore, it would be
totally absurd to have U.S. military personnel who are
stationed on Guam, foreigners who have been naturalized, and
U.S. citizens from the States, voting on any interim petition
that would require a political status change. Even within the
political framework of the United States, U.S. citizens
residing adjacent to reservations do not have the right to vote
and pass policies affecting Native Americans.
Lastly, we Chamorros for many years have been placed under
the auspices of the Department of Interior. This is an agency
that has jurisdiction over Federal properties and animals.
Today, we would like to proclaim that Chamorros are neither
property nor animal.
In recent years we have seen this agency, with the blessing
of the Federal Government, advocate and pass more laws to
protect endangered species and the environment than laws to
protect the indigenous people of Guam. In fact, in the 99 years
of U.S. rule, laws were instead imposed to undermine our
existence as a people; such as executive orders which
prohibited the speaking of our language, the outlawing of many
of our traditions, and the taking of our lands. One can only
conclude that these acts are nothing more than a systematic
process of genocide. Excuse me.
Members of Congress, December 1998, will mark 100 years of
U.S. rule, and the Chamorros have yet to exercise their right
to self determination. Our people have lived in the Marianas
for over 4,000 years--a peace-loving people living in harmony
with our neighbors and our surrounding environment. We
Chamorros, like many other native peoples throughout the world,
have committed no sin toward humanity. Our question, therefore,
is pure: what in God's name have we done to deserve such
mistreatment?
Rather than pursuing Commonwealth of Guam, we ask that you
support Guam's public law 23-130 which establishes the Chamorro
registry, and public law 23-147 establishing the Commission on
Decolonization for the implementation and exercise of
Chamorroan self determination.
For these reasons we rely on your knowledge, compassion,
and wisdom to put an end to these injustices. To right the
wrong, and to free a people. It is only fair, just, and the
right thing to do.
[Speaking in Chamorro] ``Si Yu'os ma'ase.''
[The prepared statement of Ms. Quinata may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank the lady and all the
panel members.
Do we have any questions for the panel?
The gentleman from Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's a lot better than Somalia, as I've been given that.
Thank you, nevertheless.
I would like to certainly welcome Mrs. Moses before the
committee. It has been my privilege over the years to know very
well the Governor Resio Moses--I think, now, Senator? Am I
correct Mrs. Moses? Please do convey to him my personal regards
and hope all is well in Palau.
Can I ask you Mrs. Moses, was there an original
understanding between you and Senator Akaka and Murkowski about
the wording about the language with reference to the three
colleges of Micronesia? What was your understanding?
Ms. Moses. Thank you very much.
Yes, we received copies of the original legislation that
was first considered, and it did not contain section 3(c).
Section 3(c) was added as a result of administration testimony
to the measure.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. Was the original language that the
Senate had provided for the three separate entities, to
function as three separate entities?
Ms. Moses. The original language that the Senators drafted
for this issue was acceptable to all three colleges. It had
sections--it only had two sections: sections (a) and (b).
Mr. Faleomavaega. As I recall, originally, when the College
of Micronesia, when the endowment was set aside for the College
of Micronesia, at that time there was only one College of
Micronesia. Am I correct?
Ms. Moses. That's correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And in the process now, you have Palau
and the Marshalls also having a separate community college, is
that it?
Ms. Moses. That's right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And how is it functioning right now with
this endowment? Do all the proceeds go directly to the College
of Micronesia?
Ms. Moses. No, the endowment is--The College of Micronesia
still exists only for land grant purposes. We named ourselves
the College of Micronesia-FSM--we're the former Community
College of Micronesia. So the endowment for the land grant has
been separate all along, and the proceeds from the investment
of the endowment go to support residential instructional
programs at all three colleges as well as provide some matching
funds for the land grant programs.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And in the process, as we were making
amendments to the Federal statute, both colleges in Marshals
and Palau, have they also gained land grant status?
Ms. Moses. No. That's what we're seeking today.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, basically they don't have land grant
status, but the College of Micronesia-FSM has land grant
status?
Ms. Moses. No, I'm sorry, that's incorrect. The College of
Micronesia, which is a college that was comprised of Palau and
the Community College of Micronesia in the FSM, and the
Marshalls is the college that has land grant status in the
statute. That college does not--that college has been
disbanded, essentially, for everything except land grant
programs. And the reason for that is that in the statute, the
College of Micronesia is designated as the land grant college
for the former trust territory of the Pacific islands.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I understand that. So, basically, the
administration does not support the idea of giving land grant
status to both the colleges of the Marshalls and Palau. This is
basically the problem?
Ms. Moses. And College of Micronesia-FSM, because we don't
have land grant status either. The College of Micronesia does.
They're not the same.
Mr. Faleomavaega. No, I understand that. But, I'm just
trying to get to the original purpose of the act which was to
grant land grant status to the College of Micronesia, in its
original form, with the $3 million endowment----
Ms. Moses. That's correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing] interest drawn from there
for use as you suggested earlier. So, the current law, as it
now states, you still have the College of Micronesia-FSM, but
without the land grant status because of the change of the
Government?
Ms. Moses. That's correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh. OK. And so this is basically the
problem that we're faced with.
Ms. Moses. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. Thank you, Mrs. Moses.
I was interested in the testimonies stated earlier by Mr.
Howard and Ms. Quinata and your non-support of the proposed
Commonwealth Act. You're taking this basically with the idea
that as an indigenous people you don't want in any way to be
associated with the United States? You want to be completely
independent? Is that----
Mr. Howard. No; it's that we're against the process as it
now stands. We don't advocate any political status. It's the
process.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. All right.
Ms. Quinata?
Ms. Quinata. I'd like to also--just for a little bit more
clarification is that, again, we are not advocating any
particular status, but I do not believe that the commonwealth
status is not a status at all that is in the political
framework other than an interim status. And that, above and
beyond that, we have not done--we don't have a true vote. We
don't have the--we have not protected the indigenous people of
Guam. We've allowed everybody to become involved in that
particular process.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You did not support the process because
non-Chamorros also participated in the process?
Ms. Quinata. Yes, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. Any further questions for the panel?
Mr. Underwood? Or, Ms. Green? Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much. And, President Moses,
please also relay my greetings to Resio and I'd also like to
recognize and welcome Alfred Cappelle, my colleague for a long
time--and ``Yokwe yok''--long time. In language issues out in
Micronesia, and to Mario Katosang, ``ali'' to you and to all my
friends in Palau.
I don't have any questions. I just want to make some
observations and also note that we are now coming upon 6
o'clock in the morning tomorrow in Guam, and actually, even
though this particular panel might have felt all along that
they would have been slighted, they're probably more people
listening to this panel than there were to the earlier panel,
so maybe the timing of it is very good. Along with feeding the
chickens, they were listening to this panel as people on Guam
wake up.
The issues that are before us are long and complicated and
weighty. And, I can't help but reflect upon the meaning of this
exercise and the meaning of the people who have participated in
this exercise, including Ron Rivera, and myself, and Hope
Cristobal, and Chris Howard, and Debby Quinata, the Archbishop;
all of us have been intertwined in our lives in very curious
and interesting ways; former Congressman Ben Blaz, Governor
Gutierrez. There is a lot of energy. And there is a lot of
energy in the room. And, there's a lot of energy, it reflects
accurately, I think, the energy of the people of Guam.
I made a special effort, and I'm glad to acknowledge the
agreement of the committee to make sure that the panel that is
now before actually had a chance to speak. We wanted to make
sure that people who may be opposed to H.R. 100, and there are
some, be allowed the opportunity to state their concerns and
state the origins of their concerns.
But, as we look upon this morning in Guam, and we've been
at this hearing now for some 5 hours, I feel very strongly that
it's been a very successful hearing, not because, necessarily,
it moved the legislation in--my good friend from American
Samoa's--terms, maybe 1 inch, but it certainly has increased
our understanding, both, not only of the obstacles ahead of us,
but certainly the understanding of the people of Guam, what
they have before them, and what brought them to this point.
I asked the chairman if I could just say a few remarks in
Chamorro, and I will:
[Speaks in Chamorro.]
Mr. Underwood. I want to express my gratitude to the
formerly English-only Committee on Resources for this
opportunity.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peterson. I thank the gentleman.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and for the distance that you came--all of those that
are here that have come from such a great distance.
For the Members: I have no doubt that the Members after
today, will be far more knowledgeable on this issue and have a
clearer understanding. The members of the committee may have
some additional questions for the witnesses. We will ask you to
respond in writing. The hearing record will be held open for
these responses as well as any other statements by Members for
2 weeks.
And, we have high hopes that the administration will be
inspired by this hearing and will follow through in a timely
manner on providing the committee with numerous updating of
references or changes identified in their testimony for this
proposal. And, hopefully, they will seriously engage in
appropriate process to bring a conclusion to this issue that
has been out there for a long time. We urge them to take it
seriously and to work at it. We think they can bring it home if
they choose to, and we would urge them to get busy and start
the dialog and the exchange that is so vitally necessary.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would be remiss if I did not also
express my deepest appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and the
majority party for allowing this hearing to take place in the
first place. And, I would also like to congratulate my good
friend and colleague from Guam, Dr. Underwood--Congressman
Underwood--for such an outstanding job that he has done in
bringing out the issues affecting the good citizens and the
people of Guam.
We go through this exercise, Mr. Chairman, over the years,
and always trying to figure where the--sometimes we're not even
on the map, sometimes we're not even on the radar screen. It's
always been one of my basic criticisms is that the territories
never seem to get the proper attention that they should get
from the Members as well as from this institution. But I think
today's hearing bears quite well what we've accomplished, not
only the legislation affecting the good people of Guam, but
certainly the Senate Bill 210, that also has some things in it
that affects other territories. And, I sincerely hope that with
the proper amendments that I will be offering at the
appropriate time we will resolve the concerns that Mrs. Moses
had raised earlier, and that other provisions of Senate Bill
210 that will be helpful to the other insular areas.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your
patience, thank the good leaders of the people of Guam, and as
they say in Samoa, ``In sus ma'ase.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. Yes, I would like to----
Mr. Peterson. I would yield to the gentleman from Guam.
Mr. Underwood. I would also like to take this opportunity
to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your diligence in this effort
as well as all the Members who did take some time to come
before the committee.
I also want to enter into the record the statements of
Frank San Nicholas, Ron Rivera, and Darrell Doss, who is
standing here before us. And, I want to recognize that Mr.
Doss, has a very special relationship to Guam, along with many
other men of his age and participated in the liberation of Guam
from the hands of the Japanese, and I wanted a chance to
recognize Mr. Doss.
[The prepared statement of Mr. San Nicholas may be found at
end of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rivera may be found at end
of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doss may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Again, I would like to thank all of you for participating,
for the fine job you did, and how well prepared you were.
Adios. There is no further business.
Adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Jose Guevara, Vice President, the Filipino Community of
Guam
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Resources Committee,
I am Jose Guevara, Vice President of the Filipino Community
of Guam, representing some 60 Filipino-American organizations.
I am proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that about 30 percent of
Guam's population today is of Filipino origin or descent and
the Filipino community is an integral part of the wonderful
island of Guam.
The Guam Commonwealth Act is a matter of considerable
interest to the Filipino Community of Guam. For those of us who
have permanently made Guam our home--as opposed to those who
eventually move to other parts of the United States--the issues
raised in the Commonwealth Act cause us to come to terms with
our history as Filipinos and our status as Americans.
Given the history of the political relations between our
mother country, the Philippines, and our adopted home, the
United States, Filipino Americans understand the difficulties
of colonial relationships. Our history as Filipinos also
illustrates, like the American experience itself, that
colonialism is not a legitimate form of government.
There is a natural affinity amongst Filipinos to appreciate
and understand the Commonwealth Act's proposal to establish an
autonomous and internally self-governing entity called the
``Commonwealth of Guam.'' For those of us who make Guam our
home, self-government for us has even more meaning. The various
ways in which the Commonwealth Act provides for the devolution
of powers from the Congress to the people of Guam, will have an
inescapable impact to our economic potential, stable economic
patterns, the enactment of laws that make sense for Guam and
the maximization of our economic role in the Asia-Pacific
region. These things would be done with no threat to the U.S.
military's needs.
Commonwealth is clearly not independence which our mother
country fought for, negotiated and achieved. Nor is
``Commonwealth'' Statehood as is being pursued by Puerto Rico.
One of the three (3) entities taken by the U.S. during the
Spanish-American War of 1898, the Philippines was encouraged to
pursue independence, Puerto Rico is now being encouraged to
pursue Statehood, and Guam is being offered neither.
Recognizing this, the people of Guam have sought a middle road
off an autonomous Commonwealth status on the road to
decolonization. Because of Guam's uniqueness--and because no
one is suggesting Guam should be a State--we believe a special
dispensation is necessary.
------
Statement of Ron Rivera
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Resources:
I am honored to submit this statement in support of H.R.
100, the Guam Commonwealth Act as a Chamorro, as a concerned
citizen . . . and a father who has great hopes for the future
of his children and grandchildren, a future rooted in their
homeland of Guam.
The draft Guam Commonwealth Act embodies a process for the
decolonization of Guam. This is the heart of the Commonwealth
Act, and it is what makes this Act both unique and acceptable
to the Chamorro people. Decolonization is not something that
can not be watered down or compromised--no matter what
legislative language is finally agreed upon, the process of
decolonization must be explicit and it must meet international
standards.
We, the Chamorro people who have been colonized by military
conquest, cannot risk our future self-determination in a bill
that is equivocal on this point. We hope that Congress agrees
with us on the absolute necessity to approach this issue with
sensitivity and clarity. While there may be some new approaches
to the legislative language, it must meet the basic criteria of
the decolonization process that the United States has accepted
in international definitions applied to other colonies.
There are fundamental principles that must be contained in
an interim Commonwealth status in order for true decolonization
to occur. First, a decolonization process must be initiated by
a legitimate process of Chamorro self determination. Second,
Guam must be granted control of immigration. Third, the
Commonwealth Act must contain a mutual consent provision. These
fundamental principles must be included in whatever
Commonwealth Act Congress adopts.
The United States has a moral problem in justifying its
continued colonial administration of Guam. The people of Guam
have proposed, in the Guam Commonwealth Act, a political
solution to this moral problem that meets their fundamental
concerns and is consistent with international standards. The
Guam proposal lays out quite clearly a solution that resolves
Guam's colonial status. As a political solution, we are willing
to engage the political processes of the U.S. govermnent, such
as this Congress, but what we are not willing to do is allow
these political processes to dictate solutions that are
weighted only to Federal concerns.
Guam has been on its quest for Commonwealth for over 10
years. A political solution along the lines that we propose is
within the realm of reality if only Congress and the President
would exercise the will and courage to resolve Guam's status.
This courage means an acceptance of the stark reality of Guam's
present colonial status, and a determination to work with Guam
on a solution. The people of Guam have shown our own political
will in this process, and we have shown the courage to
challenge the colonial status quo.
We seek the common ground with the U.S. on many contentious
issues, and we seek a new relationship that is suited for our
island. We have offered political solutions that are neither
radical nor unrealistic. We seek to break down barriers that
separate us from other Americans. If these barriers were
physical, it may be easier to understand. If we had a
Brandenburg gate, a Berlin Wall, or a Demilitarized zone,
perhaps then we would be able to point to the barriers.
Instead, we have Supreme Court opinions and Federal laws that
create institutional barriers to freedom.
The U.S. Constitution, revered worldwide as a crucible of
freedom and justice, is wielded against territories as a tool
of repression. This is not how things ought to be. We are here
to challenge old thinking, to change the colonial relationship,
and to tear down the barriers to our freedom.
------
Statement of Darrell O. Doss
It is an honor to be here today to represent all the
veterans who fought to free Guam from enemy occupation 53 years
ago. The 7,000 marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Coast
Guard who were killed or wounded in action during the battle
that raged for three weeks in the summer of 1944 are joined
today by the living World War II veterans in calling on
Congress to grant a new status to Guam.
At the time of our battle in 1944, we were honored to be
called ``the liberators'' by our fellow Americans, the
Chamorros of Guam. But did we really liberate Guam? It is sad
to say that we did not. To this day, our fellow Americans in
the western Pacific are one of the last colonies in the world.
However, you, as Members of Congress, have the power to
accomplish today that which we were unable to--to liberate Guam
and grant the people of Guam the same freedom of self
government as we have in our fifty states.
Guam has been a possession of the United States since 1898,
with the exception of 31 months when they suffered under the
cruel treatment of our then enemy. During that period, they
were enslaved, tortured and executed. Of the 20,000 Guamanians
at that time, over 1,500 died during the harsh occupation. Yet
the people of Guam never lost faith with America. Even though
it meant beatings, torture and even death for many of them,
they never abandoned America. They helped feed, shelter, and
hide George Tweed, the single surviving American sailor who hid
out during the Japanese occupation. To them, this sailor was a
symbol of the country they loved--America.
Guam fist applied for American citizenship in 1902, but it
wasn't granted until 48 years later in 1950. In 1936, B.J.
Bordallo and Francisco Leon Guerrero came to our nation's
capitol to again ask for citizenship. Mr. Leon Guerrero stated
``the people of Guam know but one `ism' and that is
Americanism.'' That statement is as true today as it was 61
years ago.
Because of Guam's loyalty to America, they have the highest
per capita enlistments in our military services than any state
in the Union. During the Vietnam War, (not a conflict), they
had the highest per capita casualties than of any of our
states.
I wish time would permit me to tell the story of a few of
these brave people and what they endured because of their love
for the United States, a love which I feel has not been
returned in the policies of our government. I would tell you
the stories of Beatrice Emsley, Antonio and Josefa Artero,
Father Duenas (the martyred catholic priest, who was beheaded),
B.J. Bordallo, the mother of Guam's current First Lady (Geri
Gutierrez), Francisco Leon Guerrero, Mrs. Agueda Johnston,
Joaquin Limtiaco and the eight Merizo co-liberators. I am sure
that some of you would have tears in your eyes, just as we
liberators had tears in our eyes when we liberated the
concentration camps. These are the people I am asking you to
support and allow them to have a closer and more democratic
relationship with America. Is that too much to ask? For the
people of Guam and we veterans of World War II, I hope you can
find it in your heart to do what is right and give justice to
our fellow Americans on Guam.
We call the United States the land of liberty with freedom
and justice for all. It saddens me to know that this is not
true because of the way we treat our fellow citizens on the
island of Guam. There is no doubt that some of America's most
loyal and patriotic citizens are from Guam. They have remained
staunchly faithful to the United States, even though we treat
them as less than our equals. It is time that justice be done.
At this time I ask you to please vote for true justice on
this very important issue and let's make the United States
truly the land of liberty with freedom and justice for all,
including Guam.
As time marches on, we who fought to free Guam shall be
gone from this earth. So on behalf of all the veterans of the
Guam campaign, I plead with you to cast a ``yea'' vote, to
grant these people their wish to become a commonwealth of the
United States. In doing so, the members of this Congress shall
share the honor we have as ``Liberators of Guam.'' Your vote
can accomplish that which we, 75,000 strong, and backed with
massive military arms, were apparently unable to do in 1944.
------
Statement of Hon. Rick Hill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Montana
It is a real pleasure to welcome the distinguished
witnesses for today's hearing on certain measures affecting
some of our United States territories and the separate
sovereign freely associated states.
These issues affecting U.S. nationals and citizens in the
territories as well as residents of the Pacific freely
associated republics are part of the unique and important
jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources for the insular
areas.
That is why Chairman Young scheduled this hearing on
matters which could provide for increased local self governance
for the people of the insular areas.
Let me thank the witnesses from the distant Pacific islands
for aggreeing to appear before the Committee.
You have traveled thousands of miles to testify, and your
efforts are appreciated.
You are providing a substantial set of information for the
Committee record.
Your statements have been provided for review by all of the
Committee Members and will be available for all those in the
Congress as well who are not Members of the Committee or here
today.
One of the primary purposes of this hearing is to assist
the insular areas, including Guam, in advancing toward greater
local self-government.
The statements by the witnesses today will help Congress in
evaluating the merits of the proposals contained in S. 210, the
Omnibus Territories Act, H.R. 2370, the Guam Judicial
Empowerment Act, and H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth Act.
------
Statement of Hon. Peter C. Siguenza, Chief Justice of Guam
Good morning/afternoon Chairman Don Young, Congressman
Robert Underwood and other distinguished members of the House
Committee on Resources. Thank you for allowing me to have the
opportunity to speak. It is indeed an honor.
I am here today as the Chief Justice of Guam. My rotating
term expires in about a year and a half from now--at which time
we justices will elect a new chief. And so--in my first and
final appearance before you--I want to stress the importance of
the critical matter which is before us today.
In simple terms, H.R. 2370 would place the Judiciary of
Guam on an equal footing with its two coordinate branches of
government. As you will note, the inherent powers of both the
executive and legislative branches are clearly delineated
within the Organic Act. Only the structure of the judiciary
lacks this kind of clarity.
Ironically, the original local legislation which created
the Supreme Court distinctly outlined the Court's authority--
clearly placing administrative and appellate jurisdiction with
the Court.
In this sense, H.R. 2370 undeniably reflects the will of
the people. Virtually every provision within the judicial
Empowerment Act before you today mirrors the 10 year drafting
process which culminated in the passage of the bill in 1992.
It is significant to point out that no effort was made to
alter the bill for the next three years. The legislation sat
intact and untouched for nearly four years--that is, up until
the seating of the Court in April of 1996.
At that time, on the eve of the confirmation hearings of
the justices--efforts were undertaken to alter the legislation
and curtail the authority of the Court. In effect, what had
taken a decade to build was summarily undone within three
months.
In fact, since the Court's inception--there have been no
fewer than four legislative attempts to undermine the Court's
administrative authority and--even as recently as last month--a
successful legislative bid to limit this Court's legal
jurisdiction.
Let me briefly share with you the chronology of this Court:
1973--Guam Public Law 12-85 is enacted, envisioning a
judiciary with a local supreme court at the helm.
1974--The first Supreme Court of Guam is established.
1977--The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Guam's Supreme
Court.
1997--That same year, Guam convenes a constitutional
convention. The foundation is laid to establish a Supreme Court
as the judicial and administrative head of the judiciary. This
draft constitution is submitted and approved by the U.S.
Congress.
1984--The Omnibus Territories Act amends the Organic Act to
allow for the creation of a Supreme Court.
1993--The Frank G. Lujan Memorial Court Reorganization Act
is signed into law after its 1992 passage in the 21st
legislature. The bill is patterned after the 1973 local
legislation, 1977 draft constitution and provisions from
various state constitutions.
The legislation calls for a Supreme Court of Guam which
will ``handle all those matters customarily handled by state
supreme courts . . . [handle] court rules and court
administration. Thus, administrative functions of the courts,
formerly lying either with the Judicial Council or the District
Court of Guam, are placed with the Supreme Court of Guam.
1995--In November, myself, Janet Healy Weeks and Monessa G.
Lujan are nominated to the Supreme Court.
1996--In March, hours after the justices of the Supreme
Court are confirmed, the 23rd Guam legislature passes bill 404
which removes certain inherent powers from the Supreme Court. A
second bill, bill 494, aims to strip the supervisory
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over all lower courts. That
bill is debated, but tabled by the legislative committee on the
Judiciary.
1996--Eight months later in December, the legislature
attaches the contents the shelved bill 494 as a ``midnight''
rider to bill 776. The legislation passes and is vetoed by the
Governor. An override attempt fails by only a slim margin.
In short--this is the problem faced by the Supreme Court of
Guam, and why we seek to have this court established within the
Organic Act. Permit me the luxury of overstating the obvious
when I say that a Judiciary--or any branch of government--
cannot function independently if another branch can modify or
strip it of its powers at will. The bill before this
distinguished panel will ensure that like the inherent power of
the executive and legislative branches--the corresponding
authority of the third branch cannot be tampered with on whim.
There are those who espouse the view that the Judicial
Council of Guam is the policymaker for the judiciary. Allow me
to let the record speak for this court when I say that in the
eight years it took lawmakers to craft and fine-tune the bill
that created the Supreme Court of Guam--the notion of a
judicial council as the administrative arm of the judiciary was
explored and subsequently rejected in that role. The Frank G.
Lujan Memorial Court Reorganization Act which created the court
explicitly envisioned an advisory role for the council.
And since that time, the will of the people has not
changed. A recent survey conducted on Guam by your colleague
and our delegate, Congressman Robert Underwood--in addition to
a poll conducted by the Guam Bar Association--along with
numerous media editorials--have each independently and
resoundingly confirmed the original legislative concept of the
Supreme Court at the administrative helm of the judiciary.
This is not a structure without precedent. The Judicial
Empowerment Act would not only restore the initial intent of
local legislation creating the court, but would also confer
upon it the same inherent authority exercised by judiciaries in
the fifty states and other U.S. jurisdictions.
In closing, I leave you with the words of Alexander
Hamilton who noted over 200 years ago--``the judiciary is
beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of
power--all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend
itself against their attacks.''
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Congressman Underwood and other
distinguished members of this panel for your time and
attention.
(I have brought with me copies of the judicial sections
from the respective constitutions of every state and U.S.
jurisdiction should any of you wish to view them.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.330
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.332
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.335
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.338
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.339
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.340
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.355
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.360
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.363
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.364
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.365
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.366
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.367
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.368
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.369
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.370
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.371
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.372
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.373
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.374
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.375
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.376
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.377
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.378
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.379
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.380
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.381
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.382
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.383
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.384
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.385
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.386
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.387
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.388
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.389
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.390
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.391
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.392
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.393
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.394
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.395
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.396
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.397
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.398
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.399
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.400
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.401
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.402
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.403
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.404
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.405
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.406
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.407
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.408
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.409
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.410
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.411
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.412
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.413
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.414
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.415
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.416
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.417
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.418
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.419
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.420
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.421
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.422
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.423
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.424
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.425
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6318.426